Is it possible that Barack Obama and the liberal media could cause him the election?

There has been a definite change in the way Obama is approaching the election. He is acting as if he has won already. He’s starting to work on a transition team and post election plans (story here), he’s planning a party in Chicago for the night that he wins, and he’s even backing off on some states that may be closer than polls show.

The media is taking the same approach. The story line is that Obama’s election is inevitable. The stories about McCain are that he is so far behind now that he could never possibly catch up, short a miracle. The polls showing Obama with almost unbelievable leads are reported on and the polls showing him close are ignored. One poll in particular, the IBD/TIPP poll, shows Obama up 1.1%. This lead is down from 3.6 points from yesterday. What is significant about this poll? It was the most accurate poll in the 2004 election, off by 0.4%.

So, back to the original question, could this hurt Obama’s chance of winning?

Democrats have traditionally been fickle voters. Could we have a sense among Obama’s voters that the election is in the bag and their vote is not needed? Obviously we won’t know until November 5th but it is not an impossible scenario.

For the record, I am not hoping for low voter turnout, I do want people to get out and vote. The point is, maybe he needs to stop acting like he’s the president and start acting like he will lose everything if people don’t get out and vote. If he doesn’t, he just might lose everything.

As I have said previously I am not an economist. This is a blessing I am incredibly thankful for. So for people smarter than me reading this, cut my ignorance a little slack. My concern today is the Barack Obama economic plan, at least as I understand it.

First we have the “tax cut” in which Obama plans to take money from people in the top tax bracket and re-distribute it to the 95% below them. A fair portion of this tax cut will go to the large portion of wage earners who don’t pay taxes. This is one those circumstances in which my ignorance hangs me up. I simply cannot understand how you can give a tax cut to someone who does not pay taxes. In short, the plan is to increase the top income tax rate and increase capital gains taxes. But then he’s such a cool guy, who am I to question this?

Then we have increased spending. Oops I’m sorry, I forgot that we call it “investing in America” now. It’s so hard to keep up with all of these euphemisms. I guess if he’s elected I’ll have to see if there’s a book or something. From what I’ve heard, Obama intends to “invest” in socialized health care, clean energy, global warming, housing, foreign aid, among others. Not sure where he’s going to get the money, with a personality like his you don’t have to answer such pedestrian questions.

He’s going to tax gasoline. He hasn’t specifically said it yet but I believe in my heart that he will. We have already had members of Congress push to double the national fuel tax, and this is in an election year, before the election. What will be the increase when they control Congress and the Presidency? Also, when gas prices were above $4 a gallon Obama himself said that the prices weren’t too high, they just went up too fast for people to adjust. Remember, Democrats want high gas prices so we will stop driving our SUV’s and bike to the collective farm. He will give fuel prices an additional hit with increased taxes on the industry. With his Oneness though, how could I dare ask about this? This may be a case of ‘if you have to ask, you can’t afford it’.

So, while I’m embarrassed to even question the Obamessiah, I have to wonder in this depressed economy when investors are skittish and in short supply, why are we going to:

-Take money away from the people who invest in our economy and give it to people who do not

-Punish those who do dare invest by taxing the money they have left over from their income tax that they then use to invest by making them pay increased capital gain taxes

-Take money out of the economy to spend it on foreign economies (he has proposed bail out help for foreign governments)

-Redistribute the wealth to items such as free and inefficient government-run health care, housing for people who make bad decisions, and ambiguous and likely wasteful programs such as global warming and clean energy

-Giving the economy a disastrous hit with increased fuel prices. This is an economy wide drain that does not get it’s proper respect. Increased fuel prices not only take money out of the pockets of consumers at the pump but every time we go to the store, pay our school taxes, health care costs, any services, deliveries, etc. There are very few, if any, aspects of our lives that are untouched by increased fuel costs. It is a problem that is compounded too because every step of the way through the economy are business that are not only paying higher fuel costs that they have to pass on to the consumer but also are paying higher costs from other business and services that are paying higher fuel costs which also have to be passed on to the consumer and so on and so on.

So if there is anyone out there smarter than me that can explain this, give it to me. I’m just a dumb working stiff.

People have been expressing shock at the Colin Powell endorsement of Barack Obama. We need to get past it, it’s simply not the end of the world.

In my mind there was no shock, I personally assumed all along Powell would endorse Obama. Partly due to race and partly due to politics.

Colin Powell is not a conservative, he claims to be a Republican but so do Lincoln Chafee (he endorsed Obama also), Arlen Specter, and Chuck Hagel (also endorsed Obama). In my book, Powell is barely a Rhino.

Also, although I could be wrong, I don’t think the endorsement really matters much. One of the commentators on Fox put it best today in that the endorsement says more about Powell than Obama. I think a lot of voters don’t even really know who Powell is and even fewer care about the endorsement. Keep in mind this previous blog of mine in which Obama supporters thought Sarah Palin was Obama’s running mate, he was pro-life, and advocated keeping the troops in Iraq.

Further, I don’t think he has a reputation as a conservative with voters and therefore the endorsement was not a huge surprise. I think the Joe Lieberman endorsement of McCain probably carried more weight because he has ran on the Democratic ticket. It is sad but likely true that the Ludacris endorsement probably helped Obama more than the Powell endorsement did.

Finally, I am of a mind that very few political endorsements make a big difference in a Presidential campaign. You occasionally get a blockbuster endorsement but they are far and few in between. Endorsements seem to matter more in primaries. In other words, I think a Democrat would care more if Powell endorsed Obama over Clinton than a Republican or independent cares about Powell’s endorsement of Obama over McCain.

I’m not trying to diminish Powell, he has had a career full of honorable service to the country, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for this. I also don’t want to see him demonized like the left has done to Joe Lieberman. I just don’t think the endorsement was a game changer.

It was a typical day in Wasilla, Alaska when the former Mayor and current Governor, Sarah, was whisked far far away to a strange land in a whirlwind with her pet Moose, Toto.

The whirlwind dropped her onto something hard and cold. Looking down, she realized she was sitting on a woman. At this moment, a man in strange dress (actually, a skirt of some sort) approached her and told her she landed on Hillary, the Wicked Witch of the East.

Jumping up and brushing glass shards from her clothes, Sarah exclaimed “I didn’t mean to do that, I’m not even sure where I am.”

The man giggled and exclaimed in a high pitched voice, “Let me explain. You are in the Village of Greenwich in the region of New York. Hillary has ruled this area for some time now, spending her time most recently putting 18 million cracks into the glass ceiling you just crashed through…”

His explanation was suddenly interrupted by the crash of a door flying open. Walking through the door was a severe, unpleasant looking woman.

“This is the Wicked Witch of the West, Nancy, from the village of San Francisco. She’s mean.” Whispers the man to Sarah.

“Who is this and what is going on here?” Screeched Nancy, glaring at Sarah.

Sarah, refusing to fear this woman, stood her ground and said “I am Sarah from the land of Alaska, who are you?”

Glancing again at Sarah, the Witch let out a horrifying scream when she saw her sister, Hillary lying on the ground under a pile of glass, moaning.

At this moment, Sarah and the Witch Nancy realized that Sarah was wearing a strange cloak. “What are you doing with that on?” Demanded Nancy.

Sarah looked down at the garment and said “I don’t what this is but it does seem to fit me nicely, almost if I were born to wear it.”

“That is the Mantle of Feminism, that has been worn up until now by Hillary. How dare you take that from her?” spat Nancy. At that moment they could hear the shrieks of Hillary’s Harpies from throughout the land at the notion that Sarah had appeared to take the Cloak from Hillary. The Harpies had believed that it was Hillary’s birthright to wear the Cloak and the notion of another wearing it was too much for them to bear. “Give the Cloak to me.” Demanded Nancy.

“No” said Sarah, “I think I’m going to wear it from now on.”

Nancy started towards Sarah menacingly in an apparent attempt to remove the Cloak forcibly. Just at that moment, another door crashed open and through it walked a tall, fair skinned woman. This one appeared to be much kinder than Nancy. “Cindy, the Good Witch of the Southwest.” Whispered the man in the skirt.

“Stop” commanded Cindy to Nancy “do not attempt to harm this woman.” To Sarah, Cindy said “Wear the Mantle proudly, it suits you well. Sadly though, there is danger from the Wicked Witch sisters and their Harpies if you continue to wear it. I feel you should go to the Village of Chicago to speak to the Wizard. The Wicked Witch sisters and their Harpies revere the Wizard. The word from the scribes is that he is a kind and even Messianic man, though I suspect this is not true. If you could expose him for what he is, it may keep you safe from the forces of dark.”

Sarah says to Cindy “I am new to this land, how do I get to the Village of Chicago?”

Cindy smiled kindly and said “Why, you follow the yellow brick road”.

Looking down, Sarah saw she did indeed appear to be standing on a yellow brick road.

Just then six strange men, each dressed differently, a sailor, an Indian chief, a construction worker, a policeman, a biker, and a cowboy, began to dance and sing “follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road, follow, follow, follow, follow the yellow brick road.”

Walking away quickly and nervously, Sarah and Toto indeed began to follow the yellow brick road. Sarah saying “What a strange group of people, I think it’s safe to say we’re not in Alaska anymore.”

Walking down the road a little later, Sarah came across a man standing in an apple orchard. The man was stiff and emotionless and appeared to have been waiting there for at least eight years. As Sarah joined the man, he appeared to come to life a little, though he would forever remain unexcitable. Introducing herself, Sarah found out the man’s name was John.

Sarah asked John if he would like to accompany her to the Village of Chicago to meet the Wizard. She had read in the paper that morning that the Wizard had a dynamic, rock star persona and she was thinking that if they could show that this isn’t true, it may help both of them get what they want. He agreed and off they went.

After a day and a night, they came to a large, sort of grimy village with a huge gate at it’s entrance. Upon Sarah knocking on the door, a window opened and a grumpy man peered out. “What do you want?” said the man who we come to find is named Joe.

“We’ve come to see the Wizard” exclaimed Sarah and John in unison.

“Impossible” growled the man, “the Wizard is too busy and important to be bothered by common people”

“We’ve been sent by Cindy, the Good Witch of the Southwest” stated Sarah, “I have the Mantle of Feminism.”

After approximately an hour and a half debate in which Joe gave several (14 actually) questionable reasons as to why they couldn’t enter, Joe relented and opened the door.

Upon entering the city, Sarah and John were a little taken aback at the apparent decay and corruption they saw about them. These thoughts were interrupted by Joe telling them about the village. He described it as a near fantasy land-type collective where everything is provided for them. Life is good in their own isolated little land. The Wizard has told them that there is nothing to worry about in the world past their borders. Though Joe or the other inhabitants of Chicago have never seen the true Wizard, they could not question his power because he is a benevolent ruler who just by his being keeps the people safe, healthy, and well taken care of. When asked, Joe said they don’t question the fact that they have not seen the real man because he is the Wizard and who would question the Wizard? He seemed very puzzled by all of this.

Joe’s reverent accounting of the Wizard was still ongoing as they approached a great door. As Joe opened the door, Sarah and John peered inside and saw a long gilded hallway stretching into the distance.

At the end of this hallway they came to a smaller, ornate door which Joe opened. As Sarah and John approached the door, Joe bowed and averted his eyes. Sarah looked at John, they both shrugged, and Sarah, John, and Toto walked through the door.

Just as their eyes were adjusting to the dimly lit room, a large, indistinct head appeared and a voice boomed “who dares to disturb the Wizard”

“It is I, Sarah, I have a few questions.”

“Proceed” said the Wizard “I can answer all”.

Sarah questioned the Wizard: What was his stance on the crisis in the Village of Wall? Did he really think he could cut taxes and yet pay for a growth in government spending? How can you possibly give tax breaks to people who do not pay taxes? Just who are these men you have running your Village, Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Franklin Raines?

The more Sarah questioned the Wizard, the more he appeared to stammer and become less and less able to answer the questions. Just as she was becoming certain that the Wizard was not all the masses thought he was, Toto walked over and pulled a curtain aside exposing a small, skinny man working levers and controls.

“Ignore that man behind the curtain” roared the voice.

“Why your not a Wizard at all,” exclaimed Sarah “your just a ordinary man.”

“Shh” said the now exposed Wizard. “No, I am not a Wizard, I’m Barack Obama. Your messing up my gig here. Now go away.”

“Well, God Bless you.” said Sarah “We can’t let you continue to fool the people. We have to break the spell you have over the scribes and let the public see you for what you are.”

Before Obama could answer, Cindy the Good Witch of the Southwest appeared before them. “Barack, you have been exposed for what you are. It’s time to return to your homeland of Kenya and free these good people of America to live their lives in prosperity.”

Joe Biden is in a commercial now trying to blunt some of the damage to the Obama campaign over the connections the McCain/Palin campaign is making between him and some very shady characters. He says that these are not the people that Obama would name to the Supreme Court or let work in the White House.

First, it’s good of him to clear this up. I, for one, was concerned that William Ayers would be on the SCOTUS. I’m not concerned that he is a terrorist and Obama has been connected to him for years leaving a lot of questions about Obama’s character unanswered.

Second, what was most memorable about the commercial was what was missing. He didn’t actually mention what type of people Obama would appoint.

The task for you, should you choose to undertake it, is this. See how many Obama supporters and/or friends you can list that have not been connected to any wrong doing. Now obviously I am not talking about everybody he knows. None of us could possibly know these people. I’m talking about the public figures who have supported him and the friends we know about.

Now we can obviously exclude any politicians from this list, they are by definition corrupt so they are automatically off the list. And yes, this does go for John McCain’s political supporters too.

I’m talking about the ACORN’s, the William Ayers, the Tony Rezko’s, the Rev Wright’s, the Franklin Raines’, the Jamie Gorelick’s.

This is not an idle question really because these are the people Obama will put on the Supreme Court, in the White House, in ambassadorships. Political appointments, especially to the White House and ambassadorships, are given as paybacks to friends, supporters, and donors.

A Democratic Representative from Georgia, John Lewis, has compared John McCain and Sarah Palin to George Wallace. Governor George Wallace was a segregation proponent from Georgia. Rep Lewis, in comparing McCain and Palin to Wallace, is claiming that they are fanning the flames of hatred.

"What I am seeing reminds me of too much of another destructive period in American history," Lewis said in a statement released to FOX News. "Senator McCain and Governor Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."

Rest of the story here:  

The implication couldn’t be clearer, criticizing Barack Obama is racism.

The reality is that we better get used to this. I predicted early on that this would be the pattern. Towards the end if Obama was losing, or was under attack, his supporters will trot out the racism charge. It is an absolute gaurantee. He of course will stay above the fray, he has even come out and disagreed with Rep Lewis on this, but it’s out there.

In fact I will go even farther and say it is a planned strategy. Stand ins will cry racism and Obama will say “no, I don’t think he meant it that way”. Obama’s campaign knows, as well as I do, what the media is going to report. They won’t report the denial by Obama as much as they will report the charge of racism against McCain.

This happened after the last debate. Obama supporters raised a fuss over McCain’s “that one” remark. Somehow “that one” has now become a racist remark. The campaign let the issue stew awhile, let their supporters attack, let the media report on it. Then after a little while, Michelle Obama quitely went on Larry King and said she didn’t feel that McCain meant to be racist. This is a win-win for Obama. His supporters tar and feather McCain in the media, at the same time if they are attacked for raising a false call of racism, they can point to Michelle’s remarks on King.

The scary part is that if the phrase “that one” can be turned into charges of racism, what could McCain say that is ok?

Conventional wisdom says Barack Obama is coasting to the finish line, the race is over, the fat lady is singing loudly. Is this true? Actually, we won’t know the answer to this until approximately December when the Supreme Court once again sorts out another election debacle in the United States voting system. Until then though, there are some interesting signs that the next three weeks may not be a lot of fun for the Obamanation. Perusing various sites, we are seeing signs that things may be starting to pile up on Obama.

The S word is showing up more and more. The notion that Obama is a socialist was once just found on “far right fringe sights” like this one. I am seeing it in other places now. My local newspaper, while more moderate than most dailies, certainly would not be considered conservative and the letters to the editor tend to run left of center. Lately though, the words socialism and Obama are showing up in the same sentence. Then we have this as just one example of people at McCain/Palin rallies becoming more restless and standing up and encouraging them to fight against the socialism of Obama.

The story on Obama’s trip to Iraq in which he allegedly tried to derail the withdrawal of troops until he took office at the same time he was calling for immediate withdrawal has made the big time. The Washington Times is running an article on the incident here.

The Ayers-Obama link is not going away and McCain is starting to refine it. In this article here McCain is calling the issue a matter of honesty because Obama will not tell the truth about it. This is a good strategy in my mind. First he got the issue in the heads of the public. Then when Obama didn’t explain the relationship, there is no explanation that puts him in a favorable light, McCain accuses him of being dishonest for trying to hide the relationship. It puts Obama in a damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t situation.

Then we have this an article that the Drudge Report has, well, drudged up and is running. This is a speech in which Louis Farrakhan calls Obama the Messiah. Check it out.

Something that McCain is just starting to go after Obama about today is ACORN. Story here. With a new web ad out, McCain is hitting Obama on an issue that may resonate. The federal government is investigating voter fraud in 21 states and we are hearing things like 105% of Indianapolis voters registered. Obama has a fairly long and intertwined history with ACORN from working for them, to donating money to them, to the organization endorsing him. This could wind up being quite damaging because of the money he has paid them and their committing fraud registering voters, primarily Democrats. 

In a story just developing today Obama’s “Muslim outreach advisor”, whatever that is, is drawing fire for meeting with Muslim extremists. Minha Husaini met September 15th with several Islamic organizations, some with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Attending the meeting were members of CAIR and organization that has members convicted of terror-related felonies. This is happening two months after Obama’s previous advisor had to resign after attending a similar meeting. To be fair now, some of these people may have been Obama supporters, he is preferred by 10 out of 10 terrorists.  

I said back when the hurricane Katrina mess was going on that we would regret how it was handled. The liberals, with the assistance of the liberal media and a cowering Republican party, let the notion take hold that the Federal Government was responsible for paying to fix all that ails us.

I am not hinting we should not have helped them, I believe we should have. But we so over-reacted that a sense of entitlement was developed. Since then, anyone with a bad time has looked at the feds for a bailout.

I realize this sense of entitlement was not invented then but it seemed to really come of age during this period. We now have a country full of people that believe they are entitled to have the federal government help them for every bad decision, every twist of fate, every wrong, real or perceived.

Live in a city built 20 feet below sea level and have it flood during a hurricane? The government will pay to fix things.

Build a house along a river that floods every year? No problem, the feds are there for you.

Build a large metropolitan area 100’s of miles from any reliable water source? That’s okay, lets just use federal grants to pay for shipping water in.

I do not want to seem heartless. I believe that if we are to be a civilized society, it is incumbent upon us to be compassionate to others and lend a helping hand. This is one of the things that make America a great country.

I do feel though that we need a dose of common sense occasionally. Why do we build expensive homes along rivers that flood continuously? Why do we have a city that is below sea level and stays dry most of the time more from the grace of God than man’s ingenuity? Or, why do we build cities full of people in a desert? The more relevant question is, why do we keep paying to rebuild these places? Why do we pay for more cities in the desert?

My other issue, and possibly a solution, is to let local funds pay for these things. Go ahead, build that city in the desert, but pay for shipping in the water with local funds. If we develop this system of financing, guess what, we won’t be building many cities in the desert or in flood plains.

Watching John McCain during last night's debate, I am a little concerned about fiscal conservativism.

John McCain talked about cutting the budget and fighting earmarks. Kudos for that.

At the same time though, he introduced a new $300 BILLION mortagage buyup program to rescue homeowners who cannot pay their mortagages. The government would then renogiate them at lower rates.

This is a huge program and I have to be concerned. He is attacking Obama for proposing $700 BILLION in spending and he's the fiscal conservative for only asking for half as much, for one program?

I realize the campaign is lagging and he needed to do something bold but I think morphing into a Democrat on the stage is going a bit far.

Yet more about the media’s bias for Barack Obama. The Associated press has essentially set themselves up as nothing more than a 527 for the Obama campaign.

Reading this article here, it has become obvious that there is no longer any pretense of journalistic integrity at the AP. They have gone way beyond any semblance of impartiality and have now crossed over into being an organization that does nothing more than dispenses talking points from the Obama campaign. 

The article, titled Old events fuel new presidential campaign attacks, is about Sarah Palin bringing up the association between Barack Obama and domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and the Obama campaign counterattack about McCain’s role in the Keating Five scandal.

The AP is taking offense at the audacity of the McCain/Palin campaign discussing Obama’s long term relationship with Atyer’s, the founder of the Weather Underground. The Weather Underground is a domestic terrorism organization that is anti-American and advocated the bombing of the Pentagon. Keep in mind that Ayer’s does not deny his leadership of this group. In fact, he has expressed regret that they could not do more.

The Read the article for a feel of what it was like. But here are some examples of the different approaches to the two issues.

The two men live in the same Chicago neighborhood and once worked on the same charity board. Ayers hosted a small meet-the-candidate event for Obama in 1995, early in his political career. Obama strategist David Axelrod has said the two men are "friendly."

The Senate ethics committee investigated five senators relationships with Keating. The panel cited McCain for a lesser role than the others, but faulted his "poor judgment."

It’s incredible that you can put so many bias’ in one short sentence. First, the AP doesn’t mention that the other four of the Keating Five were Democrats. Five Senators were involved in the scandal:

-Alan Cranston (D-CA) took over 1 million dollars from Keating, found by panel to have twisted the arms of other Senators for Keating and found to have interfered with the Senate investigation. Was reprimanded in front of the entire Senate.

-Donald Riegle (D-MI) found by panel to have interfered with investigation

-Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) found by panel to have interfered with investigation

John Glenn (D-OH) found by panel to have had minimal role, found to have used “poor judgment”, charges dropped by panel

John McCain (R-AZ) found by panel to have had minimal role, found to have used “poor judgment”, charges dropped by panel. Quoting from the final report "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

Note: source of quote and above findings of panel here.

The real story on the Sarah Palin attacks on Obama for his association with Ayer’s is that she is doing the media’s job for them. One of the very reasons the founding fathers included freedom of the press in the Constitution was to keep the government honest. The press would be free to report on government officials and affairs to prevent the development of a tyrannical government. In short, on Barack Obama, they have shirked their responsibility. If the media had explored the past of Obama, he would not be the nominee today. They instead have made themselves the apologists for his campaign.

Here I am in fly-over land in small town America clinging to my guns and religion. Problem is, everyone has forgotten about us. I’m not disappointed mind you, we live in small towns so that we can be left alone to live our lives. I'm more perplexed than anything.

I actually live outside of a small town on 10 acres of pasture, hayfield, and wildlife. We have more animals living on our property than people. From deer to coyote, we have a very representative group of wildlife native to Michigan here. I live by a small town though and like small town life. Things move a little slower here. People, by and large, are a little more pleasant. Things can be quite exciting here also, we just got a Taco Bell and they are remodeling the grocery store. Going to football games on Friday nights, walking in the back fields, or going trick or treating in town where the mayor and the police chief hand out candy. It is a pleasant life.

The thing is, even though there are not many people living in this area, we are definitely not alone. In 2000 according to NewGeography.com, more than half of the US population lived in towns or areas of less than 25,000 people and 38% of the population lived in towns of less than 10,000 and rural areas combined. So there are a lot of us out here and my bet is, we vote. I actually could not find stats on this but my guess is that, due to demographics, there is a higher percentage of voting in small town and rural areas than urban areas.

Further, this is not to disparage cities. I work in a city. We lived in the inner city for 9 years. I was born and raised in an urban area. I just prefer small town life.

With all of this, I am perplexed, as I said at the beginning. I get why Obama made a snide remark about small town people clinging to their guns and religion, he’s an elitist idiot. What I don’t get is why McCain appears to be ignoring us. I would think small town America could put McCain in the White House but he doesn’t seem to get it.

 I am even more puzzled as to why they are hiding Sarah Palin away. She is one of us. We identify with her. Get her out to the county fairs. Let her meet with hunters, fisherman, farmers, we wouldn’t be talking about Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri being swing states.

The House of Representatives were working on the Wall Street bailout package today and nearing a vote. Just prior to the vote Nancy Pelosi, the esteemed Speaker of the House stood up on the floor and spent over four minutes attacking the Bush administration and extolling the virtues of the Clinton administration. Video here:

This was a circumstance in which the bill was 12 votes short of passage. After a week of highly partisan screeching by her and her fellow Dems in Congress, Pelosi delivers this speech and then promptly holds a press conference with Steny Hoyer, Barney Franks, and Rahm Emanuel expressing shock over why they can’t get the GOP to participate.

This was a week in which there have been continuous attacks on John McCain, first because he wasn’t in Washington helping craft a bailout package, and then because he came to Washington to craft a bailout package. If you want to see an incredible article on the day to day changes on the Democratic leadership stances, go here. There are simply too many to list here, it is highly recommended you scan this article.

The theme of this press conference was to express the Democrats desire to have a bipartisan solution to the bill. Completely ignoring the irony of this statement, they forged ahead attacking the GOP for not acting in a bipartisan way. Following the statements, the group took questions from reporters. When a reporter asked about the notion that Pelosi’s speech may have turned away some Republicans, Barney Frank mocked the GOP reps for “having their feelings hurt” and again ridiculed them for a lack of bipartisan spirit. Not to sound homophobic but the image of Barney Frank lecturing someone on a being a man was not an image I needed to be stuck with.

The best part of this press conference was just how many times the word “bipartisan” was used by every one of the speakers. It was amusing to watch Steny Hoyer intone that 60% of Democrats voted for the bill while 67% of Republicans voted against it, clearly making it the fault of the GOP. The bottom line is that the Democratic leadership couldn’t even sell this bill to much more than a simple majority of it’s own party.

As of the writing of this, I have become utterly uncertain what’s even in the bill anymore. I know part of the reason for the resistance to the bill is the recognition of the representatives of simple distaste of voters of bailing out banking lenders and borrowers from a mess of their own making. There is a growing sense that maybe it’s time for these people to be adults and live with their bad decisions. Many representatives, especially those in vulnerable districts, are afraid to vote for this and stick the taxpayers with the $700 BILLION tab.

What I saw in the faces of the Democratic speakers at the press conference was gripping fear. There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess, Democrats, Republicans, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Wall Street, and borrowers. The reality right now though is that the Democrats control Congress and the last week has been a study in absolute incompetence on the part of it’s leadership. Bush has proposed the plan, Congress controlled by the Democrats, could not deliver, largely because they could not resist the liberal necessity to attach goodies to the bill. Further, as I said earlier, they have attempted to run roughshod over the Republican members. Finally, they have presented a public image that can be described as being nothing more than a circus. Announcing they have a plan, only to have the Republican members come out and say they did not agree with their plan. Continuously, as mentioned earlier, delivering partisan attacks. Finally, holding a show vote when they knew they did not have the votes needed for passage. It is clear that today’s vote was for nothing more than to be used as a political attack.

Now to the Dow dropping. At the time of writing this, I am watching Sheppard Smith on Fox News. In the corner of the screen, they have a shot of the board at the NY stock exchange and it is easy to see that he market is quite volatile right now. The Dow is in the middle of it’s largest one day point drop ever. While the press conference is ongoing, the numbers are dropping, afterwards, the numbers are back up. To quote Smith “… we’ve recovered 250 points off the lows of this day and it would appear to me that the down slope happened as the leadership spoke and the upturn happened when the leadership shut up.” It’s hard to put it any better than this. My only hope is that, if this is true, I hope they shut up and stay that way because I would like to retire someday.

The only thing that may be rivaling the drop of the Dow is the drop of Barack Obama’s credibility. He is looking foolish because he took full credit for the plan (see my blog from yesterday for one of my “I told you so” moments). He is also going to take some of the Congressional heat because of the Democratic partisan attacks on John McCain last week. McCain is already on record as pinning this all on him. This is the statement from the McCain campaign. story here

“From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families.

“Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill.

“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.

“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.” —McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin

According to reports today, Obama is making statements that he deserves all of the credit for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout package and McCain deserves none. Ignoring the obvious part where this is a lie, I would like to pose a question instead. Is this a good idea for him to attempt to take so much credit for this?

Reading reports on his comments, one is left with the impression that the entire thing was his idea, going as far as saying “They are identical to the things I called for the day that (Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson released his package," story here:

As an aside, the thought did occur to me that this man is a master of taking credit for, well, everything that has worked. He does this by making overly broad statements on most issues. Later, when the issue is resolved, he can then say that it transpired in a way identical to the way he proposed. Obama is not the first charlatan to operate this way, fortune tellers have gotten away with this for centuries. If all of this fails, he simply re-invents what he said in the first place. He has done this on the Iraq war, Afghanistan, Iran, etc, etc, etc. The good thing for him is that he has a willing accomplice in the media.

Back to the original question though, is it a good idea to take credit for this bailout package? My thoughts are that I’m not convinced it is.

This is a plan that is not going to be popular with voters, it’s going to be tolerated. An analogy would be having your septic tank go out. You pay, what $2000, to get it fixed. Your really not happy to pay the $2000 bucks but you kow the alternative is crappy. In this scenario, Obama is the one replacing your septic tank. While you appreciate getting rid of the septic tank problem, you certainly don’t thank Obama, the septic tank guy, for sticking you with the $2000 bill.

No doubt his objective was to attempt to show leadership. He has a long ways to go though to show he has more leadership ability than the far more experienced McCain. I don’t believe this was the way to do it. If it was, his making the “call me if you need me” statement and having to be drug back to Washington last week was certainly not the best way to go about it. 

This is yet more proof that, for the grace of a media that’s in the tank for him and the current affirmitive action program in place in American politics, Obama would still be a “community organizer” in Chicago.

John McCain last night announced he was suspending his campaign and wanted to cancel the Friday debate so the candidates could return to Washington as Senators and do their jobs. Obama has refused, opting instead to continue campaigning and fund raising activities.

This may be a case in which Obama may want to listen to his running mate Joe Biden. Biden recently called upon the wisdom of one our past presidents for guidance on how to lead in this fiscal crises. He said that we should use Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership during the stock market crash of 1929 as a model.

 "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed,"

We will excuse Joe for not knowing that Roosevelt wasn’t president in 1929 or that television was in it’s developmental stage at the time. Liberals have a long history of not letting the truth get in the way of a good attack.

So come on Obama, show the grit Roosevelt showed and get back to Washington. Roll up your sleeves and help save our coutry. If you don’t remember where the Senate building is just go on one of those bus tours, most of them stop there.

The Justice Department is investigating possible fraud in the meltdown of AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. There is a strong possibility that this will not turn out well for Obama and his fellow Democrats. For further information read this story:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are time bombs for the Democratic party. Over the last nine years, the top five congressional recipients of contributions form these two corporations were Democrats. The list, according to Free Republic is as follows:

1. Dodd, Christopher J           Senate        D-CT           $133,900

2. Kerry, John                         Senate        D-MA           $111,000

3. Obama, Barack                    Senate        D-IL              $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary                   Senate        D-NY           $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E                House          D-PA           $65,500

Notice number 3. Senator Obama was able to make it to third on the list in only three years. This is impressive. Talk about over-achieving. Just imagine what he could of done if he’d been in there for the full nine years. Further, 7 of the top 10 were Democratic Congressional members.

Now the investigation is probably not going to focus on congressional contributions but it will keep the story alive and let us, and Fox News, and Drudge, etc to continue talking about it, day after day after day. Who knows, things may get so crazy, the MSM may even mention it.

Another thing that may be brought up again is the comfy relationship Democratic members of Congress have had with mortgage lenders, including cozy loans.

Finally, there is a real risk for Obama in the investigation itself.

There is a slight risk that his name could come up. He has had significant ties to these companies. It would not look good for his name to show up in a memo or e-mail.

The major damage to Obama though, could come from the people that will be investigated. Three people with close ties to the Obama campaign, sometimes acting as advisors, will likely be investigated. More importantly, they have each had their own controversies at the company.

Franklin Raines is the former Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae. Though both Obama and Raines deny the accusations, there has been strong speculation that Raines has advised Obama on policy.

Jamie Gorelick was Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and walked away with as much as $26 million. There are strong indications that she helped cover up problems by staffers at the company. Her ties to Obama aren’t as strong as the other two but there are rumors that she is in line for Attorney General, having served as assistant under Janet Reno.