John McCain is not in Washington today so the day’s attack by the Democrats is that, you guessed it, he should be there helping.

This has been a daily game for the Democrats. They watch McCain’s schedule and travel itinerary and base their daily attacks on whether he is in Washington or not. First he’s attacked because he is not in Washington. Then he postpones his campaign and goes to Washington so they ridicule him for staging a campaign stunt. When arrives in Washington they attack him for being there interfering, he is only a US Senator after all.

Now earlier today he was not in Washington so they naturally attack him for not being there helping to push the bailout bill through. Part of Harmon’s attack was that at the time he had not announced if he would give a political speech on the Senate floor.

Watch a video of her interview here.

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.

I love when my blog is written for me. I haven’t been feeling well lately and Joe Joe “the gaffe machine” Biden gave me an easy day.

It appears that him and Obama are not talking lately and Biden seems to be running his own show. Trouble is, some of the stuff he’s been saying is not in agreement with what Obama wants. This is not only embarrassing for Obama and the campaign but it is exhausting for the campaign spin-meisters.

First up, we have the ill-advised Obama ad attacking McCain for not being able to do e-mail. The ad would have been a good idea except that McCain cannot do e-mail because he has trouble typing due to a war injury. This was an injury sustained while being tortured at the Hanoi Hilton. So, needless to say, that ad was not real popular.

As it turns out, Biden was not one of the fans. According to this story Biden had this to say during an interview on CBS with Katie Curic:

Asked whether he’s disappointed with the tone of the campaign, including the ad that Couric characterized as “making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer,” Biden said “I thought that was terrible by the way.

“I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it”

Of course by terrible, he didn’t mean it was that bad according to this correction later:

“Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Sen McCain’s ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize,” he said, “especially when they continue to distort Barack’s votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators.”

Read the rest of the article to see how the McCain campaign used the comments to criticize the Obama campaign, call out the NYT again for not reponding to the original ad, and continue the tying of Obama to Chicago style politics.

Bidden was just getting started though. Biden was asked about clean coal plants in the US for energy. This from a story on Ben Smith’s blog, Biden steered away from Obama again by saying:

Biden's apparent answer: He supports clean coal for China, but not for the United States.

"No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean."

"We’re not supporting clean coal," 

This flies in the face of the Obama official position on coal. Another interesting thing is that Obama and Biden sparred about this during the primaries while running against each other. Obama is for clean coal and Biden is against it. This begs the question of who really is in charge here? Naturally we are misunderstanding Biden again and anyone pointing out the discrepancy is vilified:

Biden spokesman David Wade responded by calling McCain's statement "yet another false attack from a dishonorable campaign."

He continued: "Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama and Senator Biden support clean coal technology. Senator Biden’s point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies."

How McCain got that Biden doesn’t support clean coal from this statement "We’re not supporting clean coal,"  is beyond me.

For more fun, read this article here about Obama attacking McCain for saying AIG should not have been bailed out when three minutes after McCain said it, Biden said the same thing. This is a good read and contains a real shocker. Matt Lauer actually called Obama on this discrepancy and asked him a tough question. No word yet if Matt has been fired by NBC for making The One feel uncomfortable and pressured to explain something unflattering.

Finally we have a bonus Biden gaffe that Cube posted on her blog today. Biden remarked that when the stock market crashed in 1929, FDR got on television and… Other than the facts that TV was experimental and the public didn’t have them yet and that Hoover was president at the time, his statement was entirely true. The other thing that pisses me off is that this will get no media play. Anyone want to guess what would happen if George Bush or Dan Quayle had said this?

In a “it’s about time” moment today, the McCain campaign came out and ripped the New York Times for it’s overt support of the Barack Obama campaign. This is way overdue for the Republican Party.

The NYT along with the other liberal media such as the Associated Press, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc have for years been highly partisan organizations. As was accused by the McCain campaign today, the NYT has essentially been the public relations arm of the Democratic party for decades.

In two separate incidences today, one involving a campaign aid, the other a supporter at a rally, the liberal media got it’s comeuppance. This is the story form Foxnews.com, they put it best.

“Let’s be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not — by any standard — a journalistic organization,” strategist Steve Schmidt told reporters on a conference call. “It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor [Sarah] Palin and excuses Senator Obama.”

Schmidt accused the Times of giving Obama a pass on his “deceitful ads” and abdicating its journalistic responsibility to vet Obama’s “background and past statements.” It was an unusually harsh critique for a campaign that last year enjoyed largely favorable press coverage.

“This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate,” Schmidt fumed. “It is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate — in this case John McCain — and to advocate for the election of the other candidate — Barack Obama.”

I can only say one thing, WOW.

Then we had a woman with lots of guts, maybe she is being inspired by hockey mom Sarah Palin, stand up and give the assembled press Hell.

The woman ripped reporters for focusing on the pregnant teenage daughter of Palin, the GOP vice presidential nominee, while largely ignoring Obama’s ties to radical Bill Ayers and controversial Chicago businessman Tony Rezko.

“We want the media to start doing their job and stop picking on little children because of their age and their pregnancies,” she exclaimed. “Shame on you! Shame on all of ya’s!”

This is not only gutsy but quite funny. Imagine a press staffer being there. They’re bored because their boss made them follow this McCain guy instead of the dreamy Obama. Further, they’re hoping no one can read they’re thoughts about the dreamy remark because the reporter is, in fact, a man. When all of a sudden, he’s snapped out of his fantasies about Obama by this woman giving him a dressing down in front of this huge crowd. Everyone’s laughing, she saying shame on you. ‘This sucks, I wish I were at the Obama rally.’ It would have been a sight to see folks.

So of course the editor of the NYT (who knew they had an editor) Bill Keller, offered this reply, “You know, you are absolutely correct. We have totally been in the tank for The One, Obama. We are so ashamed. Further, we apologize and will stop this immediately and start reporting fairly.” Just joking, what he really said was this:

“The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively,” Keller wrote. “It’s our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisers. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it’s what our readers expect and deserve.”

The article didn’t say if he was able to get through this without laughing hysterically or not. If he does not find this comment ridiculous, he’s a bigger idiot than even I give him credit for.

For more amusement, check out this article on Politico.com. The NYT provides a list of the “hard-hitting” investigative stories they have done on Obama. I just took a sample from the middle of the list to give an indication of just how rough they have been on this poor soul.

29. Obama Secret Service Agent Tied To Sex Joke [New York Times, 5/15/08]
30. The Story of Obama, Written by Obama [New York Times, 5/18/08]
31. Following Months of Criticism, Obama Quits His Church [New York Times, 6/1/08]
32. Many Blacks Find Joy in Unexpected Breakthrough [New York Times, 6/5/08]

The horror they have put this man through.

First, I have to give credit to the blog Red County and the Wall Street Journal for this find. I first saw the mention on Twitter by Red County and followed up on it at the WSJ.

Citing General Petraeus by name, the resolution, which is sponsored by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Lindsey Graham, "commends and expresses the gratitude to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces for the service, sacrifices, and heroism that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible."

The Senators -- allies of John McCain -- had hoped to attach the resolution to a defense bill under consideration this week. But Mr. Reid wouldn't allow it.

This was actually blocked from coming out of the Senate Armed Services Committee by Democratic Chairman Carl Levin at the insistence of Democrat Harry Reid

Keep I mind, this is a resolution, it has no binding legal authority. It’s the Congressional equivalent of a “who did something nice” card like we all see at work or our children see in elementary school. It doesn’t cost money. It simply says “Thank You” to the troops and General Patreaus.

Further, I do not want to accuse these two Dems of being against resolutions, because they are not. A quick search shows that they have both sponsored important resolutions in the past.

Harry Reid Sponsored resolutions to:

Oppose the surge one month after Bush announced it. He was even scheduled a rare Saturday debate on it.

In March, 2007, before the surge had a chance to really get going he co-sponsored The Joint Resolution To Transition The Mission In Iraq.

And of course we cannot forget the Asbestos Awareness Day resolution he sponsored, this certainly benefited society.

Carl Levin along with too many anti-war resolutions to list, also sponsored these noteworthy classics:

A resolution urging Canada to end commercial seal hunting.

A resolution honoring the Detroit Red Wings Stanley Cup win in 2008.

So these men will sponsor resolutions to attack the troops, honor a professional hockey team, or fight the twin scurges of American society, seal hunting and asbestos, but cannot allow one to be voted on that supports the troops?

The Democrats though are loathe to give any credit to Bush. They care less about the troops, the war in Iraq, and the greater war on terror than they do about the war on George Bush. Further, acknowledging success with the surge makes it painfully obvious, because it’s not already, that they were flat out dead wrong on the surge. They fought it’s implementation, derided it as folly, predicted that it would fail. Now they are stuck with the bad news that it actually worked, helping assure success and stopping the dying of our troops. This is not good news for the Dems.

Quite frankly, I cannot sum up the Democratic stance any better than the WSJ already has:

The reality is that success in Iraq has confounded the political left, which placed a huge political bet on our defeat. Senator Reid famously declared the war lost in April 2007. Joe Biden introduced a resolution opposing the surge. And Hillary Clinton said the reports of progress in Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief." In the Democratic narrative, our troops in Iraq are victims of a lost cause, not heroes. They're allowed to get maimed and killed, but not to succeed.

Thus Democrats are left to argue that success in Iraq is irrelevant because the real fight against al Qaeda is occurring in Afghanistan. Or that the reduced violence in Iraq has resulted not from the troop surge but from the Sunni Awakening and the retreat of the Sadr militias.

That’s pretty much ‘nough said. The only thing I can add is that a generation ago the liberals spit on troops at the airport returning from Vietnam. They have become much more refined and civilized since then, now they let their Congressmen do it from afar.

There is a recent AP/Yahoo news survey out that examines the link between race and Obama’s poll numbers. The problem is though that the survey is almost entirely on non-Hispanic white voters. Evidently this is the only race of people that vote according to the AP and Yahoo news. Story here

Where do you start with a survey like this? This survey, while trying to explain racism, is incredibly racist in itself.

First, what does a typical white voter look like? Other than badly in need of tan of course. The article does break whites down into Republicans and Democrats but this is too simplistic for someone of any race. The political spectrum is complex in what constitutes party affiliation. There are social liberals and conservatives, fiscal liberals and conservatives, and a combination of both. There are people who are very liberal or conservative and would never vote for the other party. There are people who are moderate and can be drawn to the opposite candidate for many reasons, including yes race, age, and/or gender. There are some voters who don’t even follow the issues and vote based on how they feel about a person. These people may or may not vote for Obama, irregardless of his race, but because of some other characteristic such as likeability, speaking ability, etc. These factors alone cloud the study. For some voters race may be an issue but not the issue. Race along with any of the above could push them away. This does not make race the factor, it makes it a factor.

There also is the issue of racial attitudes being complex and virtually impossible to measure. If there is a person on God’s earth without any racial prejudice, I would like to meet them. No one, including myself, can say they are without some prejudice. It is human nature, it is ingrained into our very fiber. Further, it is not just racial, it is gender, height, age, etc., etc., etc. Everyone of us has it and anyone reading this that thinks they do not is lying to themselves. But, you know what? It’s ok. The key is to not go out and behead someone or fly a plane into a building because your innate prejudice has turned into psychotic hatred. Oops, that sounded a little prejudiced.

Since everyone has prejudice, what does this mean? Very little to everything. There is a huge difference between prejudice against a race and prejudice against a person. You may have an issue with, blacks as an example, but when you go to work and see Joe, things are fine because he’s “different”. This is often the case with all biases. It’s easier to dislike an anonymous group than an individual. I believe this is another flaw in the study. I think it is a little simplistic to say people will not vote for Obama just because he is black. I think most of these people have another issue and that, combined with race, equals a no vote.

Finally, there is the most obvious issue with the survey. Why only whites? Why not Hispanics, Asians, and, of course, blacks. Why have we never studied why blacks vote almost entirely for Democrats? It certainly isn’t because they have done so well under the Democrats. What exactly have the Democrats done for them really? The Democratic party by and large favor policies that are actually destructive to blacks. The welfare system of the 60’s and 70’s had insane rules that favored unmarried women over married. This set up a cycle of generation-to-generation single motherhood that blacks are still trying to break. This single motherhood has led to a host of other social ills that feed on each other, lower high school graduation rate, higher unemployment, and higher imprisonment rates. Liberals favor a wide open abortion industry that disproportionally effects blacks. Finally, I do not believe that blacks are more stupid than others and buy the hollow, unfulfilled promises of Democrats that they receive decade after decade. Is it possible that blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats because they view the GOP as the party of “old white guys”? Admittedly if this were true it would likely be the fault of the GOP as much as the Democratic party but nonetheless is still a racial attitude. Why isn’t this studied? Why didn’t they study why blacks aren’t voting for McCain/Palin, is it racism?

I don’t want to be accused of beating a dead horse but it has gotten to the point that it is difficult to find an article wqritten by the Associated Press or on one of the Big Three network sites that is unbiased. So called “journalists” are now nothing more than editorialists.

The latest example is this article about by Joe Milica of the Associated Press Joe Biden’s comments on John McCain’s economic plan. Article available here

The article has the usual slant, giving one side (not McCain’s) and ignoring that Obama’s plan has come under similar attacks. So, in other words, it is routine fare for the liberal media.

There are a couple of glaring examples of out and out bias though.

First of all, there is the little matter of Joe Biden’s remark that paying taxes is patriotic. The article quoted Biden as saying this: (all emphasis mine)

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said. Of those who would pay more, he said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

Somehow McCain took Biden’s remark to mean that it was patriotic to raise taxes, so the article took McCain to task for his misinterpretation.

McCain misstated Biden's remark when he told supporters at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that Biden had said "raising taxes is patriotic."

Then we have this:

In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, McCain's campaign charges that Obama would increase the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.

widely debunked claims (this is another liberal media trick, who is widely debunking McCain’s claims?)

We also have this fun part, though not quite as obvious, definitely twisting the facts.

Although McCain claims Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.

This statement is fun in that it may be both true and false at the same time. Maybe 4 out of 5 households would receive tax cuts, by their math though, 20% of the households are missing. Furthermore, Obama himself has said he would raise taxes, it is patriotic after all. Further, the author ignores the fact that not all of the mentioned 80% of households pay taxes and therefore cannot get tax cuts. The author obviously subscribes to the Democratic notion that people who do not pay taxes can still get a tax cut. Finally, the author himself quoted Biden as saying they would raise taxes. Unless I am guilty of misinterpreting this: “Of those who would pay more”.

As I said, it is nothing more than standard fair for the liberal media, that doesn’t mean it is any less tiresome and nauseating. But then again, maybe I’m just misstating the article.

There is a news story that has gotten more attention here in Michigan than nationally. Story here

The Detroit area Macomb County Republican chairman, James Carabelli, has been quoted by Michigan Messenger as saying “We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” Mr. Carabelli and the Michigan Republican party deny he made the statement and have threatened a libel suit against the site if it does not print a retraction.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Party have filed a lawsuit to prevent the county from doing what they may or may not be planning to do.

I can’t attest to the merit of the suit, it has turned into a he said-she said affair with no real indication of who is telling the truth. The Michigan GOP and Macomb County have strongly and consistently denied the accusation and claim they couldn’t do it if they wanted to. The claim by the county is that the voter roll does not provide enough information to practically carry a plan like this through.

Further, I am not familiar with this publication. A quick scan of the headlines on the site make their slogan, “A Center For Independent Media” a little dubious. Following is a sample of the headlines this evening:

• Fight for the soul of Michigan’s highest court  (Beginning of article): “Arch-conservative Clifford Taylor…”
•  Obama condemns “shameless” McCain campaign
•  Lose your house, lose your vote
•  DOJ politicization hurt voters’ rights, has it hurt Michigan?
•  Rove tricks? McCain absentee ballots raise questions
•  1980’s savings and loan bailout haunts John McCain
•  Conservatives looking decidedly socialist as AIG and market flounder

Borderline tabloid and decidedly liberally slanted headlines like this do harm their credibility a bit and make it a little easier to believe they may have misquoted Mr. Carabelli.

Forgetting the accuracy of this upstanding publication for now, I have a different theory on why the lawsuit was filed in the first place.

It is no secret that Michigan’s economy is in the toilet. It has the highest unemployment rate in the country and is losing population so fast that by spring it may have fewer people than North Dakota. The problem with this for the Democratic party is that we are in the second term of a Democratic governor who inherited the state from a three term Republican governor that left the state in better shape. Further half of the legislature is controlled by the Democrats. Between them they have had some really idiotic and publicly embarrassing attempts to “fix” the economy in Michigan. Staying true to the Democratic ideals, these fixes have largely comprised of increased taxes, which is exactly what a state bleeding jobs needs to do.

One thing Obama does not need, in a tight race for a state that is very important to his presidential aspirations, is to have the public notice that the Dems have run our state into the ground.