When I first heard about that McCain insider who told tales out of school about Sarah Palin, I immediately thought those criticisms smacked of sour grapes and jealousy. Imagine a true McCain, cross the isle, centrist campaign worker now having to help the novice, but igniter of the conservative base upstart. No matter that she was happily minding her own business in Alaska when she got the tap for VP. She clearly energized the McCain campaign, and that can create jealousy.

One of the more scathing comments was that Palin did not know Africa was a continent. I immediately thought, well, 52% of Americans just elected a president who does not know America has 50, not 57 states or that Pakistan is an ally. Besides that, it could just be a slip of the tongue--much like we say Iran when meaning Iraq. We know the difference but misstate it. 

Now it seems the "insider" M. Eisenstadt, who confessed to be the source for Carl Cameron's story, might not even exist. Martin Eisenstadt Tricks News Orgs On Being Source of Palin Dirt:

But it's not at all clear that Eisenstadt exists. William K. Wolfrum of Shakespeare's Sister, who was suckered by Eisenstadt during the campaign, did some digging and concluded, "There is no M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. M. Thomas Eisenstadt is a hoax."

To be clear, none of this means the Africa story is false -- just that it didn't come from this source. Huffington Post has been told on background that Martin Eisenstadt was not one of Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron's sources.

Who knows who was the real source of Cameron's story. If we ever find him/her, there will probably be a bunch of sour grapes in their hand. But as for the confusion over Africa as a country or continent, was it just something like this? Chris Matthews Calls Africa a 'Country':

Matthews made his mistake in the course of posing a question to Larry Persily, a former member of Palin's gubernatorial staff. 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I've got to go to Larry first. You've got to answer this question, sir.  Is this person unaware of basic grade-school information, like, Africa is a country of 57-or-so countries, it is not a country, it's a continent? South Africa is a country, not a region. 

Clearly, this was no more than a slip of the Matthews tongue [we wouldn't want to unfairly undermine Chris's incipient Senate run].  After calling Africa a country, he went on to call it a continent.  But it ironically illustrates how the alleged Palin knowledge gap might well have been nothing more than a similar slip. (My emphasis here)

Before the camera cuts away, Persily can be seen smiling wryly at Chris's miscue.  For the record, Persily answered that he didn't think it was plausible that Gov. Palin is unaware of the kind of information Matthews described.

Speaking of mistakes . . . note Matthews's reference to Africa's 57 countries.  Could that be what Barack Obama had in mind when he spoke of  having visited 57 states in the USA?

I had not thought of that 57 African country angle, but it fits. Should we make a big thing about that? (No)

It is a general principle of mine that insiders should not divulge confidences and things taken out of context--especially when it damages a greater cause: the Republican's future.

The candidates and staff are under tremendous pressure and grueling schedules during a campaign. If we want good people to run for office, they need to at least know they will not be attacked by their own before or after the campaign.

A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence:  "...Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist. His blog does, but it's a put-on." 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

On election eve, I quickly made this campaign button to illustrate my hopes for the 2012 ticket. I wore it to the Waukesha Republican Victory Party.

Barely there 2 minutes, a few women from the Waukesha Republican Party and I started talking. Are you part of the Republican Women's group, they asked? No, I said, although I did work a little on the last 2 campaigns. Why not? I explained it was because Republicans didn't support conservative candidates. Citing Republican State Senator Tom Reynold's 2006 race and the lack of support from the party, I said I now put my efforts into individual races instead of the GOP as a whole. They did not disagree. 

Then they spotted my button, and their eyes lit up. Where did you get that? I said I made it. They definitely liked the idea. These ladies were not alone. In the course of the evening, my humble button received enthusiastic support.

I know many blame Governor Sarah Palin for McCain's loss on Tuesday. But that sentiment shows how little those naysayers understand conservatives. It was very clear to me that fellow volunteers at the phone bank were there only because of Sarah, not McCain. Same with rally attendees.

As Senator John McCain gave his concession speech that night, he took the full blame for his failure to win. Amongst the Waukesha Republican faithful watching on the big screen, there was no murmur in the audience to the contrary.

When McCain thanked Governor Palin, the audience cheered. You would think BBC reporter Ali Reed was there in the room with us. In his What next for Sarah Palin? he reported the same reaction:

The sombre air at Senator John McCain's concession speech was momentarily pierced by cheer as Mr McCain spoke about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The Wall Street Journal would like to see Congressman Paul Ryan become the House Minority Leader. (Ryan is not interested.) But they see Paul Ryan as many of us do, a rising star on the Republican horizon. Ryan for the Republicans, The party needs an economic spokesman:

... the Republican Party faces a choice. It can put the loss down to the country's fatigue with the Bush Administration and the bad luck of running amid a financial panic and shrug it off. Or it can choose a new direction, with new leadership, and retake the high ground it once occupied, especially on the economy.

...Mr. Ryan's economic knowledge and youthful energy make him the best choice [for Minority Leader] to pull his party in a more promising direction.

Sad to say, persona matters in politics. Obama's youth and charisma made him more attractive than McCain's old, tired warhorse manner. It has been said that if radio were around in 1800, Thomas Jefferson would never have won the presidency. Jefferson was brilliant on paper but not a great orator.

Conservatives, imagine a Palin/Ryan or Ryan/Palin ticket in 2012? With Ryan's grasp of economics and practical solutions and Palin being governor of the only state not in or headed toward recession, it could be a winning combination: A ticket with real conservative solutions AND articulate, attractive candidates. 

Sign me up! TeamSarah.org

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

It has become a family tradition to attended the Waukesha Republican's "Victory" party at the Country Springs Hotel.  Various local candidates stop in and give a pep talk along with Waukesha Republican leaders. This year most of us hoped for good news but were braced for the bad.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner addressed the crowd first. He quipped something to the effect that after 8 years of Democrats blaming President Bush for everything, with them in charge of the legislature and the White House, we'll be able to pin the tail on the donkey. (Donkey being the symbol for democratic party.)

I am not so sure anything will stick, but I enjoyed the imagery.

Next up was Congressman Paul Ryan. I think most Republicans in the room see Ryan as the future of the Conservative movement. Ryan outlined a path for the next few years that went something like this: Stand up for what you believe in. Work with Democrats when they are going in the right direction and when they're wrong, propose alternative solutions. (My emphasis) 

Congressman Ryan, if you recall, came up with a plan to reform the entitlement problem of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, called "A Roadmap for America's Future". The Democrats just ignore the impending insolvency of that costly trio.

Last to speak was Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. He too urged that Republicans present clear, conservative alternatives to liberal tax and spend policy. He is living proof that conservatism, when properly communicated, will sell even in very Democratic territory!  The key was presenting that conservative message in a clear and concise way--something almost everyone in the room knew the McCain campaign never did. 

As John McCain gave his concession speech the room was quiet. Not much disagreement when McCain said "the failure is mine." There was cheering when he thanked Sarah Palin.

The road ahead is steep, very steep, for true conservatives. But Scott Walker is living proof that people will support the conservative message if it is presented clearly enough.

I fear most Republican politicians and party officials still don't get it.

These might be of interest: It was a great victory - but not for the Left and

It made me feel better: PALIN 2012 RYAN
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Senator John McCain managed to get 56,494,802 votes, which translates to 46.4% of the total. That was 1.9% less than John Kerry received in 2004. Hardly the trouncing Bob Dole took in 1996 with his 40.71% of the vote or Carter's 41.0% in 1980 or Mondale's 40.6% in 1984.

Just for comparison purposes, President Bill Clinton never broke the 50% mark--receiving 43.0% in 1992 (Ross Perot was the spoiler) and only 49.24% in 1996.

I would still call McCain's 46.4% showing respectable, especially since Republicans didn't really choose their candidate.

If you remember the early primary season, Sen. John McCain was the favorite of the media. Talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin warned that once the nomination was sewn up, that favorite son status would be gone. They were right.

There was much speculation that Democrats crossed over to vote for McCain in the primaries because they felt he was the weakest candidate. They were correct. McCain may have been a Republican, but he was not a conservative in the Ronald Reagan tradition.

It is very difficult to muster enthusiasm for a candidate when he doesn't really represent your party's ideals, and the media knew that. I talked about this back in February:

Another problem I have with the prospect of a McCain nomination is that he very seldom gets the majority of votes in the states he wins. Certainly Mike Huckabee's strong showing in the south was a surprise too. McCain did not even receive over 50% of the votes in his own state of Arizona.

Today GOPUSA Eagle email sent this out: 

The Strange GOP Nominating Victory

Assuming John McCain gets the GOP nomination, it will show how whimsical history can be. It would be the first time in living memory that a Republican presidential nomination went to a candidate who was not merely opposed by a majority of the party but was actively despised by about half its rank-and-file voters across the country--and by many, if not most, of its congressional officeholders. 

Slit a Vein or Vote for McCain?
by Chuck Muth

While the conservative knock against Mitt Romney is that he started out as a moderate and has since moved to the right, John McCain started out on the right but has since moved to the left. Which is worse?

John McCain did a terrible job of articulating his message. Obama was still running ads that McCain would tax your health care the day of the election. McCain never explained that was not true. He never talked about Obama's 7% health care plan payroll deduction. McCain never explained that when the Bush tax cuts expired, most people's taxes would go up.

It took a civilian like Joe the Plumber to finally bring Obama's real stance on spreading the wealth to the forefront. By that time it was really too late. Despite the Drill Here, Drill Now movement, little was said about what an Obama cap and trade/no oil or coal stance would look like.

Republicans and conservatives were angry that McCain didn't talk about the issues. J.T. Harris pleaded with McCain to bring up the real issues. Did McCain ever really nail Carter and Clinton for the mortgage crisis? No.

John McCain was obsessed with his "reach across the isle" fantasy. Every time he talked about that or his campaign finance reform as a selling feature, I wanted to scream. Ironically, it was his own McCain/Feingold that helped do him in.  

When John McCain gave his concession speech on Tuesday night, my husband said, he is a class act--McCain was very gracious. Moments later I think Fox News' Brit Hume said the same.

Many, including myself, saw John McCain as incapable of really fighting for his positions. I've often wondered if his POW imprisonment was the reason. When someone experiences a severe illness or tragedy, their priorities in life change. They no longer can bear a grudge or sweat the small stuff.

Whatever the reason, it was a long shot that McCain would win. The voters that I spoke with who voted 3rd party or sat it out summed it up: the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

A McCain victory would not have been a conservative victory. (Even during the financial crisis he was still reaching across the isle talking about appointing Obama supporter Warren Buffet as Treasury Secretary--what would be wrong with Mitt Romney?)  

Without a Jimmy Carter we probably wouldn't have had a Ronald Reagan. But Carter inflicted a lot of damage in his 4 years, and Obama makes Carter look appealing.

President elect Obama already hinted he wouldn't be able to do it all in his first term. I hope he is right. In the meantime, Republicans, you better get your act together.  

PS Speaking of Class Acts, Brit Hume is stepping down "for a quieter life, spending time with his grandchildren and following his Christian faith."

Wisconsin Department of Transportation OPEN HOUSE: Proposed changes to Bluemound Road (east of Moorland Road, west of Sunnyslope Road), Thursday, Nov. 6th, 7-9pm
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Of course the BIG deal of the day is the presidential race and Electoral College count. Will Obama win big? McCain squeak by? Will we even know today or this week?

What will happen with the majorities in the House and Senate. It is difficult for me to understand how a Congress with the lowest approval rating can gain more seats for the party in power, but I have given up trying to understand people's irrational choices. 

If California's Proposition 8 passes, it would eliminate gay marriage. If it fails, gay marriage stays.

In Wisconsin I am watching the Assembly races. I think Leah Vukmir is safe. Hope Rich Zipperer does well too. Dan Knodl from the 24th Assembly District will attract my attention--remember the endorsement problems? Will Republicans still support him?

I'll also be watching Yash Wadhwa's race--not just because I want another Republican seat in the Assembly, but because I like his personal story.

In the State Senate, I am pulling for John Gard* and Alberta Darling. 

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner should be a sure thing, but Paul Ryan? I hope voters have the good sense to send him back to Washington.

As for Germantown's $22.5 million Elementary School Referendum (some tech and safety upgrades included too?), will voters there buy the Brooklyn Bridge, oh, excuse me, the idea that a new school won't really cost them because the state aid will make up for the added bonding expense?

Supporters of Tuesday's main referendum measure argue that the increase in property taxes needed to pay for the borrowing would be offset by additional state aid collected as a result of higher enrollment.

Remember the Germantown School Board discontinued full-day kindergarten next year because of space constraints. If this referendum does not pass, what will they do then? Go to all half-day or work out some other solution?

It should be interesting!

*Correction, John Gard ran for Congress not State Senate 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Well, today is the day. The day we go vote for president and our other government representatives*. How will you choose which one?

Will your choice be based on what the candidate promises to give and do for you? Or will the candidate's platform and character influence your choice?

President Lincoln said, "I know that the Lord is on the side of the right. But it is my constant prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

I am just speaking to people of faith here.

The Lord cannot bless a nation that embraces a culture of death concerning the unborn. He cannot bless a nation that embraces homosexual marriage. These 2 issues are clearly against His teachings in the Bible.

You cannot pick and choose which of God's principles you will obey and which you will disregard. If you do, you are in effect creating your own god, and putting that god before Him. That act violates the 1st commandment: Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me." We are created in His image, we don't create a god in ours.

On Sunday, our pastor challenged us to let God shape our thinking when we vote. As a Christian**, your vote represents God's voice to the government.

I am choosing the party that supports a culture of life and believes marriage between a man and a woman should be protected. That party's candidates are John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Is McCain perfect? Everything I could ever ask for in a candidate? No. But he does represent my Christian values. He also happens to support my American values.

"...choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods [idols] which your fathers served that were on the other side of the river... But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15

*I am also voting for Jim Sensenbrenner and Leah Vukmir.

**This statement was addressed to a Christian congregation. No candidate was endorsed.
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

At the last debate, John McCain stated his strong opposition to the horrible procedure, Partial Birth Abortion. Barack Obama, knowing his pro-abortion stance at the Saddleback Forum hurt him, must have decided that in a national venue such as a televised debate, he could not publicly support Partial Birth Abortion. So Obama said he was "completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life..." 

Yet he told Planned Parenthood he would make signing the Freedom of Choice Act that would reinstate Partial Birth Abortion, his top priority. "No, kick-starting the economy is not his number one goal and health care won't be top on his list of priorities." Obama said,

On this fundamental issue, I will not yield, and Planned Parenthood will not yield.

What is Partial Birth Abortion? It's a barbaric procedure in which doctors induce a late term pregnant woman to actually give birth. But before the baby is totally delivered, doctors puncture the child's brain to kill it. If any other culture did that we would be outraged. (Whether the mother's life is at risk or not, she still needs to deliver the child. What the doctor does to that child has no effect on the mother's health.)

Partial Birth Abortion was "banned by the Congress and signed by the President in 2003." The Supreme Court upheld the ban in 2007. Even pro-abortion Sen. Daniel Moynihan, Democrat from N.Y. voted to ban partial-birth abortion. He said the practice was "too close to infanticide." 

According to the Family Research Council, here is what the Freedom of Choice Act will do:

All sides in the abortion fight agree, if FOCA were to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by a pro-abortion President, it would, among other effects, provide for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand even late in pregnancy, grant abortionists immunity from legal action, allow abortionists the discretion to perform abortions on minors without notifying a parent, and deny health care workers the right to refuse to make abortion referrals as a matter of conscience.

The other procedure, Late Term Labor Induced Abortion, occurs in the 2nd trimester, earlier in the pregnancy but still sometimes produces a living child.

These babies were the subject of the bill Obama voted against in the Illinois State Senate. It was the same as the identically worded Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which passed the US Senate unanimously). Obama has tried to say the State version was not the same as the Federal version, but this is not true. In August 2008, "His campaign ...acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate..."

Nurse Jill Stanek talked to Bill O'Reilly about her experience with born alive aborted babies at Christ Hospital in Illinois. Her account stunned O'Reilly.

Obama tried to wiggle out of the question, "...at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" at the Saddleback Forum by saying, "answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

Well, even a janitor (someone below Obama's pay grade) could tell you an aborted, yet alive, infant discarded in a "soiled utility room" was living and entitled to better treatment. 

Click to view the video

Related info: Catholic Church has made no exception regarding abortion since ancient times, & Priests for Life 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I've been wondering about this for some time. Are some independents reluctant to voice support for John McCain because they don't want to take flack for supporting the Republicans? Democrats have incessantly talked against George Bush during this election cycle, as if they are running against him, even though George isn't running.

Amongst African Americans, I think there is a Bradley effect. Remember J.T. Harris telling McCain that he was taking a ...whipping for supporting McCain? J.T. continues to feel the heat.

The Investor's Business Daily poll isn't as hopeful for McCain today as it looked yesterday, but Obama still isn't 5% points ahead of McCain or above 50%. There are still 9.5% not sure. Are they really not sure or are they just not saying?

One interesting sidebar, there is another segment obsessed with George Bush. al Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": (Hmm, I wonder who they want to win?)

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting...

Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama or Republican John McCain.

...Others say his [Obama's] planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

The only real poll that matters is the vote tally on election day. Go out and vote.

PS From Drudge: Interesting question: Can Obama win popular vote but lose election? And do remember that the early exit polls favored Kerry in 2004.

Sure, chances of Republicans retaining the White House are remote.

But some last-minute state polls show the GOP nominee closing the gap in key states — Republican turf of Virginia, Florida and Ohio among them, and Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania, too.

If the tightening polls are correct and undecided voters in those states break McCain's way — both big ifs — that could make for a repeat of the 2000 heartbreaker for Democrats that gave Republicans the White House.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

It amazes me that the question is still out there: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be Vice President or God forbid, President? Considering Senator Barack Obama has so little experience and such questionable ideas and connections, the question is laughable.

In the race for the White House, Governors traditionally are hands down the favorite against Senators or Congressmen. Since Governors must prepare a budget, run their state, and are commanders of their National Guard, it is thought that their executive experience translates more completely to the presidency than experience in other branches of government.

John F. Kennedy was the most recent Senator to win the White House. All elected Presidents since were either former Vice Presidents or Governors. But here is a little known fact: Not all governors are created equal--equal in power that is. 

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece called, Running Alaska. It explained the differences in governing responsibilities between the states. Some states have governors that take on more of a P.R. roll vs. governors who run the whole show. (Mayors are much the same. Some just do ribbon cuttings etc. while the Administrative Director does the real work. I'll let you decide where Mayor Speaker and Director of Administration Dean Marquardt's responsibilities fall.)

The article explained that Thad Beyle, a political scientist at University of North Carolina actually rates each state's governor on "potential length of service, budgetary and appointment authority, veto power and other factors." He has been doing this for 20 years, the article stated.

At one time there was talk of amending the Constitution so that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president. (He is a citizen but not natural born citizen.)  Now that California is deeply in debt, some might be glad that idea fizzled.

Another former actor and former governor of California, Ronald Reagan, became one of our most beloved presidents. California is a large state. It certainly must rank high on the Beyle scale?  

Nope. On Beyle's scale, 5 being the highest, California ranks 3.2. "California may be the nation's most populous state, but its Governor rates as below-average (3.2) in executive authority. This may account in part for Arnold Schwarzenegger's poor legislative track record." 

How about Howard Dean? He was a front runner in the last go round until he had that whooping up moment. Early on it was thought Dean would win the Democratic nomination. Howard Dean was governor of Vermont. There was no discussion of Dean being unqualified for the White House.

So how does Vermont's governor rate?  The lowest of all of the states, 2.5. In Vermont, the governor is really a "figurehead when compared to [you guessed it] Mrs. Palin."

Only one state rates higher than Alaska and that is Massachusetts. (That would be former Governor Mitt Romney's state.)

And what about Alaska? Well, it's a big state with big responsibilities--"one of the country's most powerful." Alaska ranks 4.1. "The national average is 3.5." Maryland, New Jersey, New York and West Virginia also rank at 4.1.

In Alaska, the Governor has line-item veto power over the budget and can only be overridden by a three-quarter majority of the Legislature.

In 1992, the year Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was elected President, his state budget was $2 billion and among the smallest in the country. Compared to that, Sarah Palin is an executive giant. [Alaska's budget is $12 million with 16,000 full time state employees.]

So can we stop asking the question?

Voter's* will decide on Tuesday and either she will be the Vice President or go back to being Governor of Alaska. In any event, in 2012, she will have 4 more years under her belt. If she decides to run again, it will be difficult to deny that the questioner's bias is showing if the question is asked again.

*Some voters have Palin/McCain signs and bumper stickers! 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Just a thought...If Obama is indeed such a shoe-in, especially in states like Wisconsin, why all the Obama radio and TV ads and mailings? Why the 30 minute infomercial?

On Mark Levin the other day, he discussed how Obama polled 5% higher during the primary than the actual vote tally. Dick Morris said Thursday night on Sean Hannity that unless Obama is above 48% in the polls, even if he is ahead of McCain, Dick didn't think Obama could win.

Even if Wisconsin goes for Obama, we all still need to vote. Not only for the other Republicans on the ballot, but also to send the message that Obama does NOT have a mandate for his socialist plans. My vote in Wisconsin still adds to the total vote count for McCain. It is on that total vote count the mandate is calculated.

Today, Zogby reports that McCain is ahead in one day polling, 48% to Obama's 47%. That news does warm my conservative heart.

Obama seems to be a little less...um...friendly? He kicked the 3 reporters from the 3 papers that endorsed McCain off his campaign plane.    

It is not over. Don't sit this one out!

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Would these 13 be some of those campaign workers Biden was proud of? In fairness, the McCain campaign was warned too, but I have not seen details about numbers of them withdrawing their ballots. (My emphasis throughout.)

BAM Staffers pull their bogus Ohio ballots Oct. 25, 2008

Thirteen campaign workers for Barack Obama yesterday yanked their voter registrations and ballots in Ohio after being warned by a prosecutor that temporary residents can't vote in the battleground state.

A dozen staffers - including Obama Ohio spokeswoman Olivia Alair and James Cadogan, who recently joined Team Obama - signed a form letter asking the Franklin County elections board to pull their names from the rolls.

The letter - a copy of which was obtained by palestra.net, a Fox News affiliate - came a day after prosecutor Ron O'Brien publicly urged out-of-state campaign workers for both Obama and John McCain to "examine your conscience" before the elections board beings begins opening absentee ballots today.

Earlier in the week, O'Brien spoke with lawyers for both camps and urged them to make sure their staffs met permanent-residency rules, or face possible felony charges.

...

On Thursday, O'Brien cut a deal with 13 out-of-staters, including four from New York, who tossed out their already-cast ballots and admitted they didn't meet residency requirements.

In an earlier article, Both Sides Warned on Ohio Ballots Oct. 22, 2008,  other illegal voters are being investigated besides the official campaign workers.

O'Brien said he is "hoping to work out a fair agreement" with both camps - as well as other out-of-staters unassociated with the campaigns who also registered in Ohio.

Among the scenarios: tossing out the already-cast ballots of non-permanent residents and denying the absentee ballot requests of others. Early voting in Ohio began Sept. 30.

Also yesterday, O'Brien said he and elections officials are looking into people from other states who appear to have parachuted into Ohio to vote.

They include several members of Manhattan-based pro-Obama group Vote Today Ohio. Its founder, New York resident Tate Hausman, registered and voted in Columbus, records show, and is among those under scrutiny.

Workers might have been in the state early enough to have registered 30 days in advance, but according to O'Brien, they failed to meet the other criteria of "you have to have a bona-fide intention of staying permanently."

Why does this permanency matter? If the worker doesn't vote at home, he is just casting one vote, right?

The reason it matters is because a campaign could flood a swing state with campaign workers, cast their votes there, thus tipping the outcome of a tight election. (If the workers came from solid red or blue states, their home state would never miss their votes.)

There are so many opportunities for voter fraud with early voting. Absentee ballots were originally created as a courtesy to those who are infirmed or who knew they would be out of town on election day. Now they are an avenue to stealing elections.

People: Don't you just love them! 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Governor Palin returned to her home state, Alaska, after the convention. In watching interviews with the locals, it was pretty hard to miss that they all call her "Sarah." (She does enjoy a 68 to 80% approval rating.)

The ability for the public to relate to a candidate and imagine going out for a beer with in elections is a huge advantage they say. Since I don't drink, I will translate that familiarity to having coffee together.

The everyman appeal isn't new. Remember the Kennedy/Nixon debates where John F. Kennedy crossed his legs to reveal a hole in the sole of his shoe? That was no doubt staged to make him appear more real.

I never really envisioned sharing a cup of joe with any candidate, although maybe President Bush came the closest. Maybe it was his profession of his Christian faith that made me feel a little less intimidated.

But my standoffishness came to an end with Sarah Palin. She just seems like someone I could invite over for a cup of coffee. At my house, that means espresso, hence to meet Silvia, our espresso maker.

I like the fact that some days she might make macaroni and cheese for dinner. What mom can't identify with that?

It is not her working mother status that evokes the desire to talk to her one on one. In fact, my personal choice on that issue was the opposite. (I quit work when I had my son and stayed home to homeschool.) But I do know of homeschool moms who seem to manage a very large family, run a family business, and have very well behaved children. Sarah seems to possess that same gumption.

The latest Palin flap was over her wardrobe. The RNC spent $150,000 on new clothing for her because, well, she needed it. The clothing is actually on loan to her and she returns the outfits to the RNC after a few wearings. Sean Hannity interviewed her last week--one of the subjects covered was her wardrobe. She said she and Todd live very simply in Alaska. Her favorite clothing store in there? A consignment shop: "Out of the Closet."  I can relate!

Which candidate would you most want to share a cup of coffee with and chat? For me the order is: Sarah Palin, John McCain, Joe Biden (you have to say he is entertaining), and least of all, Barack Obama. How about you?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Yet, there are those supposed Republican elitists who look down their noses at her with disdain. Some go as far as throwing their support to Barack Obama. Can someone who says they are a conservative or Republican really be for Barack Obama? Does that ring true?

Well, to put it in local context, it rings about as true as former Republican Mayor Kate Bloomberg and husband Frank Urban* endorsing Democrat Jim Sullivan for State Senate over incumbent Republican Tom Reynolds in 2006. From my Bloomberg's endorsement shows her true "blue state" colors:  

... in Bloomberg and Urban’s opinion, the Democrat they are endorsing is running to serve and represent the people of the 5th district effectively, “whether they are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between”. Think about that. How is that even possible? On every major issue, I disagree STRONGLY with that candidate’s position.

How is it I would be satisfied with him [Sullivan] representing me? How could a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, believer in lower taxes, pro voter photo ID, anti-benefits to illegal aliens, fiscal conservative like me ever be represented by someone whose platform is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, opposed to voter photo ID, opposed to requiring welfare recipients to prove their legal US status, and pro-taxation?

Any Republican espousing those liberal values would be an "embarrassment" to the Republican Party. But then, I asked myself, how well did Mayor Kate reflect my values? Not very well. So, why would I give any credence to her endorsement now?

And so, I give the same credence to these elitists' criticisms of Gov. Sarah Palin and endorsements for Barack Obama. Come to think of it, Obama's platform is much the same as Sullivan's--so just substitute the elitists names for Bloomberg and Urban and Obama for Sullivan. The issues are the same.  

There was a great editorial in Investor's Business Daily Friday, Palin and the Elitists. It contrasts those "Republicans" who don't approve of Palin with others who do and the reasons why.

They [the elitists] all seem to no longer connect to either the heartland or a new kind of leader who didn't make her way up through elite colleges or through a husband's or father's connections. Maybe that's too hard to absorb for those who inhabit the stratified, elitist political ecosystems of New York and Washington.

Those who say she isn't ready haven't bothered to "gather evidence of her 'unreadiness' ." "Their dismissiveness sharply contrasts to others [such as Bill Kristol, Victor Davis Hanson, and Mark Steyn] who've tried to find out who Sarah Palin is.  They find it impossible to dismiss her."

The editorial concludes with, "Maybe Palin's straightforwardness and promises of reform threaten some among the conservative commentariat. Bad news: If John McCain and Palin win this vote, they're in for a long four years".

The Republican elite didn't like Ronald Reagan either. When he ran, they dismissed him as nothing more than a B movie actor. History proved them wrong.

*I was unaware that Frank Urban passed away on Saturday when I posted this piece. My sympathies to his wife Kate and family. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Both parties' candidates just had a foreign policy briefing--a standard practice used to bring the next president up to speed. What isn't standard is a candidate shooting his mouth off after the briefing. Biden's warning: (My emphasis throughout.)

"Mark my words," Biden said in San Francisco last Saturday. "With the next, first six months of this administration, if we win, they're going to — we're going to face a major international challenge. Because they're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him."

Was that just Biden being Biden? But then, he said it again! This time Biden piped up at a Seattle fundraiser: 

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." 

This part of his chat was really strange:

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." 

And this was the guy who was supposed to lend gravitas to the Obama ticket? He went on to give more cautions and warnings--both about the economy and international problems:

"Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my ... why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years..."

Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."

"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real."

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

When I first heard about Biden's remarks, I immediately thought about Iran blasting Israel off the face of the earth--after all, Iran has talked about it and Obama was vague about his response. 

If you were Iran, would you be more apt to attack Israel with McCain as president or Obama?

But after looking at the last section of quotes, I'm wondering was Biden hinting about needing a military draft? Bombing Pakistan? Who knows.

Speak softly and carry a big stick is usually thought to be a deterrent to foreign aggression. The big stick being military might and cutting edge military technology. It has served us well in the past.

Biden began his warnings by comparing Obama to JFK, but Joe forgot one very important thing about his running mate: Unlike JFK, Obama has stated he wants to put a end to that military technology.

The complete IBD Editorial is worth the read or listen--the link is on this page. It is very sobering.

I'm digging out some photos you might find interesting for a future blog: Obama, JFK, technology, and the Cuban Missile Crisis...chilling

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The fact that Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama late in the game doesn't surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that Democrats made so much of it.

Many Conservatives were never too impressed with Colin Powell, so the fact that he favors Obama now doesn't make us shake in our boots. If someone like Justice Clarence Thomas would endorse Obama, that would shake things up, but not Powell.

Obama originally appealed to anti-war/Bush-lied voter. Since then he has morphed into the Iraq-was-the-wrong-arena-we-should-be-in-Afghanistan candidate. Why would the endorsement of the man who stood up before the UN stating there were weapons of mass destruction citing satellite photos sway the peace nicks?

People wondered if Powell would run for president as a Republican. Because of his pro-abortion stance, that lasted about 2 seconds.

Never mind that Powell's reasoning that the inexperienced Obama can just surround himself with good people, but Sarah Palin isn't ready to be president doesn't ring true.

Lastly, Colin Powell was Secretary of State for the Bush administration. The same Bush administration the left insists is now trying for its 3rd term and that Democrats have been railing against for years. (McCain has been endorsed by four former secretaries of state, Secretaries Kissinger, Baker, Eagleburger and Haig, along with "well over 200 retired Army generals and admirals.")

Most people have figured out why Powell really endorsed Obama. I don't think Powell's endorsement really carries much weight with undecideds. It certainly doesn't matter to Republicans. And to Democrats, did they need convincing?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: