I see bad things coming...

I'd love to be upbeat and optimistic, but right now, as we await the returns, I see two scenarios, and they're both bad for the country.

1) Barack Obama wins the election. With a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, the worst, most socialistic elements in the Democratic party get their way for the next two years, and the damage to the economy and the national defense will be felt for a long time.

2) John McCain wins the election. The Bush-Derangement-Syndrome sufferers instantly transform into McCain-Derangement-Syndrome sufferers, and the political divisiveness, particularly from the left, gets significantly worse. (Though it's hard to see how that would be possible.) There are accusations of stolen elections, demonstrations, and possibly riots. The Democratic Congress gives President McCain nothing that looks like a honeymoon, and the only policy that goes through is amnesty. Everyone loses. Ugliness ensues.


(There is, of course, a version of scenario 2 which is even worse - McCain wins the electoral college and Obama wins the popular vote. You think things were bad after that happened in 2000? Ay caramba! The mind boggles when contemplating the possible ramifications of that outcome...)

From James' keyboard to God's ears...

James Pethokoukis got this from "hardly a perma-optimist" in the McCain campaign:

I just talked to one of my best Team McCain sources who told me that heading into today all the key battleground polls were moving hard and fast in their direction. The source, hardly a perma-optimist, thinks it will be a long night, but that McCain is going to win. So add this with the new Battleground poll (Obama +1.9 only) and the rising stock market...

Joe the Plumber

Prepare for more media hand-wringing over the negativity of the McCain campaign...

Debate season (mercifully) ends

I missed most of last night's third debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. I have it recorded on my DVR but the probability of me ever going back and watching it are somewhere south of 2%. I did see about the last half hour, and some of the post-games shows on Fox and CNN, and I've got a couple of thoughts.

1. Barack Obama is the next President of the United States*. I am, obviously, not happy about that. I think it has the potential to damage the country significantly, particularly as he will be unchecked by any legitimate opposition at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.



2. The reason that Obama will be the next President is because he gets up on the national stage and speaks and acts as if he's a moderate. This country is about to elect the most liberal administration ever, but it's still a center-right country. Obama's winning by running as a center-right guy.



3. He gets away with it because he is able to sit there, in front of God and the American people, and lie with impunity. He can lie with impunity about McCain's health care proposals, his campaign ads, abortion, taxes, Ayers, ACORN**; he can lie about whatever he wants or needs to, secure in the knowledge that the press won't call him on it, and if McCain does, the press will "tsk, tsk" McCain's "negativity."

The tragic aspect to all of this is that Obama's strongest asset for the last month ought to have been (one of) his fatal weakness(es). And McCain's biggest weakness should have been one of his greatest strengths. The crisis in the financial sector and the markets was brought on by the sub-prime mortgage crisis, which was, in turn, caused by government pressure on mortgage-lenders to lend to people who couldn't qualify for mortgages using reasonable risk standards. Government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac poured money into those loans, buying them up, and the combination of easy money and government mandates inflated housing values, creating a huge speculative bubble. Bubbles pop.

• The Bush administration tried to increase regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Democrats in congress resisted. McCain tried to sponsor and pass a law to deal with them three years ago, when some people could see the threat. Democrats in congress resisted.


• Barack Obama represented ACORN in Illinois in 1994 in a case to force Citibank to make bad loans stop "redlining." From 1989-2008, only Christopher Dodd took more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than Barack Obama. Former chairmen Jimmy Johnson and Franklin Raines, under whose watch the bubble built, have both been reported as advisors to Senator Obama. And while he tells a tale of an apocryphal letter of "concern" which he allegedly sent to someone, maybe the Fed chief, he hasn't produced the letter or any evidence that he wrote or sent it.

If we had an independent media in this country, rather than merely a media-wing of the Democratic party, the economic crisis which has virtually assured the success of Senator Obama's run for the Presidency should have ended it.

But we don't...




* - Conservatives need to pray fervently for the health and well-being of Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and even Kennedy, for the next four years. I suspect that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg will go during the Obama administration, and be replaced by Justices as bad, or worse. Justices appointed by conservatives sometimes disappoint - justices appointed by liberals never do. (Well, they don't disappoint the liberals by growing more conservative.)

** - OK, to their credit, CNN did do an Obama-Acorn story.

Why won't John McCain say this?

An accurate summary of the US Presidential campaign from Melanie Phillips in the Spectator:

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

Tainted by association

Tony Rezko. Jeremiah Wright. Bill Ayers. Those are just some of the people with whom Barack Obama has associated over the years, leading many to question his judgment. But this video provides some pretty compelling evidence that John McCain is no stranger to unsavory associates:

Stuff...

Odds and ends...

• If you're like me, you saw a bunch of headlines this weekend to the effect that Troopergate report: Palin abused authority. The headline could more appropriately have read, "Report: Palin's firing of Monegan 'proper and lawful'." Get the whole story from Beldar here.



• A year and a half ago, I said that "a year from now, the media will no longer be able to hide the fact that things are going well in Iraq." Well, it isn't for lack of trying:
  

  The number of foreign journalists in Baghdad is declining sharply, a media withdrawal that reflects Iraq's growing stability and the financial strains faced by some news organizations.
  
  In a stark indication of the changing media focus here, the number of journalists traveling with American forces in Iraq has plummeted in the past year. U.S. military officials say they "embedded" journalists 219 times in September 2007. Last month, the number shrank to 39. Of the dozen U.S. newspapers and newspaper chains that maintained full-time bureaus in Baghdad in the early years of the war, only four are still permanently staffed by foreign correspondents. CBS and NBC no longer keep a correspondent in Baghdad year-round.
  
  "It remains important and it remains interesting," said Alissa J. Rubin, the New York Times' acting bureau chief in Baghdad. "But what's in front of us now is almost a static situation. There's not a clear narrative line. The stories are more complex."

  
  The story is simple, and the narrative line is clear:
  

  Bad News for America = Good News for Democrats = Big News
  Good News for America = Bad News for Democrats = No News




• John Hinderaker, at PowerLineBlog, commenting on a Stanley Kurtz piece in the NY Post, notes that "one of the common themes of modern American history is that liberals will create a problem by ill-advised government action, then benefit from it politically by proposing ever more intrusive government action to solve it. That appears to be happening again in connection with today's credit crisis."
  
  I don't disagree. How could it be otherwise? When your proposed solution to every intractable human problem is using the power of the Government to distort market signals, to incentivize bad or risky behavior and punish good behavior, the creation of new intractable problems is inevitable. And when the only tool you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.



• Steyn. Brilliant as always.
  

  The day after the debate I bumped into two Obama supporters in St Johnsbury, Vermont who said isn’t it great that he's on course to win. Well, they were cute chicks, and I know an obvious pick-up line when I hear one, so I stopped to chat. God Almighty, it was like reverse Viagra: After ten minutes of Babes For Barack, I never want to meet a female woman of the opposite sex for the rest of my life. Their basic pitch was:
  
  How do you solve a problem? Like, Obama!
  
  How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
  
  That’s John McCain's problem. Traditionally, when an unknown politician emerges on the national scene, it’s a race to define him. Governor Palin is a good example: within days, the coastal sophisticates were mocking her as a chillbilly ditz with a womb that spits out inbred kids faster than the First National Bank of Welfare Swamp issues subprime mortgages. That’s politics as usual: Define your opponent. But Obama is defined by his indefinability. When I pointed out to my Vermont gals that he lives in a swank pad that was part of some shady real estate deal with a convicted fraudster (Tony Rezko), that he entrusted his daughters’ entire religious education to a neo-segregationist anti-American nut who preaches that the government created the AIDS virus to kill black people (Jeremiah Wright), that he attended fundraisers with a political patron who’s an unrepentant terrorist proud of plotting to blow up young ladies just like them at a dance at the Fort Dix military base (William Ayers), when I pointed all this out, they looked at me as if I’d brought a baseball bat to a croquet match. Mere earthbound politicians are defined by their real estate deals and sleazy buddies, but Obama is defined only by his vibe. As his many admirers in France would say, he has a certain je ne sais quoi. And, if you try to pin down quoi precisely, then they don’t want to sais.




• This is sad, and a little disturbing, but probably unavoidable.
  

  if Obama wins, I plan on giving him as much of a chance as the Democrats gave George Bush. I will gleefully forward every paranoid anti-Obama rumor that I see, along with YouTube footage of his verbal missteps. I will laugh and email heinous anti-Obama photoshop jobs, and maybe even learn photoshop myself to create some. I'll buy anti-Obama books, and maybe even a "Not My President" t-shirt. I'm sure that the mainstream bookstores won't carry them, but I'll be on the lookout for anti-Obama calendars and stuff like that. I will not wish America harm, and if the country is hurt (economically, militarily, or diplomatically) I will truly mourn. But i will also take some solace that it occurred under Obama's watch, and will find every reason to blame him personally and fan the flames.

  
  I know that I have little goodwill to spare for an administration that holds everything that I hold dear in contempt.
  

Ayers

If we had a national media in this country that was committed to presenting the news, rather than electing Barack Obama President, he would not have won the nomination. But we don't. The press hasn't covered this story - they've covered it up. The McCain campaign, in the last week or so, has finally started to try to make it an issue. Will they succeed? I suspect that what they'll succeed at is spurring the media to produce 16 tons of thumb-sucking, "why is John McCain dishonorably running a negative campaign" stories, but it's worth a try.



He's tried to hide what he is and has been from the word "go," and the media has actively aided and abetted him. If people understood what Barack Obama is, he'd have no chance of polling over 35% in this country. But they don't. He has presented himself as a reasonable centrist, a middle-of-the-road blank slate, a screen upon which every voter can project his or her ideas of the ideal candidate, and the press has not only let him get away with it, they've actively helped. I'm skeptical that the mask can be sufficiently dislodged in this environment for McCain to win, but as to this video, I'd just like to say, I'm Lyford Beverage, and I approve of this message too...

"How hypocritical..."

Are ads like this effective? I don't know. (But I think "yes.")

Are they necessary? Absolutely...

McCain's ad people on the ball...

As I post this, the debate has been over for 26 minutes. And here's the McCain ad based on that debate...

McCain vs. The Times

The McCain campaign went directly at the New York Times the other day. And they're not backing down.

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand.
...
The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.

Well, obviously that's all true. But there are a couple of points worth considering.

1. John McCain, as much as any other prominent Republican, has courted the liberal mainstream press over the years. His success in the primaries in 2000, and again this year, is at least partially due to his positive coverage, significantly more positive than any other Republican, in the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. So there is some satisfaction in seeing McCain, who has received glowing coverage when criticizing other Republicans, realizing that maybe the national media (which he has, in the past, laughingly called his "base") isn't his friend after all.


2. As emotionally satisfying as it is to play whack-a-mole with the Times, is it productive? Honestly, is there anyone reading the times who does not realize that it is essentially a distribution mechanism for DNC memos? And the Times isn't going to change the way they do business. So what's the purpose?
   
   I think it's this - to put the rest of the media on notice that they cannot maintain credibility by running Times' stories without investigating themselves. The Times, rightly or wrongly (and I don't think I need to articulate which of those I believe is the case) has enormous influence with the rest of the media. If the Times runs a story on Monday morning, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and FOX will run it Monday night. The Times is considered a valid news source. I think that the McCain campaign's trying to stop that.
   
   I'm skeptical that it will work, and I think that they've got more important things to do, but if they don't waste a lot of time on it, it's not a horrible idea.

Chicago Machine

Does it seem to be the case that the media is far more interested in the background and associations of the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate than the Democratic Presidential candidate? Yeah, that's a no-brainer. But maybe there just aren't any questionable backgrounds and associations to look at.

Right...

Coverage of the McCain Raines ad

People are saying that McCain got it wrong because the Post got it wrong. Those people are ignoring the most egregious part of the Obama campaign's "it's a scurrilous lie" response. Whether the Post was right or wrong in its reporting is irrelevant to the truth of the ad. McCain's ad doesn't say that Raines was Obama's adviser - it merely said that the Post said that Raines was Obama's adviser. Which is undeniably true.

Another good one

McCain's ad people have been busy. And they're coming out of their slump. Of course, as I said, it's a target-rich environment...

Is America ready for four years of this?

Here's a shock - Time thinks that the Raines ad is racist. Stop me if you've heard this one before...

This is hardly subtle: Sinister images of two black men, followed by one of a vulnerable-looking elderly white woman.

Let me stipulate: Obama's Fannie Mae connections are completely fair game. But this ad doesn't even mention a far more significant tie--that of Jim Johnson, the former Fannie Mae chairman who had to resign as head of Obama's vice presidential search team after it was revealed he got a sweetheart deal on a mortgage from Countrywide Financial. Instead, it relies on a fleeting and tenuous reference in a Washington Post Style section story to suggest that Obama's principal economic adviser is former Fannie Mae Chairman Frank Raines. Why? One reason might be that Johnson is white; Raines is black.

That would be a lot more compelling if there weren't already an ad running featuring Johnson, the white guy, used in exactly the same way. As the Instapundit notes, "maybe there are just too many dubious Obama associations to fit into a single commercial?" Sure looks like it to me.



The scariest part of all of this, of course, is the contemplation of an America where dissent with the President ceases to be the "highest form of Patriotism" and becomes instead a "scurrilous racist attack." It is going to be a long and difficult four years if The Anointed One wins this election...

Next

Yesterday, it was Franklin Raines. Today, it's Jim Johnson.



Let's face it - despite his protestations of being a "new kind of politician" (or because of them), the Obama campaign presents a target-rich environment for this kind of thing...

To Tell The Truth

This is instructive.

The McCain camp has run another anti-Obama ad, this one referencing Fannie Mae, former Clinton budget director Franklin Raines, and Barack Obama.



I think it's a pretty good ad, though I think that there's room for harsher ones on the same topic. Obama's initial choice to head his VP search committee was James Johnson, also a recent CEO of Fannie Mae.

What's instructive, however, is the Obama campaign's response.

This is another flat-out lie from a dishonorable campaign that is increasingly incapable of telling the truth. Frank Raines has never advised Senator Obama about anything — ever...

- Obama Spokesman Bill Burton

That has been their first response to everything. That was their response to McCain's sex-ed ad, and the ad was true.

But go back and watch the ad again. The ad does not state that Raines advised Obama. It says that:

Obama has no background in economics.

Who advises him?

The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy."

Well, guess what? That statement is true.

In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae's chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.

- On the Outside Now, Watching Fannie Falter, Washington Post, 7/16/08

Whether the Post was right or wrong, the McCain ad is clearly not a lie.

But the Obama campaign's devotion to, and love of, the truth is somewhat ... flexible

Patriots (but not the football team)

I think that the McCain ad team's been off their game for the past week or so, but this one's pretty good...

Who are the pigs?

Looking at earmark history, this is pretty clear...

The forces of reaction in Washington are counting on the go along/get along careerist Barack Obama to help them block change and preserve the status quo. There is only one real reform ticket in the race this year, and it's McCain/Palin.

Crocodile Tears

Well, they are cranking 'em out at the McCain advertising complex. I didn't like the inclusion of Katie Couric and sexism in the lipstick ad, but I've got no problems with this one...