Politics Archives
This is a very large file. For the full smaller digest version, click here.My new favorite actress is Heather Zichal (Aaron Sorkin's 'ChangeDotGov')
Move over, Janeane Garofalo!
My new favorite actress is Heather Zichal, who plays herself on Aaron Sorkin's new TV series 'ChangeDotGov'. He innovated at the West Wing, although I find that watching re-runs is a bit painful due to the ever-present earth tones. Anyway, Sorkin is innovating again by also uploading segments of the show to Youtube. You can see Zichal in the clip to the right, where she plays herself playing a former John Kerry staffer (link) who was candidate Barack Obama's Policy Director for Energy, Environment and Agriculture (Season One) and who's now on his transition team in the new season. Not only that, but this segment was written by Lawrence O'Donnell!
EMBARRASSING UPDATE: I was just IM'ed by Perez Hilton, and he informed me that Zichal isn't an actress, but a real person! In fact, all of this is real, and Barack Obama is the real name of our new president. I have to apologize, since I don't follow politics too closely. I was able to confirm this with Harvey Levin, and he also mentioned something about "Soviet-style propaganda designed to fool the masses into the belief that the government is listening to them" and then, after a bit, he said something about "putting on a show for the sheeple" or something like that but I didn't really follow what he was getting at.
Obama/Center for American Progress link gets mainstream media attention!
I've been discussing the Center for American Progress - a Soros-funded supposed "progressive", supposed "think tank" - for a few years. I've mainly concentrated on the fact that they're the "think tank that can't think straight", an outfit that just can't figure things out. I've also discussed their extraordinarily bad blog "ThinkProgress", which consistently engages in smears and logical fallacies. And, just last month, I included them as #16 on my list of reasons to oppose Obama.
Now, the Obama/CAP link has gotten some mainstream media attention, with Edwin Chen of Bloomberg offering "Soros-Funded Democratic Idea Factory Becomes Obama Policy Font" (link) and Daniel Libit of Politico offering "Podesta nonprofit to take center stage" (link). Unfortunately, aside perhaps from the Soros mention, both are simply puff pieces in the "valiant liberals doing cool things" mode. Now, see the links above and do a search here for all the things both sources didn't mention.
Zogby poll shows how misinformed Obama's supporters are (and is yet another example of Obama's opponents making mistakes)
John Ziegler - a former KFI talk jock who was pushed out after a dispute with John & Ken - has a video documentary including interviews with Barack Obama supporters showing how ignorant and/or misinformed they are.
His site (link) also includes a Zogby poll he commissioned that tries to show the same thing. Unfortunately, some of the questions that are supposedly true either aren't true or are disputed.
So, it's a two-fer. The poll shows not only how misinformed many Obama supporters are, but also provides yet another example of Obama's opponents making mistakes. See #18 at that list for a point directly relating to this poll.
Note that Obama's supporters will jump all over the mistakes the poll makes in order to blunt its impact. In fact, I'm going to provide a blank update section in expectation of them doing exactly that.
The poll was conducted after the election, with "97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates". Some of the questions are about Sarah Palin and show that people have bought the MSM/SNL caricature of Palin. And, very few people were actually doing effective things to fight that caricature; see the "mistakes" link above. Let's take a look at some of the Obama questions, like:
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
The veracity of this question is disputed; I haven't looked into who's telling the truth, but see mediamatters.org/items/200806020007.
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
The first part of that is wrong, the second is mostly right (the exact quote was "electricity rates", not "energy rates").
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
That question is not entirely correct: Ayers' home was only one of the places, not the exact place. In fact, Obama's surrogates spent a lot of time pointing out that the official location where he started his career was a hotel conference room; see the Lynn Sweet article. In discussing that, I said:
It helps illustrate a problem the McCain campaign has had that the Obama-supporting MSM has tried to drive a truck through. Namely, when speaking about the Bill Ayers-Barack Obama connection they haven't presented the matter in ultra-precise, lawyerly terms.
Obviously, that same inability to figure out the correct way to do things continues with the Ziegler documentary.
Are there any Obama opponents who have both a megaphone and the ability to figure things out?
UPDATE: [space reserved for Obama's supporters using mistakes in the above questions to blunt the impact of the poll.]
UPDATE 2: Zig made yet another mistake, at least on the video. Sarah Palin said you can see Russia from Alaska. In her SNL take-off, Tina Fey changed that to seeing Russia from her "house", and that's how it is in the Zogby poll excerpt provided at the link above. However, on the video he uses the word "home", which is a more general term than "house": Alaska is Palin's "home", and some on the video might have taken it in that sense.
And, in response to the first comment, by "Obama's supporters" I'm refering to the MSM and leftwing bloggers, not necessarily all his supporters.
Eliot Spitzer returns; so, was he set up to hush him up about the financial crisis?
Former New York governor Eliot Spitzer makes his triumphant return into the spotlight with the Washington Post editorial "How to Ground The Street/The Former 'Enforcer' On the Best Way to Keep Financial Markets in Check" (link). I am, needless to say, in a forest of conflicted emotions:
* Should I concentrate on making fun of his scandal, especially since his former "temporary employee" is apparently going to try for a 16th minute at fame through doing one thing or another?
* Should I discuss the red flag that his use of the phrase "global financial system" raises for me vis-a-vis, "is he a globalist tool?"
* Should I point out that maybe Bush's idea of a "free market" is not necessarily an indictment of actually free markets but is actually an indictment of Bush-style crooked markets?
* Should I point out (unlike McCain) the role that the Democrats played in bringing us the financial crisis?
* Should I try to discuss whether Spitz's support for very strong regulation is a good idea or not?
* Should I point out that Spitzer supported illegal activity in order to get votes perhaps even including those cast by illegal aliens?
* Should I point out that the conspiracy theory surrounding his downfall - from March - looks more like a possibility? (Something that's slightly increased due to the hack Instapundit [pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/027263.php] linking to Steven Bainbridge [stephenbainbridge.com/index.php/punditry/spitzers_chutzpah] with the latter discussing the WaPo editorial and mostly just engaging in ad hominem attacks).
Who's right about the market and what to do now is definitely far more important, but - fan of conspiracies that I am - I'd really like to know the answer to the latter. And, as a bonus, that might also help discredit some of those who helped put us into our current situation.
Jesse Washington/AP's supposed "outbreak of racial anger" after Obama win
Jesse Washington of the Associate Press provides another example of Obama supporters continuing to play the race card after the election and by so doing shows that Obama's method of winning hasn't actually done much about race relations. The article is an example of the MSM and friends basically just keeping one race in line as was done in the past with another race (link).
Crosses burning. Children chanting, "Assassinate Obama." Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.
Yes, there definitely has been an outbreak of isolated incidents involving those who have no real power. Washington can only find one physical attack, but there's definitely been a distinct trend of a very small number of completely isolated incidents. Like this incident he mentions:
Four North Carolina State University students admitted writing anti-Obama comments in a tunnel designated for free expression.
According to this, what they wrote could be "borderline threats". But, don't worry. From the same link: The university painted over all the tunnel's messages Wednesday because officials felt the disparaging comments were "going over the edge of what was acceptable," [a university police officer] said.
We're also informed that there was a "glow of racial progress and harmony that bloomed after the election of Democrat Barack Obama". Oddly, I don't recall much of a glow after his surrogates - now including Washington - constantly tried to portray Obama's opponents as racists. In fact, I don't think anyone who doesn't work for or serve as a surrogate for Obama (including the MSM) could locate such a glow. In other words, Washington just invented it.
From California to Maine, police have documented a range of incidents, including vandalism, threats and at least one physical attack. There have been "hundreds" of incidents since the election, many more than usual, said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes.
Washington later points out that Potok is white, which isn't really material. What is material is that Potok and friends are far-left grievance mongers who in effect make their money from hate: without "hate" - whether real, mischaracterized, or just hyped - the SPLC wouldn't be in business. Potok also isn't honest when it comes to statistics.
UPDATE: A trend has been spotted! This time, it's of left-wing hack reporters continuing to play the race card after the election. The second instance of the trend is "After Obama's win, white backlash festers in US" by Patrik Jonsson of The Christian Science Monitor (link). It's basically the same article as Washington's, right down to relying on Potok of the SPLC.
Discuss president-elect Barack Obama's radio/Youtube address (November 15, 2008)
Our beloved president-elect Barack Obama is offering his new weekly speech not just as a radio address but also as an online video: youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8f9Zqap6U (also available at AOL, MSN, and Yahoo). On Youtube at least, almost every form of interaction is disabled: no ratings, comments, or video replies are allowed. The only sign of the outside world are the "sites linking to this video", which includes change.gov, the HuffPost, the NYT, Politico, and USA Today. In order to get on that list, you'd have to send several hundred clicks to the video.However, if you'd like to leave your thoughts on his video, someone has uploaded a copy here with comments enabled in order "to allow open discussion among the YouTube community." That's the video to the right.
Oddly enough, there don't appear to be any non-joke answer videos, not even from rightwing news sources or organizations. Of course, that might be because, as the script shows, he continues not really saying anything:
change.gov/newsroom/entry/your_weekly_address_from_the_president_elect/
Alan Keyes petitions court over Barack Obama's eligibility; guess: he has standing
Gadabout Alan Keyes - last seen running for president under the banner of the American Independent Party - has filed a court petition in California trying to block the CA Secretary of State (Democrat Debra Bowen) from certifying that state's results for Barack Obama. Details here.
The previous attempt by Philip Berg ran aground when the judge in that case ruled that he didn't have standing. As a former candidate - someone who was directly harmed by Obama being on the ballot - Keyes may turn out to have standing as long as they can get enough money to pursue this as far as necessary. We may yet see a real copy of Obama's birth certificate, not just a graphic at a friendly site. Note that, despite what the MSM wants to tell you, BHO has not proven where he was born or if he's a citizen.
Sham: Obama to hold "fireside chats" on Youtube
Jose Antonio Vargas of the Washington Post breathlessly informs us of this:Today, President-elect Obama will record the weekly Democratic address not just on radio but also on video -- a first. The address, typically four minutes long, will be turned into a YouTube video and posted on Obama's transition site, Change.gov, once the radio address is made public on Saturday morning.In addition to youtube.com/BarackObama, he now has youtube.com/user/ChangeDotGov, with the latter having three videos all of which don't allow replies.
"This is just one of many ways that he will communicate directly with the American people and make the White House and the political process more transparent," spokeswoman Jen Psaki told us last night.
In addition to regularly videotaping the radio address, officials at the transition office say the Obama White House will also conduct online Q&As and video interviews...
...Steve Grove, head of news and politics at YouTube [said] "Obama told us in a YouTube interview last year that he plans to have 'fireside chats' on video, and we expect his administration will launch a White House YouTube channel very soon after taking office."
During the campaign comments and video replies on his videos were moderated and only those favorable were allowed. The best thing for him to do would be to either allow or disallow all comments, but given his past history he might continue to only allow those comments favorable to him. In the latter case, expect his glassy-eyed supporters to vote down unfavorable comments, meaning that people would have to click a link to see them.
And, if BHO conducts "online Q&As and video interviews", you can be assured they'll be setups. The interviews might be with an inept host who'll only ask puffballs, like Grove. Or, the questions will be screened so only those he can easily answer will be allowed.
Don't expect many of his followers to be able to figure any of that out, and those who'll be able to figure it out won't mention it.
Barack Obama misled about regular attendance at Rev. Wright's church
[SEE THE CORRECTION]
During the election, Barack Obama downplayed his attendance record at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, but a March 27, 2004 interview (link) he conducted with Cathleen Falsani - the Religion Columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times - contradicts those claims.
Falsani asked Obama whether he's still attending TUCC, and he replies:
Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service... Ever been there? Good service... I actually wrote a book called Dreams from My Father, it's kind of a meditation on race. There's a whole chapter on the church in that, and my first visits to Trinity.
As detailed here, he told a different story in 2008. In an interview that aired on March 17, 2008, he said:
"You know, I won't say that I was a perfect attendee. I was regular in spurts, because there was times when, for example, our child had just been born, our first child. And so we didn't go as regularly then."
A July 2008 Newsweek article says:
After he began his run for the U.S. Senate, he says, the family sometimes didn't go to Trinity for months at a time. The girls have not attended Sunday school.
The 2004 interview was conducted after he'd won the Senate race.
CORRECTION: I changed the title and some content of this post; it had orginally been titled "Cathleen Falsani/Chicago Sun-Times waited until after election to release contradictory Obama interview" and that turns out to be false. The "Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service" bit was actually on her site since April 2008 (link) and that's verified by an August post where that quote is bolded. No one else on that thread seems to have picked up on it, and note also that some things posted to FR's 'news' section are shuttled off to the 'bloggers' section by moderators. Then, on October 15 it was posted here. The problem wasn't that Falsani or Steven Waldman of BeliefNet where sandbagging the interview, it was that the McCain campaign was too incompetent to find and/or push contradictions like this.
Westwood CA Mormon Temple gets white powder envelope (Prop. 8, gay marriage)
On top of all the counter-productive things they've already done, now opponents of California's Proposition 8 - the anti-gay marriage initiative - have sent an envelope containing white powder - most likely harmless - to the very large Mormon Temple on Santa Monica Blvd. in Westwood, CA. The Salt Lake City Mormon Temple received a similar missive.
Defeating Obama was easy, it's just that no one wanted to do it
Barack Obama could have been easily defeated. The problem was that many people concentrated on ineffective means to oppose him and no leaders pushed effective plans. There were many effective ways he could have been defeated, but the most effective would have been for people to go to his public appearances, ask him tough questions on video, and then upload his response to video sharing sites.
Obama was rarely asked anything remotely approaching a really tough question, and he was never asked a "prosecutorial-style" question that would have called him on his lies or the hugely obvious flaws in his policies.
If that had happened, the graphic above would have been the result. Imagine that the most viewed videos for the month of October at Youtube had been those. Would Obama still have been elected? I think even the most devoted Obama fan would be forced to admit that he would have lost in a landslide.
It was actually fairly easy to have created such videos, if enough major sites had promoted the idea. However, instead of pushing a plan I posted on October 1, those sites engaged in various ineffective, time-wasting ideas. And, some go even further, trying to dissuade people from holding politicians accountable, such as the so-called "libertarian" (and so-called "reporter") Dave Weigel (reason.com/blog/show/130075.html).
There are certainly valid reasons why many people wouldn't want to be the ones to ask a politician a tough question: they don't want to get as famous as Joe the Plumber, or go through the hassle he was put through initially, or the like. However, there aren't too many good reasons why leaders wouldn't want to promote this plan.
Some of them might not be interested in pushing the plan due to business reasons: they're trying to launch a supposed alternative to the MSM and they don't want to rock the boat or face access restrictions so instead they concentrate on milquetoast talking heads shows featuring low-grade pundits.
Others might be partisan hacks who realize just how dangerous this idea is: asking tough questions of the other side would result in tough questions being asked of their side. In a way, that's a form of MAD: Democratic partisan hacks implicitly agree not to ask the Republicans tough questions, and vice versa.
And, due to an MSM diet, some might not understand what a tough question is. For an example of asking a tough question that revealed a flaw in someone's policies, see this. I asked a largely unknown promoter of guest worker programs about one of the side effects of that program, and her answer showed that she hadn't thought through the impacts of those policies. If I had asked that of Obama and had gotten it on tape, the result would be like the ones pictured above, especially after I'd asked why we should support his policies when he clearly hadn't thought them through.
Waiting for the mainstream media to ask politicians tough questions is an entirely losing strategy. On the other hand, if regular citizens got in the habit of calling politicians on their lies and the flaws in their policies on video, that would have an extremely healthy impact the entire U.S. system. Politicians would no longer feel free to lie or promote obviously flawed policies.
So, even after the election, grab a video camera, think up really good questions, and get out there and ask them.
UPDATE: No, Obama was never asked a tough question and he was never called on his long series of lies to his face. See the bit above about some people being unable to recognize a tough question.
Barack Obama faked Selective Service registration?
Barack Obama might have faked his Selective Service registration; see this. Schlussel has a copy of the form that Obama supposedly filled out as well as a print-out associated with the form. And, things don't add up. I'll let you wade through the details, but there actually appears to be something there.
Brooks Jackson/FactCheck spins Obama's Civilian National Security Force
One of the mistakes that Obama opponents kept engaging in during the election was to make exaggerated or not 100% legalistically formulated claims (e.g., "palling around"). The MSM then jumped on the exaggerated part of those statements in order to draw attention away from the parts that were true.
And, Brooks Jackson of FactCheck uses that technique in his discussion of Rep. Paul Broun's remarks about Obama's "civilian national security force": factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html
Jackson quotes the Obama speech as I did here, and ends with:
Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.
Now, to show that Brooks Jackson is little more than an Obama-supporting hack and "Fact Check" can't be trusted, here are some questions that Jackson doesn't even ask:
1. Where is the statement from the BHO campaign describing specifically what's in the CNSF, whether the CNSF is a coherent organization or just an umbrella term? A spokesman saying it's a "civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts" isn't enough. We need a detailed plan.
2. Obama said the CNSF would be "just as well-funded" as the U.S. military, which gets around a half a trillion dollars per year. Doesn't Obama's statement go well beyond "expansive... and exaggerated" as Jackson says?
3. What happens when Obama's CNSF returns home? Are there circumstances under which they could be activated here? Are there circumstances under which they could be used to push Obama's political aims? For instance, to engage in the strong-arm tactics that he's encouraged his supporters to use?
Those questions and more are left unanswered by Jackson, who instead simply serves as a reflexive defender of Barack Obama rather than a fact checker.
Was Ron Paul cheated out of delegates by McCain-supporting GOP officials?
I have absolutely no idea, due to the general incoherence and insular nature of Ron Paul supporters, but this says:Here is a video where the newly elected Chairman of the St. Charles Missouri Republican Central Committee, Tom Kuypers, claims credit for preventing properly elected delegates from being seated. It was recorded a couple of weeks before the November election...
...No delegates from St. Charles county were seated at the 2nd Congressional Convention.
By not seating these delegates, they prevented people who supported Ron Paul in the primaries from having a majority at the convention and electing their slate of delegates to the national convention...
In the tank: Google Maps front pages "Obama's Journey"
Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt is a member of Barack Obama's Economic Transition Team (link), so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the increasingly-political company he heads has given the president-elect (and Joe Biden) a special treat that they've probably already gawked over. In Obama's case, he might even have had a private chuckle over it too.
If you go to maps.google.com near post time, you'll see the image below. The front page includes two links to animated maps: "Barack Obama's Journey" and "Joe Biden's Journey". While the latter is probably accurate, the former might not be. For instance, we don't really (as in, really, as in fact-based not wishful thinking) know that BHO was in fact born in Hawaii. Mainly because he won't release his records. And, while he was probably in New York City for a couple years, even the NYT admitted that he wasn't telling the whole truth about his time spent there. There's no absolute proof that he graduated from Columbia, despite what Google Maps says.
Gebe Martinez/Politico misleads about role of "Hispanic vote" in Obama win
Ethno-boosting hack Gebe Martinez of the Politico offers "GOP must tone down rhetoric to woo Latinos" (link):
More than 10 million Hispanics voted last week, up from 7.6 million in 2004. If Hispanics were removed from the tallies, McCain would have had the winning edge in the battleground states of Indiana and New Mexico. Latinos also were a major factor in his losses in the former red states of Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and Florida. President-elect Barack Obama’s Latino support in Florida was 57 percent; in 2004, Bush’s was 56 percent.
And, if Martians voted, Bobarr would have won. Meanwhile, back here on Earth, see this:
According to the usual suspects, the benchmark in garnering Hispanic votes for Republicans is Bush's 40 percent showing in 2004. So what would have happened if McCain had matched Bush's performance, instead of the 31 percent he actually got? Based on CNN's exit polls, McCain still would have lost Nevada, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, not to mention, say, California and New Jersey. Conversely, even if Obama had won 90 percent of the Hispanic vote in Texas, instead of 63 percent, he still would have lost the state. With the possible exception of North Carolina, where the results were close but the number of Hispanic voters is too small to register in the exit poll, there doesn't seem to be a single state where the Hispanic vote was critical to the outcome.
Take the Chicago Barack Obama Challenge! (list of all of Obama's mainstream associates)
Barack Obama supporters, I'm throwing the floor open to you. Will you dare take the Chicago Barack Obama Challenge?In comments, please list all the past associates of BHO who are completely mainstream. Just people, not organizations. And, "past" means those prior to, say, 2004 and doesn't include, say, his current associates, those who simply endorsed him at any time, and the like. "Associates" means those with whom Obama has voluntarily worked, funneled money to, received money from, and the like. It does not include those with whom Obama was forced to have some relationship with, such as Republicans serving on some committee to which Obama belonged. For example of what we're looking for, someone who was as close as Ayers was to Obama, but completely mainstream.
Note, of course, that convicted felon bagmen, those with alleged links to crime figures, unrepentant terrorists, radicals, etc. etc. are not "mainstream".
I will then transfer those lists of BHO's past mainstream affiliates into this post, right here:
Portland pre-teens want to name school after Barack Obama
One of the highly effective but largely ignored ways that Obama could have been opposed before the election would be to point out his cult-like followers as well as his plan to get pre-teens to join his movement. Now, ripping a page from a 2005 Berkeley story, comes this less-than-detailed report about doings at a K-8 school in
Portland:
A couple of people have e-mailed the school, suggesting it be named after the new American leader and Willamette Week was even reporting that students at the school were heard chanting Obama's name one day, and filling out forms to get his name of the voting list.
Obama cabinet might include Democrat titans: Gore, Napolitano, Vilsack, Howard Dean, Caroline Kennedy...
The Barack Obama cabinet might include such Democratic Party titans as Al Gore, Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, Caroline Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, John Kerry, and many more truly titanic names. This link has a "transition flowchart", a PDF showing some potential picks and all of them are truly great figures who will help the Repu... er, I mean the Democrats. While this could all be a jolly joke, who knows since the head of the transition team is John Podesta and his think tank the Center for American Progress is as much a joke as the Harding Institute.
A possible "Climate Czar" is Al Gore, someone who might take Obama's outreach to pre-teens and make my April, 2008 satire about a "Green Pioneers" program a reality.
Podesta himself might head up an "Energy Security Council".
For Agriculture, Tom Vilsack is one of four possibilities.
Health and Human Services: Howard Dean or Tom Daschle.
Billionairess Penny Pritzker might be at Commerce; the tip of the iceberg on her is here.
For the Department of Homeland Security, the possiblities are:
* Tim Roemer (affiliated with George Mason University, a nexus of "cosmotarianism" and support for illegal activity),
* Raymond Kelly and Bill Bratton, chiefs of police of NYC and L.A. respectively,
* James Lee Witt (Clinton-era head of FEMA)
* Richard Clarke
For the State Department, all of them are some variation of bad jokes: John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Richard Holbrooke, Sam Nunn, and Colin Powell. The latter is listed under two additional possibilities.
At HUD, one possibility is BHO fixer Valerie Jarrett.
At Interior, Bill Richardson is one of five.
As the Department of Justice, Janet Napolitano, Rep. Artur Davis, and Eric Holder are listed. Someone from the latter's law firm visited this site after I posted about the viral video attempt at that link.
Also, from the link:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. might be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Caroline Kennedy could be the ambassador to the United Nations. Kennedy Jr. might be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Caroline Kennedy could be the ambassador to the United Nations. It's just an unofficial guide but a fun one to follow.
Yes, just watch out for that iceberg.
Obama spins Civilian National Security Force as for Iraq rebuilding
Back in July, Barack Obama gave a speech in Colorado where he proposed creating a "Civilian National Security Force". That was just in one line of the speech, and it didn't appear in the version as prepared for delivery (copy here). Since that time, many have speculated over what he could have meant, and just recently Georgia congressman Paul Broun compared the creation of such groups to that in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (link). Now, at the last link, the Barack Obama camp has responded:spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure - an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.That doesn't make much sense. Here's the comment in context (from the second link, with the sentence BHO added in his speech added where he said it and bolded):
As President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.The bit about the CNSF came after a sentence mentioning the Peace Corps, so he could have been speaking about a massive expansion of that program, and in that case the CSNF would only operate overseas. Of course, parts of that group would live in the U.S.; would they ever be activated in the "homeland"?
We’ll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We’ll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we’ll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. And we’ll use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create an online network where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up.
There's nothing on Obama's site remotely approaching the bolded sentence above, and what's really needed here is for someone to ask him to go into details on exactly what he meant. Since we can't rely on MSM reporters to do that, the job is left up to you the reader.
David Brady/Hoover Institution offers very bad advice for the GOP
David Brady, deputy director of the Hoover Institution, recently spoke to an Austrailian newspaper (link) and offered some advice for the Republican Party that was, at least in part, spectacularly bad and that showed that he has absolutely no clue whatsoever:
"In order for the Republicans to win again they have to drop the anti-gay, anti-immigrant, strict pro-life, no-abortion social positions they have taken... They have to drop those things and move to the centre where the American voters are. Look at gay marriage - support for gay marriage in America is going up; it's not going down. It's a similar situation if you're pro-life. The majority in America has been pro-choice for a while, and it's not moving anywhere."
1. He's claiming that all those who oppose gay marriage or illegal/massive immigration are "anti-gay" and "anti-immigrant". That's certainly true for some of those opponents, but not for all. And, rather than pointing that out, Brady is saying the same things that Democrats would use in smears against opponents.
2. While gay marriage may pass in several states throughout the U.S., it will always have opponents including many with good arguments. Likewise with abortion, but with the fact that the arguments against that or wishing to minimize it are even more well-founded. Where exactly would Brady have those millions and millions of people go? Brady isn't suggesting that the GOP try to achieve some sort of compromise, but is instead suggesting complete capitulation to the Democrats on those issues.
3. Perhaps supporting massive immigration is a loser for the GOP, no matter how they pander and no matter how much money they receive from crooked businesses.
4. It would be very easy for someone with a megaphone to completely discredit the Democrats over immigration. Brady is either too corrupt or too stupid to support doing that.
Michael Crowley/TNR falls for obvious hoax (source of Sarah Palin smears)
The New Republic - home to a long series of reprehensible folks like James Kirchick and Jason Zengerle - has fallen for another hoax.
This time around, Michael Crowley offers the post "Even More Palin Cluelessness" (blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/11/10/even-more-palin-cluelessness.aspx, via HotAir) about a supposed former McCain campaign advisor admitting that he was the source for the recent smears of Sarah Palin.
Just one problem: as the third comment informs us, the supposed advisor is apparently just a trickster:
sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=M._Thomas_Eisenstadt
The apparent trickster's page about this is here:
eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/11/10/eisenstadt-the-source-for-sarah-palin-africa-leak-and-proud-of-it/
I posted satires about Barack Obama... at his own site!
Now it can be revealed! I signed up for three accounts at my.barackobama.com, two of which were satires that, unfortunately, never took off.
However, the first account was done under the name of one of my sites and wasn't a satire;that's described here.
Then, using the name "Bill Hawkins", I posted the satirical entry about driving "hate" sites off the internet described here.
Finally, using the name "Robert Bellaire", I posted the best one yet at my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/robertbellaire. The second post at that page asked BHO supporters to all wear blue to his rallies. The desired result was a scary picture at the Drudgereport showing a sea of blue with the headline "Blue Shirts".
The first post at that page was a creepy program called "Neighbor2Neighbor" where people would rat out their neighbors:
What the Obama campaign should do is set up a "Neighbor2Neighbor" program. When someone in your community starts spreading lies, you can go to the Obama website and fill out an "incident" form, typing in the person's name, their contact information, and a description of the lies and smears they're peddling. A "campaign counselor" can then contact them by phone to discuss with them all the ways they're wrong. In extreme cases, counselors can even go out to the person's home and try to talk some sense into them. Obama himself said we need to get into peoples' faces and convince them to vote for him, and this program will help us do just that. Of course, the campaign shouldn't reveal the name of the tipster, but after the (former!) "smear spreader" sees the light they'll be grateful to whoever filed the tip.
It never took off at BHO's site, but it got four favorable comments when I reposted it here: dailykos.com/story/2008/10/9/142229/749
Despite the above not working, I don't think it's going to be difficult to get something to break through one of these days.
Cached copy of Barack Obama's change.gov agenda section
Barack Obama's change.gov - the official president-elect transition site - deleted their entire Agenda section over the weekend. There's apparently a cached copy here, although I haven't verified it since I didn't bother saving off my own copy.
UPDATE: There's a better-looking version from Google's cache here. As with the other one I didn't verify it.
Steve Schmidt should find a new line of work (immigration and the failed John McCain campaign)
Steve Schmidt - former chief strategist of the John McCain campaign - was interviewed by Ana Marie Cox about the various failures he was involved in and presumably he tries to defend himself against charges that he's completely incompetent; I didn't bother reading the whole thing (link) since this bit is all we need:
If you look at the returns from the southwestern and mountain west states, with rising Latino populations, it’s clear that Latinos are repudiating the party, their anger about the tone of the immigration debate, and the party has to figure out a way to communicate that wanting to have a secure and sovereign southern border and respect for Latinos are not mutually exclusive. But if the party does not figure out a way to appeal to Latino voters, it will become increasingly difficult, and maybe impossible, to ever again win a national election.
If McCain couldn't win over Latinos, one wonders which Republican could. McCain cost himself a large part of the GOP base due to his support for illegal activity in order to obtain votes. He spoke to the racial power group NCLR and, instead of taking them on for being far-left supporters of illegal activity, he went there seeking votes.
And, his Hispanic outreach director is a former cabinet-level official with the Mexican government.
Other than picking Vicente Fox as his running mate, it's unclear what he could have done different. No matter how much the GOP tries to pander, the Dems will always be able to buy more votes.
What the GOP has to do is stop putting crooked businesses ahead of their own self-preservation. And, they need to stop being Dem Lite by opposing corporate pluralism and by discrediting far-left supporters of illegal activity rather than capitulating to them.
Schmidt couldn't even beat the furthest-left major party candidate in history and someone whose past is partly unknown and partly very questionable. He should do us all a favor and find a new line of work.
UPDATE: Someone really needs to come up with a comprehensive list of all the ways that Schmidt's argument is wrong, since hacks will keep making the argument to sympathetic reporters until it's forcefully pointed out how they're wrong. One other argument against it is that the same people who got the GOP into trouble by supporting massive immigration are now offering their "solution": being "Latino-friendly", i.e., supporting even more massive immigration.
And, it looks like Schmidt's comments are part of a trend, an attempt by corrupt Republicans to signal to Obama that they want amnesty as much as the Democrats do.
The trend continues as Michael Scherer of Time Magazine's Swampland - the same site Ana Marie Cox works for - offers "The GOP's Big Hispanic Problem" (swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/10/the-gops-big-hispanic-problem/) which is basically a "news" report saying the same thing as Schmidt, but, of course, without even a hint at anything I wrote above. It links to this LAT article and also quotes Florida Sen. Mel Martinez (BTW: that last link is about another LAT article by the same "reporter") from an appearance on Meet the Press:
Governor Jeb Bush -- former Governor Jeb Bush last week made a comment that if Republicans don't figure it out and do the math that we're going to be relegated to minority status. I've been preaching this for a long time to my colleagues within my party. I think that the very divisive rhetoric of the immigration debate set a very bad tone for our brand as Republicans. The fact of the matter is I think in Florida there was not a great ideological shift, but I think there was plenty of room for improvement in how that state was looked upon. The fact of the matter is that Hispanics are going to be a more and more vibrant part of the electorate, and the Republican Party had better figure out how to talk to them. We had a very dramatic shift between what President Bush was able to do with Hispanic voters, where he won 44 percent of them, and what happened to Senator McCain. Senator McCain did not deserve what he got. He was one of those that valiantly fought, fought for immigration reform, but there were voices within our party, frankly, which if they continue with that kind of rhetoric, anti-Hispanic rhetoric, that so much of it was heard, we're going to be relegated to minority status.
National Council of Ethnic Americans demands equal representation in Obama cabinet
The National Council of Ethnic Americans (NCEA) - a coalition consisting of the Ethnic American Legal Defense and Education Foundation (EALDEF), the National Association of Ethnic American Elected Officials (NAEAEO), and the League of United European and Mediterranean American Citizens (LUEMAC) - has just sent the following missive:
President-Elect Barack Obama:
We are the Ethnic-Americans. During the election you reached out to us (my.barackobama.com/page/content/eahome) and asked for our support. Millions of us heard your call and voted for you, thus assuring your victory.
In fact, we are your largest voting bloc and you could not have won without out support.
Yet, it appears that your cabinet may not fully reflect the diversity of America and may not assure that our specific and united concerns are addressed (link). Please assure us that you will appoint those to your Cabinet who understand our concerns and represent our interests, and that you will do so in full knowledge of the millions of us who voted for you.
Thank you in advance,
All Ethnic-Americans, including European and Mediterranean Americans.
Mandatory community service still included in Obama's preK-12 education plan
Yesterday, we discussed how one page at Barack Obama's new change.gov site said he'd push for mandatory community service. The campaign later changed that page to match the more voluntary-oriented statements the campaign made elsewhere.However, there's still one thing they'll probably want to send down the memory hole. The file barackobama.com/pdf/issues/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf (available under the link "Read the Pre-K to 12 Plan" at barackobama.com/issues/education contains the following:
VIII. ENLIST PARENTS AND COMMUNITIES TO SUPPORT TEACHING AND LEARNINGThat certainly sounds like mandatory service to me, and note also that the PDF refers to the plan as belonging to both Obama and Biden, so someone did review it recently.
[...]
Service. All students in grant recipient districts will be expected to engage in some form of community service.
I'm sure there are more nuggets elsewhere in the 14 page PDF, but I'm not an education expert and I never saw people pounding the table about all the other things that are no doubt wrong about his plan during the election. One article from June is at humanevents.com/article.php?id=27186, and see the blog posts here and here. The GOP highlights vouchers and BHO's flip-flop on NCLB here, rather than discussing more fundamental issues.
And, see also my failed attempt to let everyone know that Obama wanted to use pre-teens to get votes.
Washington Post admits coverage tilted to Obama, doesn't admit their incredibly biased coverage for him and their lies for him
Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell offers "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage" (link). Unfortunately, about the only "tilt" she admits to is in the amount of coverage. She almost completely ignores the fact that the Washington Post served as little more than an arm of the Obama campaign by lying and misleading on his behalf and by serving as the source for and amplifier of smears. About the only thing beyond amount of coverage she'll admit to is a failure to cover some things:
But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.
Not too many people were up in arms about wanting to know more about the last sentence, since they were many things about his past that are much more important to know. I strongly suspect that Howell included the last sentence as a way to trivialize the concerns of the WaPo's critics.
Howell calls out a few of their reporters for acclaim, but completely fails to note any of those who intentionally got it wrong. None of that should be any surprise; as discussed at the first link back in March, Howell couldn't find much of anything wrong with the WaPo's incredibly biased immigration coverage either. Howell is simply a hack, paid to cover things up and give a starting point to "media critics" who'll give a feather-weight slap on the wrist to the MSM.
The following are some of the stories I've noted here. For even more, look through Digg's archives for front page stories from the WaPo that were later marked as inaccurate.
* Dana Milbank/WaPo's dangerous smear of Sarah Palin, supporters. In May, Milbank misled about Obama's links.
* Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post served as an amplifier for the NYT's 10/4/08 attempted cover-up of Bill Ayers.
* Howell praises Washington Post's "fact checker" Michael Dobbs; he "deserves praise for parsing campaign rhetoric for the overblown or just flat wrong". Now see this for just one of the examples of things he appears to have got wrong. Another thing he got wrong is in "McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive" (link); see the discussion here.
* Shailagh Murray offers WaPo's lightest weight coverage of Barack Obama yet?
* Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post promoted a BHO campaign ad without noting that it took a John McCain quote out of context; Howard Kurtz of the WaPo also failed to note the full context for the quote.
* Ed O'Keefe earlier helped Obama spread lies about Rush Limbaugh when he promoted a BHO campaign video and didn't point out the incredibly obvious lies; for an example of how bad it was, even Joe Klein eventually came out against the ad.
* Anne Kornblut solicited tough questions for Sarah Palin, but as far as I was able to determine when she had the chance she didn't ask BHO anything of note. In at least one case she simply acted as a transcriptionist for BHO; one of her articles misled about Palin's stance on Iraq and was later silently corrected by the WaPo.
* "Peter Slevin Award for Mainstream Media Puffery" is won by Slevin himself.
* Paul Kane started a smear about Sarah Palin "slashing" funds for a program, when in fact they were simply less than the legislature had asked for; the funding was actually increased from the previous year.
* Eli Saslow/WaPo lied in support of Barack Obama
AVWatch: Barack Obama's economic advisors include... Antonio Villaraigosa
Los Angeles' inept, corrupt, illegal activity-supporting mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - a former leader of a racial separatist group - is one of the members of Barack Obama's economic advisory board. Even the L.A. Weekly isn't amused (link):
The often stumbling Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, whose city budget deficit has hit a historic high and who has based his economic plan in Los Angeles almost entirely on a single industry — development, emphasizing massive housing complexes, which left L.A. bad off when the housing bubble collapsed — was chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to be on an elite, 17-member economic advice team, including Warren Buffett, that is meeting Obama in Chicago today...
Obama's aunt gets immigration lawyer, considers appeal (to prevent President Barack from deporting her?)
One of the coulda-been moments of the 2008 campaign was the failure of mostly anyone else to point out that Barack Obama supported his illegal alien own aunt being deported at the same time as he opposed the deportations of millions of illegal aliens he's never even met. Pushing that story would help dispel the widespread feeling among his supporters that he's all sweetness and light. At the time, I questioned why BHO supported her being deported instead of getting her an immigration lawyer in order to pursue a possible appeal of her case.
Now, she's got a lawyer (link):
Cleveland attorney Margaret Wong told the AP on Friday she is exploring legal options and may file a motion to re-open [Zeituni Onyango]'s case. She said Onyango is upset because she believes someone leaked information about her immigration status to try to hurt Obama's candidacy.
"Latinos push for Cabinet posts": NCLR, MALDEF, NALEO trying to embed supporters in Obama administration
"Latinos" want to be named to positions in the Barack Obama administration. Actually, it appears they want a quota system. And, it's not really "Latinos" as a group, but the familiar far-left pressure groups such as the NCLR, MALDEF, and NALEO. The second has an indirect link to the Mexican government, and the last has a direct link.The ethnic boosting "reporter" Gebe Martinez of the Politico offers "Latinos push for Cabinet posts" (link). Here's the quota bit:
Weeks before Barack Obama won the presidency, he met privately in Washington with his former Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and Latino political leaders who had fervently backed her bid.Then, she says that Latinos pushed Obama over the top; I'll wait for a reliable source.
The cards were laid upon the table, according to one of the participants. The Hispanic leaders said they expected at least two Latinos to be named to an Obama Cabinet — meeting the standard set by President-elect Bill Clinton in 1992 — but preferred three. Of course, they also wanted sub-Cabinet-level posts.
...Cecilia Munoz, vice president of National Council of La Raza, said, “It’s a foregone conclusion that we should be at the table for policy debates and in a position of authority,” because Hispanics are affected by major issues facing all voters. Latinos will be prominent in an Obama administration “just as we would be in any administration moving forward,” she added.
...Any diminishment of the Hispanic presence in today’s society and politics “would be a colossal mistake,” said Arturo Vargas, executive director of National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. “Latinos have demonstrated they can have an impact.”
...Before the election, two dozen groups that make up the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda turned over to Obama and John McCain policy recommendations that included adding more Hispanics to the federal workforce, increasing Hispanic political appointments and naming more Latinos to the federal bench.
The coalition will be collecting résumés to submit to Obama’s transition team. “It behooves us to not just suggest that the administration hire Latinos. We need to also provide good candidates,” said Peter Zamora of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
NALEO’s Vargas worries that, early on, the only names usually mentioned for possible appointment to the Obama administration are New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama’s Hispanic adviser Federico Pena — two Democrats who previously served in the Clinton administration.
...[Raul Yzaguirre] said he and others addressed that issue frankly with Obama at their meeting several weeks ago. “We said, ‘Look, if you are going to see us as late-comers, that’s not going to work. If you see us as partners from here on, we will have a good relationship.’ And he said he welcomed our support,” Yzaguirre said...
Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel want mandatory community service?; contradicts earlier statements; 100 hours/year in college
Yet more fun with Barack Obama's president-elect website change.gov, as the page change.gov/americaserves has this:
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
This "requirement" contradicts not only past statements, but another statement on change.gov. From the page "Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan for Universal Voluntary Public Service" at change.gov/agenda/service:
Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year... Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year...
Not only is there a contradiction between pages, there's one in the last sentence, since usually getting money is associated with being able to opt in or out.
Note that the change.gov/agenda/service version is basically the same as the current version of barackobama.com/issues/service, the version in his "Blueprint for Change" PDF (accessed 2/11/08), and the 1/3/08 version of barackobama.com/issues/service.
So, which is controlling? Will children be "required", or is his program voluntary. Or, is it "voluntary", where hoops must be jumped through in order to avoid taking part?
Note also that in his 2006 book The Plan: Big Ideas for America (link), new BHO chief of staff and Representative Rahm Emanuel said:
It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service... Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster...
Now, see Barack Obama's "civilian national security force"
UPDATE: As pointed out by several others, the "U.S. government", also known as the part of BHO's campaign behind change.gov, has changed the language on the page at change.gov first discussed above to bring it more in line with the other language. And, they don't provide any indication that there was a change. Silently changing their website to match the new set of facts is something they've done before.
The part at change.gov/americaserves that changed was this:
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
That's now this:
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.
The last is basically the same as in their PDF and what's at change.gov/agenda/service.
eCitizen's "Ask the President-Elect": yet another setup?
The eCitizen Foundation (ecitizenfoundation.org) has launched the "Ask the President-Elect" Project, where regular citizens can submit video or text questions for Barack Obama. The questions that get the most votes will then be asked of our new president or his transition team, with three of the top vote getters being flown to MIT for a live event.
And, it appears to be as much of a setup as similar past efforts. And, in fact, some of the same people involved in this effort were involved in past, failed efforts: see Open Debate Coalition: a failed format for fake debates.
Of course, by "failed", I mean from the perspective of those who want candidates to be asked tough, "prosecutorial-style" questions. From the perspective of those who want their favored puffballs to be asked, those past efforts were quite a success.
Are all these bright people so dim that they can't figure out the huge flaws in their method of selecting questions despite it having been illustrated to them two times already, or is this just an attempt to pretend to have a debate while not really having a debate at all? Unfortunately, I'm strongly supporting the latter explanation.
Here are some of those involved in this go-round:
This effort is co-sponsored by the Foundation, the MIT eCitizen Architecture Program under the leadership of MIT Professor William Mitchell, powered by Founding Partners communityCOUNTS (forum) and CIVICS.com (open frameworks) and supported by cyberspace luminaries like Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford, Professor Ethan Katsh of UMass and Professor Michael Froomkin of University of Miami Law School. Our growing community of partners also includes techPresident, change.org, pajamasmedia, voterwatch, blip.tv and many more.
UPDATE: One of the four submissions marked with 'ecitizen' at Youtube provides yet another in the long line of worthless questions that those who don't want a real debate tend to highlight (link). The question asks what new programs Obama will have to help the middle class go to college, and was obviously asked by someone who has web access and would seem to be able to do some research first. For instance, BHO has a PDF discussing his "Blueprint for Change", and it contains some details. Then there are his speeches, the statements of advisors, and so on. But, for some reason, the questioner was unable to look at any of those and decided to ask a completely general question. But, for the same reason discussed here, it would make great TV.
"Ashville N.C. School teacher browbeats student over being a McCain supporter" (I tried to warn everyone)
The video to the right is called "Ashville N.C. School teacher browbeats student over being a McCain supporter". Since I don't have sound here and can only slightly read Swedish I can't vouch for its contents, but it appears to be legit.
Now, see October 26's Obama Youth: campaign targets children under 12 and ask yourself two questions:
1. Exactly how many more things like this are we going to see? Note especially that BHO is now in effect also the leader of millions of people working at various levels of the government, including public school teachers.
2. Aside from drslogan.wordpress.com and littlegreenfootballs.com, no one else that I know of mentioned BHO's plans - right on his website - to bring pre-teens into his movement and then use them to get votes. Why wasn't anyone else interested in pushing a story that could have cost Obama the election?
Change.gov? Obama launches his own president-elect website
This is just great: change.gov (I actually said another word before "great", and I'll let everyone imagine what that word was.)
That's the official site for the "office of the president-elect", a new government website just to help usher in Barack Obama. And, it's not from the Bush-welcome-to-DC perspective, but instead from the Obama-I'm-in-charge-now perspective.
He's even got a wonderful form you can use called "An American Moment: Your Story" (change.gov/page/s/yourstory):
Start right now. Tell us your story in your own words about what this campaign and this election means to you. Share your hopes for an Obama Administration and a government for the people.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether they want to fill out the form, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's an attempt to build either a mailing/donations list or an enemies list.
UPDATE: The supposed government website's Privacy Policy is a bit interesting (change.gov/about/privacypolicy). In fact, it has more of a non-profit/corporate look to it than something one would expect from the U.S. government. It's basically the same boilerplate as used on several other sites, all of which are not government entities [1]. Comparing to the current policies at barackobama.com is left as an exercise, but some excerpts from candidate sites as of February is here.
And, it looks like the supposed government site is leaving open the possibility of adding those who fill out their forms to mailing lists:
We collect Personal Information from eligible individuals who affirmatively request to receive e-mail or other services from us. We collect this Personal Information in order to provide these eligible individuals with timely information via e-mail regarding events, resources and issues.
Could filling out the form be considered an "affirmative request"? And, the following is worthless because of the "general":
It is our general policy not to make Personal Information available to anyone other than our employees, staff, and agents.
And, in addition to FOIA, anything you say could be released:
We treat your name, city, state, and any comments you provide as public information.
But, don't worry, you can opt-out of... the mailing list:
Subscribers to our e-mail list may terminate their subscriptions via a link at the bottom of each email sent from Change.gov.
The site also provides an email address at ptt.gov, a site that doesn't seem to exist. Since that's added to the page by Javascript, it might just be a programming error, or it could be a new surprise just for us.
[1] Some sites that share some of the boilerplate are the following:
lessig08.org/privacy.php
jstreet.org/privacy_policy
run4president.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=6
votervoter.com/wot-tvad/page/privacy
spellingchange.com/privacy-policy.php
democratsforvalues.com/privacy.htm
Evan Thomas/Newsweek on Obama's "creepy cult of personality"
Now they tell us! Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas admitted on last night's Charlie Rose show that Barack Obama has a "creepy cult of personality". See the video here. I didn't watch it and, of course, no one is around to provide a transcript or an accurate summary of his remarks, but word on the street is that he means it in a slightly good way.
Note that Obama's personality cult was the first item in my non-partisan argument agains Obama. Note also that the third item is his indoctrination plan for pre-teens.
It's unfortunate that too few of Obama's opponents attempted to highlight things like that before the election.
New smear: Palin didn't know Africa was a continent or the three countries in NAFTA
An unnamed John McCain aide supposedly told Carl Cameron of Fox News - a tool if there ever was one - that Sarah Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent instead of a country. The aide also told him that she didn't know which countries were in NAFTA. Needless to say, this comes on the heels of a long line of smears against Palin, and it's almost assuredly a smear as well. She obviously knows about Canada, and she also obviously knows about Mexico. There's the slight possibility that she thought that some of the countries that are in Central America were in North America, but that probably isn't likely either. So, this doesn't even pass very basic scrutiny.
For those just dropping by, there's probably almost no chance that the allegations are true and someone is playing a game.
Unfortunately, it might be an effective smear because of the foundation that the mainstream media laid in order to help Obama become president; many of the things you "know" about Palin are actually lies planted by the Obama campaign and/or the mainstream media (as if they were that separate).
See this for the transcript of the interview, this or this for some thoughts on the palace intrigue aspects (noting that the second is just speculation), and this for the video.
What's especially worrisome about this from the standpoint of an informed electorate is that, at the same time that this smear is spreading, Obama supports a Bush trade scheme known as "NAFTA Plus" (the Security and Prosperity Partnership, spp.gov) that might be a precursor to joining the three countries of North America.
When coming out in support of that Bush trade scheme, Obama spoke in code. And, I have yet to see someone besides me and Obama himself discussing the fact that he supports that scheme. His editorial supporting Bush's scheme appeared in the Dallas Morning News, but no one else wants to discuss what he supports.
The visitor should decide which is more important: a smear, or a secretive Bush trade scheme. Then, take those pushing the smear to task. And, note that those calling Palin dumb are actually the dumb ones: they can't figure out that this is clearly a planted smear and they're just being useful idiots.
~~ Who's helping spread the smear? ~~
* The Huffington Post (of course) has it at huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html, and that has over 2200 Diggs (of course)
* Andrew Sullivan has completely bought it without any reservations whatsoever: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-odd-truths.html
Can you trust anyone who'd be so gullible?
* Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress also completely buys it:
thinkprogress.org/2008/11/05/palin-africa-continent/
* However, in a report oddly similar to the one from HotAir linked above, ksh01 of DailyKos implicitly throws some cold water on this by discussing the palace intrigue aspects:
dailykos.com/story/2008/11/5/194551/287/976/651932
Dueling sockpuppets: were some anti-Palin, anti-McCain comments from the Romney campaign?
Barack Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod owns an astroturfing company.
And, during the campaign the comments at many major sites (WaPo, Politico, Digg, etc.) were chock full of sockpuppets posting lame jokes, comments insulting McCain and/or Palin, and comments extolling the virtues of The One.
Could those two things have something to do with each other? I think it's extremely likely that the BHO campaign was paying people to comment on sites, but I can't prove it.
However, after the recent "Palin doesn't know Africa isn't a country" smear there's another possible culprit: the Mitt Romney campaign. After all, smearing Palin serves his interests, as does four disastrous years under Obama.
The only way to possibly find out who was involved would be if those sites that have received such comments (which, unfortunately, doesn't include this one) would look into the IP addresses of their sockpuppet commenters. Considering that most of those sites are partisan and those that aren't are corrupt and not interested in real reporting (*cough* Politico), we may never know.
Assignment: backgrounders on Obama's transition staff
Barack Obama has named his transition staff and an advisory board thereto (link). It would be interesting to know how many of them are part of or linked to the Chicago Machine or have other interesting links.
A few on the advisory board are known hereabouts: William Daley (brother of Chicago's mayor and supposedly clean 'n' mainstream), Janet Napolitano, and Federico Pena.
If searching for the names below reveals anything of interest, please leave a comment.
Others on the board are: Carol Browner, Christopher Edley, Michael Froman, Julius Genachowski, Donald Gips, Susan Rice, Sonal Shah, Mark Gitenstein, and Ted Kaufman. Per the link, "the latter two are Biden advisers."
And, here's the transition staff:
Chris Lu – Executive Director
Dan Pfeiffer – Communications Director
Stephanie Cutter – Chief Spokesperson
Cassandra Butts – General Counsel
Jim Messina – Personnel Director
Patrick Gaspard – Associate Personnel Director
Christine Varney - Personnel Counsel
Melody Barnes – Co-Director of Agency Review
Lisa Brown – Co-Director of Agency Review
Phil Schiliro – Director of Congressional Relations
Michael Strautmanis – Director of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs
Katy Kale – Director of Operations
Brad Kiley – Director of Operations
Reason Magazine tries to pretend they opposed Barack Obama
The "libertarians" at Reason Magazine offer a list of their recent coverage of Barack Obama (reason.com/news/show/129922.html), and from that list those who don't read their Hit and Run blog frequently might think they actually opposed him. In fact, they served as a bit of a cheerleader for him and almost always showed a clear bias towards him and against McCain (as pretty much every visitor to their site knows, their editor Matt Welch wrote an anti-McCain book). Yes, there were a few negative stories on BHO, but they never really went after him, despite all the at least partly libertarian-friendly things he could and should have been opposed over.
I posted that list over at their site a few times, and suggested that they try to offer an intellectually honest counterargument. Instead, the night before the election their last post was about frozen mice. No, really: reason.com/blog/show/129851.html
And nearly every single contributor to and commenter at their blog knows about my nearly two year push to go ask politicians real questions on video and then upload their responses to Youtube. At any time during the past two years, Reason could have very easily sent Dave Weigel or someone else to a BHO appearance to ask him a question - whether about my topics or theirs - that would have greatly reduced his support and shown him to be an empty suit. Instead, during the entire election cycle, the only "tough" question Reason managed to ask was when Weigel asked Larry Sinclair (yes, that guy) something slightly discomforting.
Obviously, Reason didn't try to ask anyone with any power tough questions, despite the fact that it would have gotten tens of times more views than their most viewed video and made them close to a household name. And, they would have done a great public service by holding politicians accountable and by showing how corrupt the MSM is.
But, they did nothing.
Reason isn't really a libertarian site, but it goes deeper than that: they're complete establishment suck-ups who have no interest in ruffling anyone's feathers. They're Joe Kleins in pleather jackets, worthless, corrupt frat boys who refuse to grow up and do anything remotely approaching holding politicians accountable.
API RELEASES WHITEY TAPE!!!
DEVELOPING... BREAKING... LINK ANY MOMENT NOW... LARRY JOHNSON IS FLYING IN WITH THE TAPE AS I SPEAK...
While we're waiting, I'm going to go write-in Hillary.
UPDATE: It took less than ten minutes to go make my protest vote. As for API, the skullduggery has prevented them from airing the tape, but they promise they'll get it to us tomorrow.
Hundreds of college students might vote twice (Virginia)
A local GOP official in Virginia has compiled a list of hundreds of college students who are newly registered to vote in that state and who've also requested absentee ballots from a state in which they previously resided. Some might in fact follow through and vote twice, but of course we won't know that until after the election. Details here.
Hope, change: Black Panthers intimidate white voters in Philadelphia
Rough transcript of the video below.RICK LEVENTHAL/FOX NEWS: i do not even know where to begin, but we have reached a polling place in the city of philadelphia. one of the two black panthers who was allegedly blocking the door is standing right over here, with an accused us of intimidating voters because we were here with a camera and microphone. he did not answer questions, other people here have confirmed that another person in black panther attire was holding a night stick and apparently the concern was that they were intimidating people who were trying to go inside to vote. a republican poll observer actually called the police, the police were here and we miss them...UPDATE: There's amateur footage here.
CITIZEN: we got a phone call that there was intimidation going on. i walked up to the door, two gentlemen in black panther guard, one brandishing a nightstick, standing in front of the door. they closed ranks as i walked up...
Your election day eve assignment
Should you decide to accept it:
1. Search out local forums in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and other coal states (such as at local newspapers) and make sure that as many people as possible know exactly what Obama's position on coal is. Urge them to contact all their friends.
2. Do the preceding throughout the U.S. and let them know that Obama's plans will cause electricity rates to - in his own words - skyrocket. As above, urge everyone to contact their friends. That's non-partisan, so don't make it so, don't stick to conservative forums, etc.
3. Do the same with The Non-Partisan Case Against Barack Obama. As above, concentrate on places where independents and conservative Democrats gather. And, urge everyone to send that around. Feel free to add, remove or modify points to match your audience.
4. Let Obama's supporters or potential supporters know how great a person he is by letting them know that he supports his own aunt being deported at the same time as opposing the deportations of millions of illegal aliens he's never even met.
Video: Obama promises electricity rates will skyrocket under his plan (energy costs)
Here's the San Francisco Chronicle video (not just audio) of Barack Obama promising that under his energy plan, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket".
The full transcript of the video is here; note this:
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.
We should be incorporating new energy sources and encouraging people to use better lightbulbs. However, along the road to Obama's global non-warming paradise you're going to be paying a lot more money for your electricity bills and so will every company in the U.S. His plan would have a devastating impact on the economy, and it's a sign of his lack of qualifications to be president that he'd propose such a drastic plan.
Please send the video or this page to everyone you can find in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and other coal states.
See also Video of Obama wanting to bankrupt new coal-powered plants
Video of Obama wanting to bankrupt new coal-powered plants
Here's the San Francisco Chronicle video (not just audio) of Barack Obama discussing his cap and trade plan that would result in bankrupting new coal power plants. For the transcript of what's on the tape, see this. Note that there's a elision in there somewhere; if anyone has a full transcript of the whole interview that might be useful but I guess that's too much to ask.
Note especially this:
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there... ...So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted...
What's on the audio at the link above but not on the video is this bit:
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can... It's just that it will bankrupt them.
Please send the video or this page to everyone you can find in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and other coal states.
See also Video: Obama promises electricity rates will skyrocket under his plan (energy costs) and those in the coal industry taking him to task.
Sarah Palin cleared in Troopergate
From this:A new report just released -- hours before the polls open on Election Day -- exonerates Gov. Sarah Palin in the Troopergate controversy.
The state Personnel Board-sanctioned investigation is the second into whether Palin violated state ethics law in firing her public safety commissioner, and it contradicts the earlier findings by a special counsel hired by the state Legislature.
Both investigations found that Palin was within her rights to fire Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.
But the new report says the Legislature's investigator was wrong to conclude that Palin abused her power by allowing aides and her husband, Todd, to pressure Monegan and others to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law, Trooper Mike Wooten. Palin was accused of firing Monegan after Wooten stayed on the job...
Senator Bob Menendez to Neil Cavuto: "I hope you are not one of the ones forced off the air"
[UPDATE: Apparently this is nothing, see below.]
Earlier today, Senator Bob Menendez appeared on the Fox's Neil Cavuto show and got into an argument with him about various Barack Obama plans. Near the end of the interview and after a discussion in which Cavuto raised the possibility of the Democrats bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, Menendez said:
"I hope you are not one of the ones forced off the air."
Unfortunately, it isn't clear from someone who saw it whether that was just a very bad joke or whether Mendenez slipped up and told the truth. Please leave a comment which it is; here's the video:
[UPDATE: Once again, I didn't have audio when I posted this and, as you can see from the link above I asked someone else to confirm that's what Menendez said. And, as happened once before, the FReeptards got it wrong and there's apparently nothing wrong with what he said, at least in reference to Fairness Doctrine-related issues. Out of thousands of members, you'd think there'd be some people there who knew how to make themselves useful.]
Is Barack Obama still in frequent contact with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn?
Law professor Steve Diamond says a source close to the campaign says so. Unfortunately, until he gets someone to go on the record or at least a second source it's not really worth much right now.
Did Barack Obama flip the bird to John McCain? (give the finger)
Back in April, Barack Obama might have "flipped the bird"/"given the finger" to Hillary Clinton. In September, BHO said "You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig" (link) in what was probably a swipe at Sarah Palin. His supporters know what he's doing, no matter how some try to deny it.
Now, he's back:
See the video here.
Joe Biden on gun control: flashback to 2007 debate
I'm sure everyone remembers this classic from last year's Youtube/CNN debate debacle.QUESTION: Good evening, America. My name is Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan.
To all the candidates, tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe.
This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Please tell me your views.
Thank you.
...COOPER: Senator Biden, are you going to be able to keep his baby safe?
BIDEN: I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help.
(APPLAUSE)
I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious. Look, just like me, we go around talking about people who own guns. I am the guy who originally wrote the assault weapons ban, that became law, and then we got defeated and then Dianne Feinstein went to town on it and did a great job.
BIDEN: Look, we should be working with law enforcement, right now, to make sure that we protect people against people who don't -- are not capable of knowing what to do with a gun because they're either mentally imbalanced and/or because they have a criminal record, and...
COOPER: Time.
BIDEN: Anyway...
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: We got one more question. Before...
BIDEN: ... I hope he doesn't come looking for me.
(LAUGHTER)
Barack Obama is apparently not a friend to the coal industry
The Wheeling News-Register offers "Obama’s Real Agenda On Coal Now Clear" (link):Clearly, Obama wants the scale set low on how much greenhouse gas a plant could emit before being forced to buy "credits" allowing it to operate. Here, in his own words, is what Obama told the Chronicle in regard to use of coal: "So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them, because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."And, see "Ohio Coal Association Says Obama Remarks Make It Clear: Obama Ticket Not Supportive of Coal" (link):
That would help explain comments made earlier this fall in Ohio, by Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden. "No coal plants here in America," he emphasized. Obviously, Biden made his comments in the context of Obama's plan to price coal out of the marketplace through use of draconian air pollution rules.
Sen. John McCain has made it clear that he supports clean-coal technology - with no hidden agendas such as those Obama has in mind. As we have stressed repeatedly, McCain's plan should appeal not just to coal-state voters - but to all Americans worried about energy.
Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association (OCA), today issued the following statement in response to just-released remarks from Senator Barack Obama about the nation's coal industry.And, here's a Youtube video with Joe Biden speaking in Ohio and saying "No Coal Plants Here in America", he only wants them to be built in China.
"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...
From yesterday, see "Coal official calls Obama comments 'unbelievable'" (link)
And, from earlier this year, Harry Reid said:
"The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don't see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it's global warming. It's ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”There's a video from the S.F. Chronicle meeting where Obama said he wasn't a coal booster here.
UPDATE: There's another round-up of reaction here ("Coal, Mining Groups Blast Obama").
Please send this page to everyone you know in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and other coal-producing states.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler: Obama didn't have the "political courage" to leave Rev. Wright's church (asking questions works)
For almost two years, I've been trying to encourage people to go to public appearances by politicians, ask them tough questions, and upload their responses to video sharing sites. A month ago, I sent an open letter to a series of mostly Pajamas Media bloggers urging them to push such a plan, and none of them did. Instead, some pushed loony theories, some sat in a dark corner moaning (PW), and others concentrated on their Amazon sales.Now, one other person from that group - almost assuredly doing so on her own initiative and not on the prompting of the other hacks at PJM - has done something similar to my plan that might have an effect on the election. It would have been better if the person asked had been Obama and if the question had been an actual tough question, but a stumbling gaffe response might be enough to spur others to do something similar in the future.
From this:
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, was down in Florida over the weekend, and one supposes that he thought he was helping Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., but it will ultimately be hard to make that case.He apparently said other things too; see the last link.
Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugged has posted [link] some video of Nadler at a synagogue in Boca Raton trying to explain why Obama was able to stay in Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years.
He starts off my saying he has no idea of what he's talking about. And then he proceeds to open mouth, insert foot...
...And then, the line that may haunt Nadler for four years or longer: "[Obama] didn't have the political courage to make the statement of walking out [of Rev. Wright's church]...
Is it correct to doubt Barack Obama's patriotism, as Joe the Plumber did?
Ali Frick from ThinkProgress - whose parent fund is linked to the Obama campaign - breathlessly informs us that "Joe the Plumber" apparently just said something we're supposed to be shocked about (link):
McCain has fought and bled for our country, and loves our country. There's too many questions with Barack Obama and his loyalty to our country. And I question that greatly... ...his ideology is something that is completely different than what democracy stands for, so I had some question there. In my opinion...
He really shouldn't have said that, and he might find his campaign appearances curtailed as a result.
However, moving away from the political correctness, it's not that difficult to question the patriotism of many of our leaders due to the fact that, while they go through the proper motions, many of them also appear to be "trading for their own account" and/or basically supporting a globalist agenda rather than a completely U.S.-friendly agenda.
For an example, see George Bush making a pledge to the Mexican government to change the U.S. laws in a way that most Americans don't support. I called him a quisling at that time, and I still would call him that and I'd do it on the TV should I ever be elevated to JTP status. In that case, Bush clearly wasn't putting the U.S. first; he was putting the corrupt elites of the U.S. and Mexico first, but not the U.S. as a whole.
And, to a certain extent a similar argument could be made against John McCain as well over the same issue. Now, of course, the arguments above concern a different field than JTP was discussing, but also of course he can't discuss that for fear of McCain being implicated in the same charge.
In Obama's case, the only problem is that he hasn't yet reached the point where, like Bush, he can fully manifest his own issues with loyalty to the U.S.; he only visited Mexico in college and has yet to make a trip there to try to sell us out.
However, we do have a few data points already. For instance, Obama supports the anti-American DREAM Act, something that would take college educations away from U.S. citizens in order to give them to citizens of foreign countries who are here illegally.
And, not too long ago, Obama was regurgitating reconquista/MEChA talking points.
What JTP said was definitely rough around the edges, but for those who've been following along he's correct in general.
Note also that the ever-classy Josh Marshall offers "Joe the Skinhead" (talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/242050.php), a post that contains no evidence that JTP is a skinhead but simply smears him as such.
Obama wants his poor aunt to be deported, doesn't want millions of other illegal aliens to be deported
[SEE THE SECOND UPDATE]Per this, on tonight and tomorrow night's CBS News, Katie Couric asked