Team Obama and the media minions seem to be all aboard the Alinsky Train; what else could explain the daily vitriol against the Tea Party during and since the debt ceiling debate.  Nearly every day something about the vicious Tea Party and their plan to ruin America has been at the top of Memeorandum. 

The more the media lambasts the Tea Party, the more likely the public will be to turn against them, or so the Alinsky model goes.

Here's David Axelrod explaining how the downgrade is the fault of the Tea Party:

Axelrod said S&P’s decision was “largely a political analysis.” “And that's what we should focus on because what they were saying is they want to see the political system work. They want to see a sense of compromise. They want to see the kind of solution that the president has been fighting for, a large solution that will deal with the problem, that will be balanced, that will include revenues.” 

Instead, said Axelrod, conservative, Tea Party-influenced Republicans “played brinksmanship with the full faith and credit of the United States. And this was the result of that.”

Excuse me, Mr. Axelrod, but what was Obama's plan?  Did he have one?  No, I didn't think so. Axelrod wants you to think it's the Tea Party's fault we got downgraded rather than Obama's lack of a plan or the over the top spending of the Democrats.

Steve Benen ponders a whole litany of wrongs by Republicans before he finally lights on the debt ceiling debate as "the worst thing the Republicans have ever done":

I still think there’s something unique about the Republicans holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage, threatening to impose a catastrophe on all of us, on purpose, to achieve a specific (and unnecessary) policy goal. 

Again, never mind the fact that Obamacare is about to add millions to Medicaid forcing a rationing situation onto our medical professionals; never mind the explosion of cost and bureaucracy that will result from Obamacare because holding the line for fiscal conservatism is so much worse than that (as lame as that line was).

Howard Dean calls the downgrade "a tea party problem":

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean took a stronger tone on CBS, suggesting the tea party has been “smoking some of that tea, not just drinking it” and said of the entire default and downgrade morass, “this is a tea party problem."

Joe Biden even called the Tea Party terrorists (although he now denies it).

And so it goes...it's all aboard the Alinksy Train to attack the Tea Party, to marginalize them, to make them seem anti-American, even.  "Why, it's all the Tea Party's fault that your interest rates have gone up!"

Truth is, as Professor Jacobson pointed out:

Barack Obama never put forth a debt reduction plan.  Ever.

All Obama did was talk in generalities about what he might be willing to consider as part of a “grand bargain,” but it always was vague, the equivalent of voting present.  But when Republicans put forth actual plans to deal with entitlements (the Ryan plan) and to take dramatic action as to spending (Cut, Cap and Balance) the White House went along with Democratic demagoguing of the issue.

So now it's all the Tea Party's fault.

Do not be led down the dark, smoky path of the Alinsky-ite Obama minions.  The Tea Party faction held the line as best they could.  Even John McCain has gone from calling the Tea Party "hobbits" to defending their mandate:

“We could have reached an agreement a lot earlier, but the members of the House of Representatives had a mandate last November, and it was jobs and the economy and it was spending. And for them to then agree to tax increases and spending increases was obviously a repudiation of the mandate they felt they had from last November,” McCain said.

Call them names.  Alienate them.  Turn people against them.  Defeat them.  The Alinsky way.

Don't be snookered.  Obama owns the downgrade and whatever aftermath is to come -- not the Tea Party.

I so wish I could watch the health care summit at Blair House tomorrow, but alas, work beckons. I suppose I could TIVO it (yes, I'm that big of a nerd) but it would be anticlimactic somehow. It is sure to be great theater, however, and what I really wish is that I could just be a fly on the wall (hiding, not one snapped out of flight and squished) in that room.

Here is the list of those invited:

Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, Majority Leader
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY, Republican Leader
Senator Richard Durbin, D-IL, Majority Whip
Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, Republican Whip
Senator Max Baucus, D-MT, Chairman of the Finance Committee
Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA, Ranking Member of the Finance Committee
Senator Tom Harkin, D-IA, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Mike Enzi, R-WY, Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Christopher Dodd, D-CT, Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
Representative Steny Hoyer, D-MD, Majority Leader
Representative John Boehner, R-OH, Republican Leader
Representative James Clyburn, D-SC, Majority Whip
Representative Eric Cantor, R-VA, Republican Whip
Representative Charles Rangel, D-NY, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee
Representative Dave Camp, R-MI, Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee
Representative Henry Waxman, D-CA, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Joe Barton, R-TX, Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative George Miller, D-CA, Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee
Representative John Kline, R-MN, Ranking Member of the Education and Labor Committee
Representative John Dingell, D-MI, Chair Emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee

Senator John Barasso will also be there as the top Democrat and top Republican leaders were told they could invite four people each, and he was invited by Senator Mike Enzi.

The meeting is tomorrow but the scrapping has already begun. Robert Costa at The Corner reports:

Barrasso says that President Obama and Democrats are “arrogant” for proposing a “more expensive” health-care proposal just days before the summit. Barrasso adds that he remains “fascinated” at how not one “logical thought” has been expressed by Democrats in their summit-prep efforts, and still feels that Obama is unwilling to work with the GOP. “I don’t think [Obama] has been open to Republican ideas,” he says.

And now you've got John Boehner saying, "Hey! Let's invite Bart Stupak, too!"

John McCain plans on attending the meeting and he isn't bringing a positive outlook, either, but instead has a petition going against the Democrats plans:

Tomorrow, President Obama will host a health care reform summit to discuss his proposed overhaul of our health care system. I believe to achieve real reform; we must scrap it and start over. If you agree, I ask that you sign our "Scrap Health Care Reform and Start Over" petition. We'd like to gather 100,000 signatures overnight to send a message to the left, and your immediate action will help us reach this goal.

Oh and meanwhile, McCain encourages you in the same letter to make a donation to his re-election campaign.

U.S. Representative Charles Boustany will be there; he's a heart surgeon and brings a unique perspective to the negotiations but he is under no illusions:

"I'm going to go in hopeful that we can get something done but under no illusion and recognize that they are stacking the deck trying to move forward with the current proposals which the American people already largely oppose," said Boustany.

Meanwhile, Louisiana Purchase Mary Landrieu says the Republicans ... yes, the Republicans, aren't playing fair. Who says she doesn't have ... nerve?

But Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., one of those Democrats who has expressed reservations about using reconciliation for this purpose, indicated this week that she is not foreclosing going along with that option. "I'm staying open to see how these negotiations go forward," she told Politico. "I've not generally been a big supporter (of using reconciliatoin), but the Republican Party, the leadership, has really been very, very, very disingenuous in this process."

"Disingenuous"? Really, Mary? That really means something coming from you! Ouch!

All in all I'd say this could get really interesting! The pre-summit posturing is titillating enough, but tomorrow, all those big egos in one room? Oh to be a fly on the wall...

John McCain's rant on the Senate floor against the earmarks we have been forced to swallow lately was right on target. His frustration was exactly what many Americans have been feeling as we railed against the Porkulus bill, the Omnibus bill and the budget. The Tea Party protests around the country have not been without notice. Some folks, but not quite enough yet, are even expressing "buyer's remorse" with regard to Mr. Obama.

McCain called out Obama over the earmarks. He quoted Mr. Obama's line from the debate in Oxford:

“'We need earmark reform and when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure we’re not spending money unwisely.' That’s the quote, the promise of the president of the United States made to the American people in a debate with me in Oxford, Miss. So what is brought to the floor today — 9,000 earmarks.…So much for change.”

You can hardly blame him for being angry; the earmarks are ridiculous. This was the bill that had funding for tattoo removal for gang members, promotion of astronomy in Hawaii, lobster research, Mormon cricket research, seals in Maine, and termite research in New Orleans, just to name a few.

McCain dismissed budget director Peter Orszag's remark that "this is last year's business" and that the president is ready to "move on." McCain rightly points out that THIS president will sign it, so it is THIS president's responsibility. At a time when the economy is tanking and people are losing jobs, this spending is nothing short of an insult to the American people, so no wonder McCain is a tad riled up.

He is not the only one riled up. Fox News reports Cuban born Senator Mel Martinez (R.-FL.) isn't happy either. The Omnibus bill eases restrictions on travel to Cuba and extends credit for increased trade to the island nation, all moves that Martinez says will not benefit the Cuban people as the measure exacts no positive actions in return.

"'As we consider changing U.S. policy toward Cuba, why are we doing this without asking anything?" Martinez implored his colleagues, suggesting that the U.S. should, for example, demand the release of political prisoners."

Former Obama supporter David Brooks is now saying of the budget,

"So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new. "

And Christopher "Sorry Dad, I'm Voting For Obama" Buckley is expressing doubts:

"The strange thing is that one feels almost unpatriotic, entertaining negative thoughts about Mr. Obama’s grand plan, as if one were indulging in—call it—the audacity of nope. It is on the one hand clear that something must be done about our economic woes. But that is very different from saying that spending these vast, oceanic sums of money is the right corrective to a decade of fiscal incontinence."

It all begs the question, how much will the American people take before the revolution begins? You're going to suggest it's "too early" to pass judgment, aren't you? How long should I wait, then? Until the stock market hits 3,000? Until our health care system has been dismantled, destroyed and dominated by harsh socialistic regulations? Until the tax rate hits 55 or 60% on all of us? Until my energy costs triple because of the cap and trade restrictions? Until terrorists, encouraged by our ever weakening stance on terrorism, come calling?

Can I pass judgment then? Or am I supposed to keep "hoping" for the best?

There was a lot of discussion this morning on the progress of the stimulus plan. On Face The Nation, VP Joe Biden said that "important progress" is being made and that there have already been many compromises made between Democrats and Republicans.

Meanwhile, John McCain says that there need to be "major rewrites" done on the stimulus before he will vote for it. He told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday this morning, "As it stands now, I would not support it." Contrary to what Biden says, McCain says that as far as he can tell, no Republican proposal has been incorporated into the bill.

Nancy Pelosi spoke to George Stephanopoulos and in response to his question regarding incorporating Republican ideas into the bill, she said, "Well, we will take some. We will judge them by their ability to create jobs, to -- to help turn the economy around, to stabilize the economy, and to see how much they cost. But we’re open to them, and we’ll review them, and it all has to be done right away because our bill has to come to the floor this week."

She also said with regard to increased welfare and unemployment insurance issues, "Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned, what the economists have told us, from right to left, there is more bang for the buck, is the term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cuts."

I'm not an economist by any means, but I don't actually agree with that statement. It's been proven and well documented that tax cuts do far more to stimulate a depressed economy than extension and enhanced social programs which don't do anything to actually move the economy forward.

At any rate, disagreement on this bill is certainly expected and in the end I hope both sides put aside partisan BS for the good of the country.

If you want to look at the stimulus yourself, there is a place you can to that here, and add your comments or suggestions. Get involved!

The definitive quote of the campaign for me has belonged to Sarah Palin. She had me during her convention speech when she looked right in the camera and said, "There has only been ONE MAN in this campaign who EVER really fought for you...and that man is John McCain."

No lie, Sarah. After the Obama infomercial it would be easy for anyone who watched that to think that America is a depressed and dying country waiting only for Obamessiah to come save it. He highlighted four families, each in some degree of misery, and guess what? He has the answer to their problems, or so he would want us to believe. I don't believe.

Sarah Palin nailed it. John McCain believes in this country. He has fought for this country and he understands everything that means. Obama has no conception of that; you can defend him on issues that suit you as long as you want to try, but Obama has NEVER EVER fought for his country. Not for THIS country.

There are many important issues in this election that matter to me. I'm concerned about the economy, about jobs, about free trade, about who might get appointed to the Supreme Court and shape the course of the nation for years to come. But a big one is national security. Obama has voted against our troops at every turn. He has verbally criticized our troops (who he says are "bombing civilians and air-raiding villages"). He voted against the surge; in the only major foreign policy decision of his 143 day Senate career, he failed. Had he prevailed in his vote against the surge, our guys would have come home in defeat, Iraq in tatters and we would be facing a return to the region under even more dire circumstances. And should he get elected he proposes to cut military funding. What a slap in the face Obama is giving those soldiers and what a slap the American people supporting Obama are giving them.

After the Obama infomercial and after observing this entire campaign, there REMAINS no question in my mind that this man does not like America. He does not. If you need resassurance of that, review his list of America-hating friends and associates: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, Khaleed al-Monsoor just to name a few. Everyone he has associated with hates America; is this coincidence? I don't think so.

I'm not ready OR willing to turn my country, the country my own father fought for, over to this man. No way. Sarah Palin nailed it. John McCain loves our country, has fought for it and will continue to fight for it. He has a moral compass, a moral code, and he has the experience this country needs in these dark times.

If you don't believe me, listen to this guy. Even if you KNOW you're voting for Obama, or even if you already have. You owe this guy a listen, trust me:

Mark Levin wrote a spot on commentary on the Obama campaign. Here's a quote:

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

I don't know if there is enough time for people to wake up and realize that even though they may not LOVE McCain, the fate of our country should push them above pushing the button for an untested, unproven, inexperienced socialist who has no real love of our country or any conception of "country first" or honor.

Check out Levin's column!

Before I got so consumed with this election, this blog used to have stuff on it that wasn't about politics! I guess it goes to my overwhelming concern about the election that I can't seem to post about anything else. My readership isn't high enough to actually change any minds, but I do get the occasional random visitor and if nothing else, it helps me feel like I'm doing some small, tiny thing to help my candidate. Ah well.

Sitting here with my coffee this morning, I was checking my daily sites and editorials and there were two that just nailed what I've been thinking this week. The first one was the Investor's Business Daily editorial which is part of a series they are running on the divide between Obama and McCain. It absolutely nails the Obama tax plan and gets it down to pretty simple language. A quote:

Look at just a few of the things he and congressional Democrats have in mind: Higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs (anyone earning over $250,000), higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on dividends, a possible raid on Americans' 401(k)s, a takeover of America's private health care industry, strict new limits on what CEOs can make, and the reimposition of the death tax.

Add it up, and Obama will usher in a new era in America — one where capital, the engine of our economic growth and success, is punished severely through the tax code. If Democrats win a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, it'll be the only form of capital punishment their party will support.

The article concludes by pointing out that the top 5% of earners already pay 60% of all taxes and Obama's changes skew that even further. This should worry everybody; it doesn't matter if you make that big salary - it's going to affect us all in a big way.

The second editorial was Bill Kristol's at The Weekly Standard. I love Bill Kristol. The first line of his article is "It's always darkest before it goes totally black." He, of course, supports McCain/Palin and he points out what has been my biggest deal with Obama which is that he has never accomplished anything but a disciplined campaign. He also criticizes those Republicans who are jumping off the McCain ship just because of Obama's calm temperment. Hunh? What's that about?

Kristol cites a moving moment at a McCain rally in which Marine Sgt. Jack Eubanks gave his Purple Heart to McCain.

"I just gave John McCain my Purple Heart," Marine Sgt. Jack Eubanks told me a few minutes after McCain finished a speech at a campaign rally in Woodbridge, Virginia, Saturday. "I said, 'I want to give this to you, sir, as a reminder that we want you to keep your promise to bring us home in victory and honor, so it will mean something.' "

The 22-year-old Eubanks has been injured twice in Iraq. He's now teaching Marine recruits at Quantico--and walking with a cane. York explains that Eubanks saw remarkable progress in Iraq between his 2005 and 2007 tours and is concerned that it might all be for naught. "I think Obama's just going to pull everyone home as soon as he can, despite what's going on over there," he told York. "I just don't want it to turn into another Vietnam or worse where everything we fought for, and all my buddies who died over there, it was just for nothing."

If you saw the Military Times poll, you know that our military fully and overwhelmingly supports McCain.

Kristol concludes with a great Lincoln quote.

"But for now, we can only echo the words of the 30-year old Abraham Lincoln. On December 26, 1839, responding to the confident prediction of one of his political opponents 'that every State in the Union will vote for Mr. Van Buren at the next Presidential election' and that Lincoln's opposition to the Van Buren forces was therefore bound to be in vain, Lincoln responded:
'Address that argument to cowards and to knaves; with the free and the brave it will effect nothing. It may be true; if it must, let it...The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just...Let none falter, who thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But if after all, we shall fail, be it so.'

As it happens, the Whig ticket Lincoln supported won that 1840 election. So might, against the odds, the party of Lincoln win this year."

In nine days this election will be over and life will go on either way. In the meantime I will be trying to understand why half our nation seems ready to throw our country away - some for no other reason than that they don't like George W. Bush. Some because they want "Change." I'm not convinced the change that is coming is the change they want.

Get ready America; here comes the second term of the Carter administration should Mr. Obama pull off this election and have a democratic congress at his disposal. He's already drafted his inauguration speech, built the stage for his celebratory party in Grant Park and met with his transition team. Why even both with an election?

Well maybe, just maybe, our John McCain can pull this out. Maybe enough Americans will realize that Mr. Obama hasn't accomplished anything but a successful campaign and never made an executive decision that affects an entire state, much less a nation. Maybe Americans will want a non-socialist at the helm and one that knows what it means to protect and defend our country with HONOR.

God help our military when Barney Frank and friends get finished; it will add a whole new meaning to Barney Rubble. You thought Frank did such a great job with the housing market? Get ready for this:

"After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said."

Obama and friends are letting us know up front what his administration will look like. Socialism, higher taxes, and lower national defense, to name a few. Just last week Barney Frank said, "I believe later on, there should be tax increases. . . there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money." Redistribution of wealth, indeed.

I wish someone would tell me what Mr. Obama has done for America that proves he deserves this opportunity to lead and defend us.

With less than two weeks to go until the presidential election, things are heating up. It's only my humble opinion but it seems like the polls (even though I don't put much faith in them) are narrowing. I believe the hype about an Obama landslide is just hogwash. But I also believe that people that have decided to vote for him are not likely to be swayed.

Over the past couple of weeks it seems as if some Americans are starting to see the real Obama. Not enough of them, to be sure, but a few. The "Joe the Plumber" thing was a real eye opener for some. From the mouth of the chosen one himself, the virtues of income redistribution. I don't think American's will stand for that. And then today he avows that he has no regrets, "none at all" for that statement. It's the same stubborn opinion he had when he opposed the surge then refused to admit that it worked; he's almost the only living soul that still stands by that stance, but it's his story and he's sticking to it.

I don't think Americans care one iota that he's lying about William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright. I was doodling at work the other day and drew a web (I'm an English teacher; even our doodles are webs and Venn diagrams) and I put Obama in the center. Offshooting from him were Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Jacob Carruthers, Asa Hilliard, Tony Rezko, Mike Klonsky, Edward Said, Louis Farrakhan, Khaleed Al-Monsoor, and Rashid Khalidi. These guys are all interconnected and are all far left wing radical people. By the time I got finished drawing my lines of who was connected to whom, I had a wicked crazy incestuous web but all roads led to Obama. But again, I don't think Americans care that he has been and currently is associated with absolutely NOBODY you would take home to meet your mother.

Americans do care about the economy though, and the news this week that small business and other companies are already laying off people in anticipation of an Obama election is starting to hit home to a lot of people. Business people are worried about Obama's tax plans.

Today Charles Krauthammer came out with his (shocker) endorsement for McCain. His rational and reason was, as always, clear and to the point.

"McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident? "

He goes on to say

"Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?"

Finally, listen to the video below from 1995 of Obama as he outlines his policies BEFORE he decided to run for President. It's nuts. Just nuts. The next two weeks should be interesting as the polls tighten and America makes it's choice. But for me, I have no doubt that Mr. Obama wants to impose socialism on our country, redistribute wealth from those that have too much to those that don't have enough, and I believe he will put our national security at grave, grave risk. Again, I ask: Why in the WORLD would ANYone want to trust our country to this man? What has he EVER done to prove himself to you? What has he accomplished? What makes you think he is qualified to lead us in these most dangerous times both domestically and abroad? He has plans, but what has he done? Nothing. Nada.

Rather than the "What I Like About McCain" post, I'm deviating tonight into a couple of other headlines that I've been dwelling on over the past few days.

As POTUS, and this should seriously go without saying, but you are in command of ALL the sensitive military information. You're the commander-in-chief, for crying out loud. And I know that the United States Constitution outlines the criteria for a presidential candidate. I get that. But is it unreasonable to expect that our presidential candidate be expected to pass the same security clearance criteria that any other military officer must pass? There is no question whatsoever that Mr. Obama would not pass even the most basic security clearance test. Based on his associations (howEVER close) with William Ayers and his wife, based on his own admitted drug use in his book, based on his association with Resko and even with Khalid al-Mansour - any one of these things would exclude him from a military security clearance. He couldn't get an FBI clearance either. For that matter, he probably couldn't even be a policeman in most American cities. So WHY does half of America want to give him the keys to the White House? WHY do you trust this man so much with your national security? WHAT has he EVER done or accomplished to prove himself to you? WHAT has he done for his country?

Still in the military vein, the new Military Times poll was just staggering to me. Full disclosure here - I place VERY little faith in polls. So much depends on who is doing them and what the bias is. Even with the margin of error they have proven to be fairly unreliable. That said, the Military Times poll is just curious. It would appear that the military folks polled (career members and veterans) overwhelmingly support McCain. And this was polled a full month before Biden's helpful comment about the vulnerable and untested Obama.

Seems to me that the military folks aren't willing to test Obama's "spine of steel." They know which candidate has been fighting for America all of his adult life. I know, too.

The reason I like John McCain today is because I know who he is. I know what he stands for and he's honest about it. He has basic human honesty. I like McCain because even though I might not agree with what he says all the time, I know he is speaking from the heart as to what HE believes. We can disagree. But he is honest about what he says. Not to say that he might on occasion change his mind about an issue - again, it's not the same thing as basic honesty. When Mr. Obama (and two of his campaign people) say that Obama never endorsed the Bill Ayers book, that is a lie. It's not a mistake. It's not misinformation. It's not a change of heart. It is a lie. Obama KNOWS if he got an advance copy of the book and wrote a tiny blurb for it. (His tall tale about the Ayers blurb is one of a string; add to it the Obama "was never a trainer, organizer, or any kind of employee for Acorn" story and again, you find if not an out and out lie, certainly a gross distortion of the truth. If it's not an outright lie it would only be because of a small technicality of wording - words which Mr. Obama is so gifted with.)


Similarly, and I've said this before, when Mr. Obama says he didn't know Ayers was a terrorist, I believe that is a lie. How could he not know that? How?

I like John McCain's honesty as far as his dealings with the American people, too. He knows that he is not ABOVE Congress or the will of the people that put him in office. Mr. Obama has said he would go around, that is - circumvent - Congress in order to "regulate the carbon emissions of lawn and garden equipment" (somebody please tell his advisors that carbon is not a dangerous pollutant!) So, I won't be able to use my leaf blower without some kind of regulation over my head? Seriously?

I like John McCain's honesty when he says that he won't tolerate terrorism or those who threaten our country. I think terrorists believe him, too. I believe him when he says that "America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities." Mr. Obama's own VP choice confirms, in a sense, my sentiment. Those that want to do us harm will think twice before attacking a nation with McCain at the helm while with Mr. Obama in charge, who has made it clear that he will sit down and talk without preconditions, terrorists or those who want to attack us throughout the world will feel less at risk with Mr. Obama in charge. Biden said that within the first six months of an Obama presidency we would be tested on this front. I want a guy in charge that knows how to deal with terrorists!

I like McCain for his honesty on where he stands. I know where he stands. So do terrorists. And, for the record, terrorists know where Mr. Obama stands, too. I guess that is another kind of honesty.

Mr. McCain has always been clear where he stands. He's a Republican but he leans to centrist or liberal in lots of areas (immigration for example.) But he's honest about it. If he was ever a member of the socialist party, I believe he would have said so, unlike his opponent who hides and denies this part of his past. Yet with the photo of Obama and other victorious New Party endorsed candidates, Mr. Obama does not come clean about this association. Investors Business Daily has done a TWENTY part series outlining Mr. Obama's socialist politics. If the "spread the wealth around" comment was not enough to convince ANYone, or even the "go around Congress" philosphy mentioned above, the IBD series is pretty solid. Mr. McCain is honest and right on in his assessment that socialism is not the way this country needs to go.

Yes, the recent buyout is a form of socialism. And yes, McCain (and Obama) supported it. But McCain was one of those who tried to stop it in 2006 when he warned Congress about what was coming. By the time it got to where we are today there was little McCain OR Obama could do about it but stop the bleeding.

The point, if you're still with me, is this. McCain does not always choose the popular stance. We're all tired of the "maverick" term but he is honest about what he believes and he fights for it. I do not believe Mr. Obama is honest because of his consistent deceptions about Acorn, about Ayers, about Wright, about Farrakhan, about The New Party, and the list goes on.

You can accuse Mr. McCain of lots of things, but lying or deception is not one of them. So the reason I like John McCain today is for his honesty about who he is and where he has been.

I was not in favor of NAFTA when it first came around. I thought that it would result in lost jobs for Americans and everyone could see the writing on the wall as far as jobs being lost to cheaper, overseas production. But, NAFTA is here, as are other global trade agreements; we are a global economy and it's here to stay - unless Mr. Obama is elected.

It is true that American jobs have, for the most part, gone overseas. Face it, if you check every item of clothing you are wearing right now, I doubt one item was made in America. A recent check of my own person shows pants made in Honduras and other items made in China, Mexico and Vietnam. For the most part, America is a service economy now - food service, hotels, casinos, retail, etc. The upside is that you can buy a DVD player for a cheap price. You can buy clothes at a fairly reasonable cost (depending on where you go!) Another upside is that we now have friends and allies where we did not before.

Why I like John McCain today is because he has always fought for free trade. I didn't ALWAYS like this, but now I see the wisdom of his foresight and experience. McCain saw early on that China was a growing power and fought to open trade with them. In 1994 he fought to open trade with Vietnam - the very country that held him prisoner and tortured him. Country first.

John McCain has fought for and voted for trade with Columbia Mexico, Canada, Central America, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Peru, Singapore, Oman, Morocco, Jordan, and Israel. Overall, this has been GOOD for our economy, which we all know, needs a bright spot right now. NAFTA, for example has opened trade between U.S., Mexico and Canada by eliminating almost all tariffs. This makes the product available at a lower price.

Since 1994, trade between these three countries has increased more than 200% and in fact, U.S. manufacturing was up 44% and employment grew.

In contrast, Mr. Obama has voted against virtually every single free trade agreement that has come across his desk, with the possible exception of Cuba (no wonder Castro endorsed him.) If Mr. Obama has his way, we will lose most of our free trade agreements in renegotiation which will result in higher costs for Americans. American unions drive up American costs which is part of the problem. If Mr. Obama restricts us to only American made products, you will be paying a lot more for that DVD player. Not to mention the $9.70 minimum wage he wants to impose. You think costs won't rise with that one? And jobs won't decline? Think again. NOT good for the economy.

Mr. Obama wants to GIVE billions of dollars to poverty stricken countries via his Global Poverty Act, yet he wants to shut down the jobs that have been made there through free trade agreements. The jobs that our trade agreements have created in Vietnam and other countries, for example, have led to a growing middle class in those countries. What will happen to that progress when Obama closes those trade agreements? Do you think WalMart will still be in business?

So why I like John McCain today is his wisdom of foresight; for his support of free trade and his concern for the American worker and the American economy; his concern for the American citizen.

Whenever one goes out in the world in search of a job the experience brought to the table is always a major consideration. Would a company be more likely to hire that person with years of experience and proven capability behind him, or the whippersnapper with no experience but lots of big ideas? Ideas are great, but experience counts for something. I prefer the tested and proven candidate myself, rather than taking a chance on the unproven and unknown.

What I like about John McCain today is that he (not quite like Reagan, because there was only one Reagan!) makes me feel assured that terrorists are not welcome here; that he will rise to any challenge on the national security front and face it head on. I already know he has courage. I already know he has honor. His experience shows me that.

I like that he is a member of over 30 organizations including the Purple Heart Association (which tells me that he fought for me), the Francis Scott Key Foundation and the Sons of the Revolution, to name three.

I like that he has served Americans in Washington since 1982 - I haven't always agreed with him, to be sure, but I like that he sticks up for what he thinks is right and he fights for it. He's the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, to name one of six or so. I believe McCain knows Washington but he's not owned by it. He will continue to fight for me and for America just as he has his whole life. He owns up to his mistakes, admits when he is wrong and admits when he has used poor judgment. His experience shows me that, too. He's not perfect. But I trust him and I trust his experience.

So what I like about John McCain today is his years of experience, not just in Washington but fighting for America!

If I say "socialism" what do you think of? What exactly do we, as Americans, think socialism is? Is it just another term like "liberal" or "conservative"? We're hearing that term a lot in this campaign and in the media especially, but what exactly is it?

Well, under Marx, basically all governments of the world were to be overthrown and the citizens of the world would contribute to a single socialist government which would in turn give them what they needed (as the government, of course, decided what they needed and when they needed it.) For example, in the Nazi socialist state the citizens immediately lost all rights to bear arms. Children were indoctrinated with giving their loyalty to the state (not the family.) The Hitler Youth sang songs of devotion to their Fuhrer. Of course, most people didn't actually envision these goals at first, they just thought the socialists would restore order to their economy. China is another example of hard-core socialism and Russia. We all know how that turned out.

Income redistribution is another tenet of socialism. Companies (like oil companies) or wealthy people are fined and penalized for having been successful and working hard in order to support those behind them on the scale. Socialism operates by taking all for the good of the state and redistributing it as the state sees fit. But who says what "fit" actually is; who decides who needs what?

What is more insidious is the softer version of socialism such as what Britain has in place, especially evident in its health care where people can't get treatment if they are deemed too old or too sick by the socialist state. Oh and they lost their guns there, too. Crime is through the roof. Softer socialism destroys individual freedom. Lives are slowly squeezed. Freedoms are lost.

Nancy Pelosi said a few weeks ago we should nationalize oil companies. That really worked for Hugo Chavez. The only folks that pay full market price for his oil is the U.S.

What I like about John McCain today is that I KNOW he believes in the capitalistic system that is the United States of America. I KNOW that he supports the soldiers that have fought against socialism and communism. I KNOW that he supports democracy. I KNOW and believe that John McCain has America's AND American's best interests at heart. I know beyond all doubt that he loves his country. I KNOW that he would never serve on a board with a man that wanted to bomb and destroy his own country. I KNOW that he would NEVER sit in a church with a man that EVER said "God Damn America!" That's why I like John McCain today.

I've written about the health care issue before but I think it is an issue that is very important to a lot of Americans and one that should weigh heavily in your candidate decision.

Why I like McCain's health care position better than his opponent's is because under McCain's plan I will be able to keep my insurance as is, just as many Americans will choose to do. McCain's plan is good for those families that are currently uninsured. As Yuval Levin points out, "most of the uninsured are not poor - or else they would qualify for Medicaid." McCain's proposal of a tax credit would put those families without insurance $5000 closer to being able to afford it. The net tax burden on middle class families declines under McCain's plan and insurance options improve. For example, if you want to opt out of your current employer subsidized health care then you would be taking home that much more money - money that is currently deducted as your part of the cost of coverage. Put that added income with the tax credit you get from McCain, then you have more options to shop your own health care markets. The McCain plan does not force you out of employer coverage but it gives you an option.

Mr. Obama's plan gives your employer incentives to eliminate health care coverage for its employees. His plan would force all but the very smallest businesses to either provide insurance coverage or pay a tax to the government. Obama's requirements for employer health care benefits have not yet been specified but in the debate he said basically that folks would have, under his plan, health care coverage "such as Mr. McCain and myself enjoy" under their employment as Senators. This coverage exceeds what most employers currently pay. So employers would then be paying for more for covering YOU. They might then decide to drop the plan altogether and just pay the tax.

Mr. Obama would fund a government run insurance program on the taxes paid by those employers who drop coverage. Government run health care. People FORCED into government run health care.

So what I like about McCain today is his health care plan. I'll get to keep my coverage as it is; my employer won't have to make any changes either. If I didn't like my health care plan, I would have options to shop around and find a new one, which I could probably afford with my $5000 tax credit and the income I'd be keeping out of my paycheck from dropping my employer health care.

I have been accused by many of only bashing Mr. Obama and not saying what I like about my candidate. So from time to time you'll get one of these "What I Like" posts. It's just my opinion and what I like about McCain.

I like that he served his country honorably from 1958 - 1981. His father and grandfather also served. His son serves currently. The reason this is relevant and important to me is that I think a commander-in-chief should have a service background in the military (I know not all have...), especially in the times in which we currently live. The military teaches you a great deal about honor and respect for your country and that means something.

My father served in World War II; he flew airplanes and was a flight instructor. He had a soft spot in his heart for those who serve and looked back with great fondness on his days of service. It meant something. I appreciate McCain's service and what he learned from it. I also appreciate what we learn about McCain from his service.

Go here to read the letter.

I thought the debate last night was dull. Boring. The format was awful - the "town hall" format was a joke. The pre-selected audience was filled with corpses and the pre-selected questions were monotonous and uninspiring. Brokaw was a stiff. I hated it and kept wishing for a Sarah Palin cameo. Gawd.

I think the Ayers thing and the other Obama associations are certainly a critical issue. However, the health care issue is sort of on my mind tonight because I'm finally beginning to sludge my way through it. I mean, straight up - and I know this will irritate the stuffing out of some of you - I resent having to pay health care costs for someone who will not work and decides to have eighteen kids without a means to pay for them. I know that's not everybody, but come on. I don't mind doing "my part" as a responsible citizen but where in the hell does the Constitution say that health care is a "right"??? It is NOT. Neither his having a car. Or living in a $200,000 house. Or your college education. It is NOT a right. You have the right to EARN one, though.

McCain's health care proposal is so much more sensible than Obama's. I mean, the simplified version is that as it is now, if you pay insurance through your employer, you don't pay taxes on that income. It is sheltered. It totals to almost $300 billion in "lost" revenue for the government in tax dollars.

McCain wants to offer a tax credit - $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. You could do this or stick with what you already have with your job. No change. Status quo. If you have NO insurance through your job, this is a pretty good deal though, and you should be able to afford health insurance on your own. In fact, insurance rates would get more competitive in order to attract your business.

Mr. Obama, however, does not want to give you this option. He claims that McCain is actually now taxing your health care benefits. NOT. According to the Wall Street Journal, "workers would come out ahead with the McCain plan. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, the average taxpayer would see his tax bill drop by $1,241 in 2009. On average, lower-wage workers have more limited coverage as part of their compensation, mostly from small- or medium-size businesses. But the more generous the employer health plan, the more the tax subsidies increase. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the current employer benefit is only worth between $600 and $3,000 for people making under $100,000. The upper-income brackets save between $4,000 and $5,000".


The Obama plan is more about expanding big government and government run health care. Seriously, since the government has done such a bang-up job with social security and everything else lately, do you really want some "suit" telling you what doctor to see and if your grandmother can have a transplant? And then you have to wait months for that service? If you don't die first?

Obama said several things in the debate last night that I took issue with, (one on his statements on drilling and energy) but the biggest issue on my mind today was the health care one. I do NOT believe that health care is a "right." And he said it.

Again, I thought overall it was dull. Neither guy came off as great to me last night. Maybe the campaign is taking its toll. I think the last month will be great though; I think both candidates are feeling the pressure of the close race.

It looks like the Obama campaign has some explaining to do this week. Tomorrow the RNC will file a complaint with the FEC regarding Obama's funny money. Reports have been building all week about the questionable campaign donations and it seems that someone is finally going to look into it. Michael Isikoff, writing for Newsweek magazine, details various suspicious contributions.

Legally, campaigns do not have to report donations of less than $200. (McCain's camp discloses anyway.) Isikoff reports that "Doodad Pro" has donated over $19,000 to Mr. Obama (all in small, unreported donations of $10 to $25) and "Good Will" gave over $17,000. Analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375. Both are actually over the amount allowed for an individual which is $2,300. The FEC instructed the Obama campaign to return those donations. Earlier this year the campaign had to return $33,000 in donations to two brothers in Gaza.


The Obama campaign has raised millions of dollars from outside the United States. Americans living outside the United States may donate to campaings but foreign nationals may not. It makes you wonder why folks in Iran are donating to his campaign.

Ken Timmerman also reported on this issue this week:

"The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted."

The rough estimate right now for suspicious contributions is about $33.8 billion dollars.

As of this afternoon the Obama campaign has not commented and has not responded to a CNN request for comment. The defense is likely going to be "Well, Obama can't possibly be expected to keep up with each and every donation." Or, "Obama had no idea the money was coming from illegal donations." And this is probably true, but it seems to me that it ought to be investigated. It seems a flaw in his campaign management as well. It seems if Hillary Clinton figured out how to safeguard her fundraising from inappropriate actions then Mr. Obama should have been able to do the same. He is often a champion for transparency in disclosure yet of the two of them only McCain has done that.