Things Than Make You Go Hmmmmmmmm

I remember once upon a time, when a certain President was run through the ringer for firing federal at will employees. His opponents were in high dudgeon over the fact that the President had the AUDACITY to do such a thing. Fast forward a couple of years to now and we have a President firing the CEO of a PRIVATELY HELD COMPANY and the same people who were upset over the firing of federal at will employees are strangely silent. I wonder why that is?????

Scandal!

Yesterday, while the country was facing it's worst crisis EVAH, the President sat in a grade school classroom reading stories the the children. He didn't seem to care that people were DYING and the nation was in shock trying to deal with this crisis. It just shows you how out of TOUCH President Bush really is.....

Oh - never mind.....

WASHINGTON -- On the rockiest day of his young administration, President Obama did what surely made him happy for a while.

He left.

With little notice, the president and first lady Michelle Obama bolted the gated compound of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in their tank of a limousine on Tuesday. They ended up at a Washington public school, greeted by children who could not care less about the collapse of a Cabinet secretary nomination.

Now I could be a real witch and leave the snark stand as is. However, there is a much larger point that I hope now our friends on the left get. It is a point that many on the right made after 9/11 in the midst of the "My Pet Goat" feeding frenzy in the leftosphere. The President of the United States is the President of school children too and sometimes, in the midst of a crisis, the needs of the children must be met as well as the needs of the adults.

But then again, somehow I doubt anyone will get it....

What Is Really Necessary?

Chief already pointed us to the comments that Senator Obama made (last January) to "bankrupt" the coal industry, but I think that these comments are more pertinant - especially to any of us who happen to live in an area where the snow flies and it gets below freezing for 3-5 months a year.

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

Ed Morrissey has the audio linked up at Hot Air (where I got the transcript) emphasis is mine.

So Minnesota - are you really willing to pay even more (on top of the increases that the Minnesota Legislature already burdened you with last session) for electricity to heat and light your homes this winter? The "acceptable" alternatives to coal and gas (the Democrats and their green allies will never allow more nuclear even though it is the cleanest and safest AND CHEAPEST available NOW) will not be ready for another 10 years or more. In the meantime, you will have to sacrifice even more so that the government can tell you what to do. Is that really the life you want to lead? If so then by all means vote for the Democrats tomorrow. However, if you would like to be able to afford to heat your home AND feed your family, you may want to think twice about voting for someone who thinks that skyrocketing costs of electricity are "necessary".

Attention PA, OH, IN and VA Voters

This weekend, audio surfaced of an interview that Senator Barack Obama gave the to editorial board of the San Francisco Gate newspaper. In it, Senator Obama had some interesting things to say about a major industry in your states - coal.



The money line is this

"If somebody wanted to build a coal fired plant they can - it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all of the greenhouse gas that is emitted."

Now think about this...suppose your electric company is like most in the country - they get a majority of their power from coal fired plants. Demand for their product is going through the roof - so much so that it is becoming impossible for them to keep up with the demand. They have two choices - they can either build an expanded plant thereby hiring contractors to build the new plant and then hire the employees to staff the plant and thereby boosting the local economy OR they can charge more for the limited supply in order to suppress demand for their product. Their costs would not necessarily go up and all of that increased money would go straight into the utilities bottom line. Oh sure, the investors would be happy - their stock dividends would go up big time. The Board of Directors would be happy - happy enough to most likely give that CEO a big fat raise. In fact the only ones who would be taking the financial "hit" would be the employees (some of whom would get laid off in order to cover the costs of the cap and trade taxes on the existing plants) and the consumers! And the already fragile economy teeters on the brink of total collapse!

The Ohio Coal Association "gets it":

Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

"These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided.

"It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Oh and for those of you who think that this only effects PA, OH, and VA......take a look at this...

Colorado coal producers purchased over $363 million in services and
supplies during 2007.
Coal severance taxes contribute millions of dollars for local/state governments.

It hits the Intermountain West (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada and Idaho) just as hard.

Change we can believe in....indeed!

Incivil Discourse

The events of yesterday have highlighted just how poisonous our political landscape has become. Once the initial shock of the events wore off, a lot of people started to reflect on what happened and why. Katherine Kersten (the Strib's much maligned token conservative columnist) has a post up this morning that really hits what I think is the heart of the problem.

In decades past, Americans often disagreed strongly with their political leaders, but they did so in civil debate.

Today, a new coarseness permeates our public life. We no longer view our political opponents as merely wrong or misguided — now they’re “liars.” Radio talk shows and blogs spew invective at political leaders, while the parties themselves scheme to “criminalize” the public policy actions of their opponents...

Don’t get me wrong – it’s crucial to hold political leaders to a high standard. It’s imperative to point out their foibles, and to disagree with what we view as misguided policies. But the coarse, bitter and hyperbolic tone of today’s political arena poses a real threat to our common life as democratic citizens.

No one side has the market cornered when it comes to this incivility. It runs across the board. Just take a look at what is going on with lawn signs being stolen and defaced in your neighborhood.

Some think that there could be a backlash come November 4.

Democrats have a lot going for them when it comes to the tide of politics right now, but could images like these have a backlash? The vandalism early seemed to hitting mostly Republicans (yes, we now know that Ellison and Klobuchar were hit too). I don't take a lot a strong opinions here, but everyone can agree there is no place for vandalism. If these images get a lot of attention especially on the Republican side, I wonder if this could evolve into something like the Rick Kahn comments at Wellstone's memorial.

For those who don't remember (or weren't in MN in 2002), Norm Coleman was locked in a very tight race for the Senate seat he holds today with incumbent Paul Wellstone. Eleven days before the election, Senator Wellstone died when the plane he was taking to a debate in Duluth crashed outside of Eveleth MN. Because Senator Wellstone was so well respected by everyone in Minnesota (this staunch conservative could not contain the tears that day) the entire state went into mourning. Then on October 29, the dynamic changed. On October 29, a memorial service for Senator Wellstone turned into a partisan political rally. Sen. Wellstone's Republican colleagues, who had come to pay their respects to a man of great character, were loudly boo'd by the crowd as they arrived. It culminated in the remarks of Wellstone family friend and campaign worker Rick Kahn who urged those in attendance and watching on television to go out and "win this election for Paul". It was so out of control by then that Governor Jesse Ventura, in one of his more coherent moments said that while he at first favored appointing a Democrat to fill the remainder of Wellstone's term, he would no longer even consider a Democrat for the position after the event and instead appointed Independence Party founder Dean Barley to fill the final two months of Wellstone's term.

"I wanted to hear the sons. But Rick Kahn's, I found his so offensive to me as an Independent, or to anyone who is not necessarily going to vote for Senator Wellstone who still respects him and came to pay their respects," Ventura said. "It drove the first lady to tears."

It drove a lot of people to tears that night. That is the problem with the vitriol that is infecting our discourse today.

The electorate needs to grow up and learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. On MSR, we have a conservative, a libertarian and a liberal on the show and while we do disagree on a lot of issues, we still walk away as friends. It's time to tone down the "election rage" and remember that we are all adults and we are all in this together. We can disagree....no we expect to disagree, but that does not mean that we need to be uncivil in the process.

The Pre-Election Roller Coaster

I meant to get this up yesterday but domestic work got in the way so here it is today!

For polling data released during the week of October 19-25, 2008, the partisan weighting targets will be 39.7% Democratic, 33.0% Republican, and 27.3% unaffiliated. For the preceding week, the partisan weighting targets were 39.3% Democratic, 33.0% Republican, and 27.7% unaffiliated.

You have to read the whole thing to understand where they are getting their numbers, but it confirms a lot of what I wrote last Wednesday. However, as I also said last week, these numbers do not take into account the large number of Republicans and Independents who re-registered as Democrats this year in order to take part in the Democrats primaries nor does it take into account the smaller number of Democrats and Independents who registered early on as Republicans to vote in the early Republican primaries.

While Rasmussen does not necessarily take this into account, they do (in a different article) talk about the reasons for the wide array of results in the multitude of polls out there.

At the core of this flap is a polling industry disagreement about the best way to deal with partisan identification in constructing a poll. Just about everyone agrees that party identification is one of the strongest indicators as to how a person will vote. A Republican is overwhelmingly likely to vote for a GOP candidate and a Democrat is overwhelmingly likely to do the opposite.

However, the challenge lies in finding the “right” mix of Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters. Some pollsters, including many academic and media pollsters, argue that partisan identification is fluid and changes frequently. This approach suggests that whatever partisan mix falls out from the results of a random sample is the “right” answer. In the case of the recent L.A. Times poll, this mix was 39% Democrats and 22% Republicans.

Polls that use this approach tend to produce a more volatile set of results (during Election 2004, one national firm reported results days apart that showed more than a ten-point swing in voter preference).

Others, including most political polling firms and Rasmussen Reports, argue that people rarely change their partisan affiliation (how many people do you know who consider themselves a Republican one day and a Democrat the next?)...

Under normal circumstances, that is a very valid question, but (as we all know) 2008 has been a far from normal year. This election has been a "long strange trip" and it will probably get stranger as we get closer to election day. However, it behooves us all to remember that the polls will only give us a small glimpse of the overall picture. While this glimpse leads us to suspect an overall royal blue picture, it could be that the overall picture is redder (in all the "right" places) than the polls think and that could cause their results to be off badly.

The bottom line is don't take it as a fore gone conclusion - this race is still wide open and with two weeks left (and if Senator Biden is still on the campaign trail) anything could and probably will happen.

Buyer Beware (Or Read The Fine Print)

We are almost to the silly end of this very silly election season. That's right folks - the endorsements are coming fast and furious. The one that seems to be generating the most local buzz (besides the SLTrib endorsements) is probably the Esquire endorsement.

Esquire endorsed candidates in every federal race nationwide - even Utah. The winners of the coveted backing: Rep. Rob Bishop, Rep. Jim Matheson and 3rd District challenger Bennion Spencer. And, in Utah's biggest state contest, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.

The SLTrib goes out of it's way to make sure that they mention the flaky Citizens Against Government Waste endorsement of Chris Cannon (instead of Jason Chaffetz who is on the ballot and not Cannon) for the 3rd CD race.

Citizens Against Government Waste, an aggressive watchdog group that fights against increased government spending and earmarks, has a crush on Rep. Chris Cannon.
So much so that the group's political-action committee last week formally endorsed Cannon in the 3rd District race, calling him "a true fiscal conservative" and saying he would "work for the best interest of citizens in the 3rd District in Utah and for taxpayers nationwide."
Only one problem: Cannon won't be on the ballot.
The incumbent lost in a primary months ago to Republican Jason Chaffetz. Apparently Citizens Against Government Waste didn't get the memo.

What the didn't mention is the endorsement that Jason Chaffetz received from the National Federation of Independent Business.

The National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's leading small business association, has endorsed Jason Chaffetz for the open seat in Utah's 3rd Congressional District.

The endorsement comes from NFIB's Save America's Free Enterprise (SAFE) Trust, the organization's political action committee, and is based on evaluations of the candidates' views on legislative issues affecting small business.

"Jason Chaffetz is the proven pro-small business candidate in this race," said Lisa Goeas, NFIB's vice president, political. "A small business owner himself, Chaffetz is well-versed on the issues facing our members. In addition, his policy positions have indicated his support of many of NFIB's priority issues including healthcare and tax reform, as well as opposing labor initiatives such as card check that would hamper an entrepreneur's ability to run a business without union interference."

Of course there is no bias here. I'm sure that the NFIB endorsement - an endorsement that probably means more to more 3rd district voters than the Esquire endorsement does - was just an oversight on the SLTribs part. Right?????

To be fair, the SLTrib's Culture Vulture blog asked the most pressing question of the week. What are endorsements really worth?

But will the Tribune's endorsement move Utah from the red column to the blue? Will it have any more effect on Utah voters than the number of lawn signs each candidate has (Obama is well ahead in that count in Utah) or how many 7-Eleven coffee cups were sold with each candidates' names on them (Obama came out ahead there, too)?

Which brings me to this....regardless of who you are voting for this November, do your OWN research. Don't rely on what the paper says alone or what your friends and neighbors say......look at the records (where there are records) and look at how the candidate lives their life. If they are honest and truthful about their controversial friends, they will be honest and truthful when the get to the state or national capital. If they have a 30 year track record of supporting (or not supporting) a certain issue well then you can be sure that they are not going to vote the opposite way just because someone takes them out to lunch. Don't listen to what everyone else say - do your own due diligence and decide for yourself. Take things like endorsements into account, but make sure you take them ALL into account before you decide - not just the ones that the SLTrib decides to report on.

Kindred Spirits

I found some kindred spirits - at least when it comes to critically looking at polls and polling data. The fine folks at HillBuzz have a post up that takes a critical look at the CBS/NYTimes poll that trumpeted a 14% lead for Senator Obama. Once the critical look was taken well....I let the author speak for herself.

Hidden at the very end of the polling data, past all the questions, is the statistical breakdown of the polling sample they used to construct this poll.

Remember what we have told you before, based on 20 years of polling: Democrats have never enjoyed more than a 4 point party ID advantage. In 2006, party breakdown was 37% Democrat, 34% Republican, and 26% Independent. In 2004, it was 37% Democrat, 37% Republican, and 26% Independent. We believe party ID this year will be 39% Democrat, 35% Republican, and 26% Independent — once more returning Democrats to a 4 point party ID advantage.

The CBS/NYT poll uses a party ID sample of: 37% Democrat, 29% Republican, and 33% Independent.

Don't take our word for it. Go out to the PDF of the CSB press release that was sent out announcing the poll. In it you will find...

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1070 adults nationwide, including 972 registered voters, interviewed by telephone October 10-13, 2008.

Polls of "registered voters" are not as accurate as polls where the sample includes "likely voters", just take a look at your states voter turn out every election.

When the break down the questions and answers, the poll bounces answers back and forth between "registered" and "likely" voters but it never really tells you how they made that determination...at least not until you get down to the very last sentence on page twenty where they say...

*Every registered voter is included in the likely voter model, and is assigned a probability of voting, which is used to calculate the likely voter results. The sum of these probabilities is the effective number of likely voters.

It is a known fact that every registered voter is NOT a likely voter. Just take a look at voter turn out from every election from every state going back to the time when records of this kind were first compiled!

This is why I say the Hillbuzz ladies (and I assume a gent or two) are kindred spirits. In another post they reproduce this list of 20 questions that every journalist (and consumer of journalism) should ask from National Center for Public Polling. They also take it a step further and they show how a skewed poll can really distort reality.

Here are two charts: the first one shows the biased poll that shortchanges Republican party ID, and the second poll shows a more realistic party ID breakdown — note the difference: an 11-point Obama lead shrinks down to just 4-points when correct party ID breakdown is used.

As I said the other day - there could be a good reason that the pollsters are oversampling thanks to our new friends at ACORN. However, we don't know this for certain. If the sampling is being skewed due to the increased Democrat registration and it appears that pool of registrants are tainted, watch the polling and the methodology tighten up in the coming 10 days.

All I can say is the next 20 days are going to be fun to watch.

Silverio Salazar

My radio partner Jazz Shaw scored a major interview over the weekend...Silverio "Silver" Salazar - Democrat activist, related to Ken and John Salazar (Senator and Representative respectively) of Colorado and John McCain supporter.

JAZZ SHAW: I see from a previous interview that you haven’t actually left the Democratic Party. Do you view the party today as still being mostly in line with your basic political ideology, or is it moving further away? Or are your views perhaps changing over the years?

SILVERIO SALAZAR: I’m glad you asked me that. When asked why I’m still a Democrat, I tell people that I haven’t left the Democratic Party and I’m not leaving it. The Democratic Party is leaving me. Some of our local legislators – and the Democrats are in control of both the state house and senate - have done things which are not in the JFK and FDR mold of Democrats.

Go read the whole thing and let me know your thoughts.

Out of Touch Again

The headline says it all "Candidate does not know how many houses he owns". Only the headline is not from 2008. It's from 2004! In the last two days, Senator Barack Obama has tried to make hay over a remark by Senator John McCain where he said that he didn't know how many homes that he and his wife owned. Sen. Joe Biden even quipped today that Sen. McCain needs to "figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at". The problem with this is that when Republicans raised the charge about then nominee John Kerry in 2004.....

The aggregate value of these five homes is roughly$29 million, but the claim that John Kerry "owns" all of these properties is problematic. John and Teresa Kerry signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate.

Hmmmm.....now where have I heard that before???? Oh yeah that's where...

When I did a story about John McCain's release of his tax returns a few weeks ago, I somehow missed out on the glaring fact that Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain has a prenuptial agreement with second wife Cindy McCain. Well, at least she let him keep his maiden name.

So let's see just who owns those homes...the condo in Arlington, the Phoenix high rise and two of the four properties near Sedona are all owned by the Cindy Hensley McCain Family Trust. The 2nd Phoenix high rise condo and the Phoenix duplex...all owned by the Wild River Rental LLC. The two condos in Coronado CA are owned by the Dream Catcher Family Trust LLC. The other two Sedona properties (a house and a vacant property) are owned by the Sedona Hidden Valley LP. The condo in La Jolla CA is owned by the Margurite Hensley Survivors Trust. Eleven total properties and not one of them has John McCain's name on it. All are owned by either a business trust or by his wife - just the same as John and Teresa Kerry.

So before any of you Democrats decide to cast stones remember this. Four years ago, you defended John Kerry when he was faced with the same accusations. Do you really want to go down this particular road?

VeepStakes

Taking a look at the RNC Speakers schedule I have to honestly say that it appears highly doubtful that Governors Palin, Jindal or Pawlenty, Sen. Lieberman or former Governors Romney, Ridge or Huckabee will get the VP nod as they are already scheduled to speak at other times during the convention. So who does this leave us?

Rep. Eric Cantor of VA. Pro he could bring Virginia back into the red - especially if blue collar Democrats in VA stay home (as suggested yesterday). Another pro is that the DNC already has an attack site up dedicated to him which means they fear him just a bit. However, if all they can come up with is "he's Jewish you know..." they are really stretching their already thin credibility. I mean how many "next Cheney"s are out there?

Another name I have heard bandied about is former Michigan Governor John Engel. That could certainly help keep Ohio in the fold and flip Michigan to the red column. It could help him in parts of Pennsylvania.

Speaking of Ohio another name mentioned is former Ohio Congressman John Kasich. Kasich is young enough to be tapped as the "heir apparent", conservative enough to make the base happy as clams and because of his roots could keep Ohio and possibly flip Pennsylvania.

Obviously we are in prime dark horse territory here. As the speculation heats up it will be interesting to see what other dark horse names pop up here.

Losing Ground Part 2

I have been talking about some of the things that have pointed toward vulnerability in the Obama campaign and their effects on the polls. The latest has been the Russia/Georgia conflict.

War doesn't change anything? Wish it were true - but war has been humankind's preferred means of effecting change.

We're all - right and left - getting an in-your-face lesson about how the world really works. Passive resistance only has a chance when your opponent believes in the rule of law and respect for human rights. Gandhi was effective against law-abiding Britain, but he would've frozen to death in the Soviet gulag - if he'd lived long enough to reach the camps.

I'd love it if we lived in a world where war truly didn't work. But war does work. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue other means of resolving international crises - but effective idealism has to be grounded in a practical grasp of present reality.

To make the world a better place, we have to begin with a clear-eyed assessment of what kind of place the world is.

Putin just showed us what stirring words about democracy and freedom are worth in the face of tanks and combat aircraft. The Georgians had the noble ideas and lofty dreams; the Russians had the troops and ammunition. Guess who won?

Today, Reuters/Zogby released their new poll and IF it is to be believed, the American voters have taken this "in your face" lesson to heart.

As Russian tanks rolled into the Republic of Georgia and the presidential candidates met over the weekend in the first joint issues forum of the fall campaign, the latest polling includes drama almost as compelling - Republican John McCain has taken a five-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama in the race for President, the latest Reuters/Zogby telephone survey shows.

McCain leads Obama by a 46% to 41% margin.

While the methodology appears to be valid, I still have my doubts about John Zogby and his polling methods. Zogby has had a horrible track record of late - missing the mark in the 2000 and 2004 elections badly. However the raw numbers, when taken with the context of the Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, USAToday and other polls (and the RCP average that I posted on last night) seem to back up the contention that Senator Obama's campaign is in real trouble heading into the convention. Take this data for example:

Obama Support July August Difference
Democrats 83% 79% -9%
Women 50% 42% -8%
Catholics 47% 36% -11%
Under 35 59% 47% -12%
College Grads 51% 40% -11%
Live In Cities 54% 43% -11%
Income < $50k 53% 46% -7%
Southerners 46% 35% -11%

The double digit loss of support among key Democratic demographics (Women, Under 35, Collete grads) should be the most troubling trend for the Obama campaign as these are the core of the "new voters" that Senator Obama is staking his campaign on. His support among Souther voters is also troubling, especially as word of his vote on the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act starts to get around.

What should really trouble the DNC is the fact that their guy is going into his convention in a statistical tie with a candidate who the pundits said early on had no shot...especially when you consider that prior to Obama's grand European tour he held an easy double digit lead.

One has to wonder if the super delegates are suddenly reconsidering the wisdom of throwing their support behind Senator Obama as early as they did. Is that the phone I hear ringing? Senator Clinton on line 1!

Losing Ground?

Yesterday's WaPo did a long piece about how the Obama campaign is registering new voters and how that is key to their campaign in Virginia.

Virginia has added nearly a quarter-million registered voters since the 2004 elections, and about half of that growth came from increasingly Democratic Northern Virginia.

With Virginia a battleground state in the presidential race for the first time in 44 years, the additional voters have the potential to alter long-standing electoral patterns in some historically Republican counties while reinforcing the Democratic tilt of others.

According to a review of registration statistics from Nov. 1, 2004, through Aug. 1 of this year, Virginia has 235,976 more registered voters than it did in 2004, when President Bush carried the state by 262,000 votes.

Democrats say the newly registered voters are fueling the Democratic resurgence in the state, including the election of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine in 2005 and U.S. Sen. James Webb in 2006.

While I am not one to complain about new voters, I think getting these new voters are a fantastic thing. However, new voters are not always the most reliable voters as many campaigns have found out. The reliable voters are the ones who have worked their behinds off for the party, year in and year out. These voters come from all walks of life and from cities and rural areas and some of those reliable voters are not happy with the way the Democrat's nominee is handling the campaign.

The sea of shining, hope-filled faces that routinely flood Barack Obama's rallies would be an alien environment for the grizzled features and tobacco-stained temperament of Dave “Mudcat” Saunders.

His preferred habitat is up a tree gunning down deer or on the mud flats — which lent him their name — catching catfish, part of an endless struggle with Appalachian wildlife.

Along with his Confederate flag bedspread, the stag heads on his walls, his preference for profanity over punctuation, he would horrify what he calls the “northeastern elitist, Metropolitan Opera wing of the Democrats”.

But, as one of the party's few (some say only) rural strategists, this might just be part of Mr Obama's problem.

“The Democrats talk of tolerance, but in reality the only tolerance they ever exhibit is for their own intellectual arrogance — and they don't have tolerance for my culture,” says Mudcat. “They think we're a bunch of hillbilly heathens who go out and burn crosses and do crazy bullshit.

Emphasis mine. Notice how we (again) had to go to London to find this story? While I certainly don't agree with all of Mudcat's analysis, he offers a lot of wisdom that anyone would be foolish to ignore.

Although Mr Obama won Virginia and has since identified it as a prime target in November's general election, Mudcat cautions that Democrats cannot rely on urban liberals and African Americans in the north of the state.

He describes his hometown of Roanoke as “a trading post, like Tombstone”, belonging to a different culture west of the Blue Ridge mountains of which Mr Obama has no more understanding than Al Gore and John Kerry before him — who lost the rural vote by 16 and 19 per cent respectively.

Senator Obama lost blue collar voters (in the primary) to Hillary Clinton in every state. Mudcat has a record of being on the winning side of Democratic campaigns in Virginia so he knows his state and has a real feel for what is going on there. His thoughts...

He is scathing about the reliance on registering new voters. “If that's how he runs his campaign, he is going to lose. I'd rather bet on those who voted before. When he stands up and says that I'm gonna get 30 per cent more black voters — I'm gonna get 30 per cent more of my people to turn out for me — what is Joe Six-Pack thinking?”

Mudcat suggests that John McCain could win Michigan while holding Ohio and Florida. And, unless Mr Obama changes course, “he ain't gonna win Virgina either”.

Maybe Mudcat is right. If the LATimes/Bloomberg poll is any indication, the bad news is starting to hit Team Obama.

When last we had a L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll to peruse, the result that stood out (aside from Barack Obama's 12-percentage point lead over John McCain in a head-to-head match-up) was what we termed the "passion gap" -- a marked difference in enthusiasm levels that favored the Democrat in the June survey.

The new, just-released poll not only shows the race between the two dramatically tightening -- into a virtual dead heat, with Obama leading in the head-to-head by only 2 percentage points -- but it also identifies a distinct McCain asset: a huge advantage on the question of experience.

Now this is a poll of registered voters (versus likely voters) but the registered voter polls tend to favor Democrats. Also, the LAT/Bloomberg polls traditionally over sample Democrats in their polls. Knowing this, it makes the results all the more telling.

The Obama campaign should be up by 10 points or more. All the indicators say this and yet poll after poll after poll after poll has the race within the margin of error. The campaign is Obama's to lose and it sure looks like he is trying his hardest to do so. If he does not come out of his convention with more than a 6 point bump, it's pretty much all over but the crying.

UPDATE: The RCP state poll update is out and it has even more bad news for Obama. The updated Electoral map shows John McCain with 274 electoral votes and Barack Obama with 264.

Just Another Politian....

During the lead up to the nominations, I talked to many first time voters who were firmly in the Obama camp. When I asked why all they could say is that it was because he was "different" from the rest of the politicians. I tried and tried to explain to them this was a man who rose through the ranks in Chicago where nasty politics is more than normal - it is an art form...an art form that Senator Obama mastered! As the campaign has worn on the campaign (and the candidate) started to show their true colors. Today we find yet another disillusioned Obama supporter run over by the "politics of hope and change".

A few days ago I received a letter from Barack Obama, pleading that I "rush a generous contribution" to him. I placed the return envelope in my checkbook.

The same evening I got a call from his campaign asking me to door-knock on the weekend. I already had plans but I agreed to future weekends.

Then I requested a lawn sign. The volunteer informed me that I could buy one at campaign headquarters.

Buy one? Purchased in bulk, a two-color lawn sign might cost the Obama campaign $1. I checked the Obama '08 Web site. They offer the budget-conscious supporter a generic 26-by-16-inch sign for $8. For those Obamites into conspicuous consumption, the site advertises a variety of 22-by-15-inch designer signs for $19.99. If this were an oil company, the Democrats would be accusing it of price gouging. As Kurt Vonnegut put it, "So it goes."

The author, a sociology and social professor at Metropolitan State University, did what I probably would have done...he made a few calls. What he found out disillusioned him even more.

I called the Obama '08 Minnesota office for clarification. Media spokesperson Nick Kimball told me it is "generally a policy of the campaign nationally to charge a nominal fee for lawn signs." "An occasional exception might be made for an outstanding volunteer," he added. Kimball later called back to report that "if someone balks at paying for a lawn sign and really wants one, we'll work something out."

Gee, I guess I didn't protest enough.

I contacted Obama's national headquarters and was told that charging for lawn signs compensates for the income lost when Obama rejected contributions from PACs and lobbyists.

Here's what they failed to mention — any revenue lost from those special interests is more than offset by the cash windfall the campaign is accruing from having opted out of public financing.

What's wrong with this picture? For a campaign that purports to be a movement, this mercenary marketing strategy is not only hypocritical but also counterproductive. Lawn signs should be an investment, not a revenue stream. Lawn signs are a biennial ritual for partisans and party activists.

Now I have never paid for lawn signs, bumper stickers or campaign buttons in the past. Especially not when I am an active volunteer for the campaign.

So what did Professor Bute learn from his experience.....

So I have learned that even heartfelt allegiances are conditional.

I will write no check nor will I knock on any door until the person answering that door can get a free lawn sign. I urge Obama supporters of conscience to do the same.

I recently spent countless hours writing an op-ed article favorable to Barack Obama. It was a labor of love and a proud contribution to his candidacy. I now realize I was a fool not to have billed my hours to Obama '08.

I will say this again, Senator Barack Obama is not what he is billed. He is NOT the post partisan candidate that he says he is. He is nothing more than a Chicago politician who is more concerned about raising the almighty dollar than anything else.

Welcome To The NFL Kid

Jazz and I talked about this story this morning on our BTR show because the story was just breaking. (HT Ed Morrissey)

The Obama campaign is denying House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel a speaking role at this month’s Democratic National Convention — a move those close to the powerhouse Harlem congressman view as a spiteful snub.

Rangel surrogates approached Obama staffers this week about the possibility of securing him a slot at the podium, making the case that it would showcase reconciliation between the nominee and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s African-American supporters.

But they were told that the 78-year-old congressman’s support for Clinton earned him a place at the end of the line behind Barack Obama’s loyalists — even if Rangel played a crucial part in prodding Clinton to abandon her presidential bid in June.

This is Chicago Machine Politics at its best (or worst depending on which side of it you are on). This is how that party bosses bought loyalty. You support me, you get the plums - you support my opponent....There is one problem with that - a problem that has long prevented this kind of politics from ever reaching the national level.

“It’s crazy. … This man [Rangel] controls tax policy in the United States. He’s a lot bigger than just a regular member of Congress. He deserves more respect than this,” said a Rangel confidant. “Basically they have told us they can’t help us, that there are too many Obama supporters ahead of Charlie on the line.”

You see as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Rangel decides the schedule. If you want a potential fiscal bill to appear before his committee (and not get tied up in bureaucratic minutia) you have to play nice with Rep. Rangel! Should Senator Obama become President, all tax bills have to get Rangel's blessing in order to come into committee, much less get out of it. If President Obama wants to get anything done through W&M, he has to make nice with Rep. Rangel. If Senator Obama loses, Rep. Rangel has enough pull in the party and in DC to make sure that the junior Senator from Illinois sees all of the crap committee assignments. If he ever wants to get out of these bad assignments he will have to make nice with Rep. Rangel. Either way, Senator Obama will have to come to Charlie Rangel, hat in hand, and publicly apologize for this very public snub.

As Jazz mentioned during the show today, there was one prime opportunity during the convention that they could have given to Rangel....one that would have soothed the ruffled feathers of Senator Clinton's supporters - introducing former President Clinton when he speaks to the convention. Giving Hillary's two most public supporters a prime time speaking opportunity at the convention would have shown to her delegates that Senator Obama was serious about respecting their opinions while still bringing them into the fold and back in time for the hard campaign that lies ahead. That would have been a prime opportunity to bring peace to the party.

The fact that the Obama campaign chose not to take this opportunity leaves people asking "is he that dumb or that arrogant?" Again, given how this is "normal" for Illinois politics, I suspect it is more a naivety - an ignorance that it is just not a good tactical move to do something this overt on a national level and that could be problematic to Senator Obama, regardless of how this election unfolds.

No Such Thing As A Free Obama Rally Ticket

Submitted for your review.

DENVER -- The Obama campaign has begyn notifying people who got tickets for the big acceptance speech at Invesco Field the final night of the convention.Many of those who received tickets told 7NEWS they have come with a caveat.Those viewers said the campaign told them they must volunteer six hours for the campaign by Friday in order to get a ticket.

"I got a call that if I want the tickets I have to volunteer two shifts of three hours apiece -- for one ticket. If I want two tickets, then it's four shifts of two hours apiece," said Berenice Christensen.Another 7NEWS viewer sent an e-mail that said, "I received a call Monday saying I could 'qualify' for the tickets if I do 12 hours of volunteer work for the Obama campaign between now and Friday the 15th."The viewer e-mail goes on, "To work 40 hours at my job, get to and from work, get to and from the campaign office and complete the 12 hours in three days would be next to impossible."

A Breckenridge resident e-mail 7NEWS with a similar experience:"My experience matches what you are hearing from other sources. Because of my work schedule and other activities going on, I did not sign up for the All Star tickets. But I was called by the campaign and told that I had to volunteer this week in order to get tickets at all. I finally agreed to one three-hour shift, but it left a bad impression for this lifelong Democrat. I hope someone in the campaign understands that they are turning off volunteers with their aggressive and disorganized approach," the Breckenridge resident wrote.Susan M. Martinez, from Boulder, Colo., wrote us to say, "There is no way I can volunteer between now and Friday (if that is the timeframe). I think I entered my name for consideration early. I entered my name within 5 minutes of the 'Breaking News' message appearing in my e-mail from TheDenverChannel. I just might wait to see if "community creditionals" really exist."

I wonder if the Obama Campaign made similar demands of the thousands of Germans who came to see him speak at the Tiergarten?

The Obama campaign insists that volunteering is not a requirement to get a ticket.

They can insist all they want, but when the people who signed up for tickets are singing a different tune, one has to wonder what the campaign was thinking. Are they really that desperate for volunteers and if they are, what does that tell you about the real state of Obama mania?

Monday Night Ponderings

We've chatted before about some of the problems plaguing the Obama campaign. The Politico today has a column that takes the discussion one step further.

A few weeks back, Time magazine was musing that John McCain was in danger of sliding from “a long shot” to a “no-shot.” Around the same time, a hard-nosed former Hillary Clinton insider declared the race “effectively over” thanks to the McCain campaign’s ineptitude, the tanking U.S. economy and Obama’s advantages in cash, charisma and hope. And Obama, up by three to six points nationally, was about to leverage a much-anticipated trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe into a pre-convention poll surge.

Instead, his supporters are now suffering a pre-Denver panic attack, watching as John McCain draws incrementally closer in state and national polls – with Rasmussen’s most recent daily national tracker showing a statistical dead heat.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has been privately enumerating her doubts about Obama to supporters, according to people who have spoken with her. Clinton’s pollster Mark Penn recently unveiled a PowerPoint presentation red-flagging Obama’s lukewarm leads among white female voters and Hispanics – while predicting a five-point swing could turn a presumed Obama win into a McCain landslide.

“It’s not that people think McCain will win – it’s that they are realizing that McCain could win,” says Quinnipiac University pollster Peter Brown, whose surveys show tight races in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. “This election is about Barack Obama — not John McCain — it's about whether Barack Obama passes muster. Every poll shows that people want a Democratic president, the problem is they’re not sure they want Barack Obama.”

Emphasis mine. The Rasmussen Daily tracking poll has Senator Obama back up be a slim 2% - well within the margin of error.

Obama’s aides point to the stability of his small national lead, say they aren’t worried about his summer stall and think his numbers will improve when voters begin tuning in to the conventions.

They have a great point. The average voter does not even start paying attention to campaigns until after Labor Day, so I expect things to change once the 2 conventions are in the history books. That said, here are the abbreviated 7 worrisome signs.

1. Race...How much does his race factor into tightening contests in Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota and Ohio? Nobody knows — and that’s the problem.

A huge challenge for Obama, insiders say, is simply determining how much skin color will matter in November. Race is nearly impossible to poll — no one ever says “I’m a racist” — and no campaign wants it revealed they are even asking questions on the issue.

2. Obama’s strength in Virginia may be overhyped. His chances of ending the Democrats 44-year losing streak in the commonwealth are pretty good — thanks to the explosive growth of the liberal D.C. suburbs, and a 147,000 spike in voter registration sure to benefit Democrats. But Obama’s aides privately concede his odds in Virginia are probably no better than 50-50 and that the state is far from a lock-solid hedge if he loses Ohio and Florida.

3. Michigan’s in play for McCain....Simmering tensions between predominantly black Detroit and its white suburbs could hurt Obama. And McCain’s surrogates were handed a gift in the jailing of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, an Obama supporter.

4. Bad times could be good for McCain. If anger helps Democrats, fear works to the advantage of Republicans.

. Where have you gone, Ross Perot? Bill Clinton, the lone two-term Democratic president since FDR, wouldn’t have been elected if independent Ross Perot hadn’t siphoned 19 percent of the vote in 1992. Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, staging an indie bid from McCain’s right, has little cash and doesn’t seem to be a factor in competitive states.

6. The Legacy of LBJ, Jimmy and Bubba. Barack Obama would have been a trailblazer no matter what —but the Democrats’ trail to the White House has been remarkably narrow since 1960, accommodating only Southern whites with border-state strength: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. (Add Al Gore if you’re counting the popular vote.)

7. Americans may want divided government. Some Democratic operatives think a possible landslide for their party in congressional races could backfire on Obama.

I'm not sure that I agree with everything he lists. I think the economy is going to be a huge issue, but is it because of fear - or anger that the Democrats in control of the House and the Senate have done nothing in the two years they have been in charge. I do agree with point #7. Americans seem to like things better when the White House and Congress are controlled by different parties.

Which leads to a couple of questions.....are the Democrats willing to lose the Legislature in order to win the White House? Or will they lose the White House and keep the Legislature? Fun things to speculate while we wait for the conventions to roll around.

Notable Quotables

So I got an email a little while ago from the Logical Husband. He asked me to research a quote that he had seen attributed to former President Theodore Roosevelt.

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Well I found the quote in question and it is indeed accurate and accurately attributed. This quote certainly can and should be borne in mind when discussing the current immigration debate. He is also quoted as saying...

Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.

Again not unwise advise coming from the 26th President. However, the quotes that really struck me apply greatly to the current campaign for President.

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.
-Theodore Roosevelt, Before Knights of Columbus, New York City, October 12, 1915

and

I am among those Americans whose ancestors include men and women from many different European countries. The proportion of Americans of this type will steadily increase. I do not believe in hyphenated Americans. I do not believe in German-Americans or Irish-Americans; and I believe just as little in English-Americans. I do not approve of American citizens of German descent forming organizations to force the United States into practical alliance with Germany because their ancestors came from Germany. Just as little do I believe in American citizens of English descent forming leagues to force the United States into an alliance with England because their ancestors came from England.
-Theodore Roosevelt, "Metropolitan", October, 1915

Emphasis mine. These two quotes apply to both the immigration debate and to the debate on the politics of identity. I am a woman, yes...a woman of hispanic decent...but first and foremost I am an AMERICAN CITIZEN. We should all remember that we are Americans first and what ever subgroup we choose to identify with second. Instead of talking about the things that tear us apart (race, religion, ethnicity) how about we talk about the issues?

Pennsylvania Presidential Ponderings

So Senator Clinton did it...she pulled off another "must win" and is again back in the hunt...so much so that it has caused one writer to delve into the process and opine on "Why Hillary Clinton Should Be Winning."

The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a
frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a
transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama's narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party's rank and file. If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.
These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a
state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the
Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections,
Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

While there are certainly a number of peculiarities (peculiarities that Sen. Obama seems to be very happy with - as long as they help his campaign) within the Democrats process that do deserve to be roundly derided, it does lead to a more serious question...why can't Barack Obama close this out? Let's take a look at their reasons...one at a time.

RACE: The jury is still out on whether a black man can overcome America's original sin and be elected president.
About one in five Pennsylvania voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in deciding how to vote, according to exit polls, and white voters who cited race supported Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.
Results from all the primaries suggest that whites who said race was important in picking their candidate have been about twice as likely to back Clinton as Obama.

I think this can put to rest the meme that the Democrats are a "color blind" party.

WORKING-CLASS VOTERS: Obama can't win the presidency unless he starts onnecting better with blue-collar voters.
The New York senator easily won among Pennsylvania voters without college degrees and those from families earning less than $50,000 a year. Gun owners, rural voters and churchgoing Democrats also backed Clinton.
These are the folks who Obama said "cling to" guns and God, an inelegant attempt to explain to San Francisco liberals how GOP operatives exploit Democratic voters in anxious economic times. He bowled (poorly) and drank beer in a feeble attempt to show a blue-collar touch.

No doubt about it....the San Francisco fundraiser hurt the Obama campaign more than he or his staff will ever admit. If he does still manage to pull off the Democratic nomination, this comment will come back to haunt him in the General Election.

FRIENDS IN TROUBLE: The longer the campaign goes, the more questions Obama aces about his friends and associates.
He was forced onto the defensive by incendiary comments by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko faces corruption charges. And McCain is raising questions about Obama's relationship with former 1960s radical William Ayers, who has been quoted in an interview as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs" decades ago.

This is something else that is hurting Senator Obama more than he cares to admit. He has surrounded himself with people who are - to put it nicely....an embarrassment.

INEXPERIENCE: It's true that Clinton has never run a government or a business, but many voters give her credit for proximity. They consider her experience as first lady preparation for the presidency.
By any measure, Obama is relatively inexperienced, having left the Illinois Legislature less than four years ago.

Senator Clinton has almost 8 years of Senatorial experience under her belt - compared to Senator Obama's 3. Does that really need any further discussion?

METTLE: Clinton's backers love the fact that she fought Republicans — not to mention the "right-wing conspiracy" — during her husband's presidency. Many Democrats wonder whether Obama is tough enough, a charge that he should be putting to rest in this brass-knuckle nominating contest. But he hasn't.

As we have seen in the last 10 days, Senator Obama has bought into the "Obamassiah" meme - hook, line and sinker. His sense of "predestination" has been a decided detriment as he just does not have the thick skin needed to trade punches with the Clinton's AND the national media. Maybe if he had stayed around Illinois state politics a little longer and mixed it up with Mayor Daley a little more often, he might have developed a thicker skin. As it is, many have already opined that if Sen. Obama can not handle the give and take of a national campaign, what will he do when he is faced with a hostile Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

While the partisan in me is quietly cheering the mayhem that the Democrats nominating process has become, the patriot in me is wishing that there was another option. We need to have a real discussion on the issues that are facing America today - we have real issues that need to be addressed. However, since the cult of personality has taken control, we will never see the discussion that most Americans need and crave.

Questions, Questions...

While I was busy painting and planting and generally getting ready for this week-end's open house, I was paying attention to the news out of Pennsylvania. One comment from Barak Obama that struck me was a remark he made in response to the uproar over his remarks at the San Francisco fundraiser where he said that mid-staters "cling" to guns and religion and are bigots because they are bitter. His comment was how people would take one poorly worded comment...one that was not "properly phrased" and use it to continually "beat" the candidate "to death" over it. I found that comment to be entertaining (to say the least) considering how Senator Obama did the very same thing he is complaining about (beating an opponent over the head with an out of context comment) to both Senator Clinton and McCain! Yet he claims to be a "different" less divisive candidate?

Another story that came up last week was Senator Obama's ties to former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers. About the time that story was really gaining traction (on the internet) I was on a field trip with the Junior Logicians class to the Minnesota History Museum. They are hosting a travelling exhibit "The Enemy Within:Terror In America 1776 to today". A large portion of the exhibit was dedicated to the Weather Underground and their activities. It was a vivid reminder of a period of my youth that I had forgotten (the Weather Underground had a base of operations in the Chicago area).

Which leads us to today.....Logical Lady Carol Platt Liebau asks a very pertinent question over at Townhall.com today.

For those on the left who would like to characterize these ties as no big deal, a thought experiment might be in order. What if Eric Rudolph, the unrepentant bomber of abortion clinics, someday ended up "moving in some of the same political and social circles" as a Republican presidential candidate, donated to him, and introduced him at a political event at Rudolph's home? Would it matter -- or would it be just an unimportant as they're trying to convince us the Ayers-Obama association is?

Would it matter? I think we all know the answer to that...