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: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

The world must not have gotten Al Gore's memo that the earth is warming. Yesterday Record cold swept over the region Wednesday in Ocala, Florida. (My emphasis throughout)

Twice the temperature dipped to freezing at the Ocala International Airport early Wednesday before it began making a gradual climb to the mid-60s.

Though there was a reading of freezing or below throughout northwest Marion County, Wednesday morning's official low temperature was 33 degrees.

It was a record for Oct. 29 and the second lowest temperature ever recorded in October since 1850...

...In almost every area of the county at daybreak Wednesday, frost - which came six weeks early - glistened on grass and rooftops.

On the other side of the pond, the Gore Effect has gone into full swing even without Mr. Gore's presence. Just discussing Global Warming legislation prompted the earliest snowfall in 86 years:  Snow blankets London for Global Warming debate, How Parliament passed the Climate Bill:

Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922. The Mother of Parliaments was discussing the Mother of All Bills for the last time, in a marathon six hour session.

In order to combat a projected two degree centigrade rise in global temperature, the Climate Change Bill pledges the UK to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The bill was receiving a third reading, which means both the last chance for both democratic scrutiny and consent.

The bill creates an enormous bureaucratic apparatus for monitoring and reporting, which was expanded at the last minute...

Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity of saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is both man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly doubts either to be true. 60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of humans on climate change, and more people than not think Global Warming won't be as bad "as people say".

Both figures are higher than a year ago - and the poll was taken before the non-summer of 2008, and the (latest) credit crisis.

No need to worry about American jobs being outsourced to the UK after that bill!

Will our congress follow suit? Blindly following Al Gore, our Pied Piper of Global Warming, marching down the road through early freezes and snow storms to Carbon Capping economic ruin? 

Guess it depends on who is in charge: The Triumvirate of Obama,  Pelosi, and Reid or McCain balancing that Democrat controlled Congress?

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: 

When Dan Rather notes the media is biased in favor of the Obama campaign, how can you continue to deny it? (My emphasis throughout)

Former CBS anchorman Dan Rather says there is a huge double-standard in the media when it comes to coverage the Barack Obama campaign receives, which is clearly made evident in the lack of scrutiny given to comments Obama’s vice presidential running mate Sen. Joe Biden made earlier this week. [Re: international crisis]

...  if Sarah Palin had said this, the newspapers would have jumped all over it, and so would the major television outlets.”

Journalist Michael Malone wrote a great piece about this subject in Media's Presidential Bias and Decline, Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why. It is long, 5 pages, but very much worth the read. Here are a few highlights:

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

Reporting bias, pg 2: 

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth...

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments... were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

The Presidential Campaign, pg 3:

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

...If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Joe the Plumber, pg 4: 

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man...

...Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes … and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Malone concludes his piece discussing the editor's role in biased media.

Just this week I heard Newt Gingrich refer to the media as being "Pravda like" and Mark Levin characterized the biased media as being "open and brazen" when it comes to the outcome of this election.

I can hear some of you defending the media's coverage of this election, but when even Dan Rather sees the bias, I know it has become too huge a problem to ignore any longer.

The part I can't figure out is why come out with this now? Conservatives and even Hillary Clinton during the primary have been saying this all along. Are they worried that Obama won't close the deal? Or is it just that they want to feel blameless after the damage has been done.
 

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: 

Tuesday I got a tank full of gas for $2.69 a gallon. Sure wish gas prices were that low in August when we went to Yellowstone! Our trip cost us $549 in gasoline for 3,188 miles. If we made that trip now, we would have saved about $200. (Of course, Old Faithful Lodge is now closed for the winter season.)

The U.S dollar ended stronger than usual. One US dollar will now purchase $1.26 in Canada, .62 Pounds, and .78 Euros.  

Oil sunk to the $63 to $69 / barrel range this week. Less than half of what it was priced at its high. Since oil is priced in dollars, the stronger dollar makes the price/barrel go down. OPEC is likely to try tightening the supply in an effort to boost the price.

Wouldn't it be great if OPEC's decrease in production didn't matter?

The Congressional Democrats do not favor domestic drilling. Remember the Trojan Drilling Bill? Obama doesn't either. Republicans and McCain are in favor of drilling more offshore, utilizing oil shale, and "All of the above." Think about that when you hit the voting booth.

Post Script: Right on schedule, OPEC agrees sharp output cut  "An emergency OPEC meeting on Friday reached swift agreement to chop production by 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in an effort to halt a deep oil price slide." Well, oil priced in the $60s was nice while it lasted.

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: 

We are learning more and more about Barack Obama's tax plan--it is not a tax cut but a socialistic increase in spending.

As Obama was on the campaign trail in Ohio this week, Obama encountered Joe the plumber--a small businessman. He was not impressed with the Obama tax plan. Fox News Neil Cavuto interviewed Joe.

Now Barack's response, 'Spread the Wealth Around' Comment Comes Back to Haunt Obama:  

Sen. Barack Obama’s recent comments to a plumber named Joe are making some Americans nervous about Obama’s wealth-redistribution tendencies.
 
“Your tax plan’s going to tax me more,” the plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher told Obama at a rally in Ohio on Sunday.
 
Wurzelbacher told the Democratic presidential candidate he’s about to buy a company that will put him above the $250,000 income level. Obama has said he will raise taxes on people making a minimum of $250,000 – and that includes small businesses that file taxes as individuals.
 
“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too,” Obama told the plumber.

That spread the wealth comment was picked up by "McCain and other critics, who say Obama sounds like a socialist."

Contrast that with the McCain position:

“My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can ‘spread the wealth around.’ My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans,” McCain said.
 
McCain says he would reduce business tax rates to boost job-creation.

After the yesterday's debate, the Joe was interviewed by ABC: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me'. CBS also interviewed Joe post debate; he said the McCain health care plan would help him more. Joe didn't get to say anymore because the network said they were out of time. 

The idea of taking from the more wealthy, like Joe, and giving to the less wealthy, regardless of if they pay federal income tax or not, is not a tax cut. It is welfare. It doesn't sound like socialism, it IS socialism.

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: 

Our race for the White House seems like it has gone on forever. Canada just got the job done in less than 2 months. (Lucky them!)

Who did Canadians elect? The Conservative or the Liberal?

The Conservative.

Canada's new Prime Minister is Stephen Harper and according to the Wall Street Journal, Conservative Canada, John McCain take note: (My emphasis)

...Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.

Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.

The WSJ suggested that Harper hoped to secure a parliament seat majority but his response to "the global financial panic" that critics said was "too casual" might have kept him from it. 

So what prompted his victory? His pro NATO role, funding military, and troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism platform.

Mr. Harper restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. He reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Domestically, Harper "promised to cut corporate taxes to further att