Degree of Madness

McCain's campaign

Dan Riehl:

...The FACT is - had McCain run a good campaign, he wouldn't need a bump at the end to win. He has waged, arguably, the worst campaign in the history of modern Presidential politics.

I've seen similar comments about McCain's campaign and have thought the same myself from time to time.  But considering what he's up against the fact that he's still in the race is a considerable accomplishment.  McCain is running against Obama, the media, ACORN, not to mention boatloads of cash. 

Obama's war chest dwarfs McCain's.  John McCain kept his word and accepted public financing for the general election.  Barack Obama did not keep his:

...Last March, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the candidate would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Obama also told the Midwest Democracy Network, in a questionnaire, that he would participate in the system, writing that he had proposed a system in which "both major party candidates...agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election."

Victor Davis Hanson:

...Barack Obama, remember, promised that he would accept both public funding and the limitations that went along with it, and would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Then in June 2008, Obama abruptly reneged, bowing out entirely from government financing, the first presidential nominee in the general election to do that since the system was created in 1976.

Obama has now raised over $600 million, by far the largest campaign chest in American political history. In many states he enjoys a four-to-one advantage in campaign funding — most telling in his scheduled eleventh-hour, 30-minute specials that will not be answered by the publicly financed and poorer McCain campaign.

Advantage Obama.  Big advantage: 

Imagine the reaction of the New York Times or the Washington Post had John McCain renounced his promise to participate in public campaign financing, proceeded instead to amass $600 million and outraise the publicly financed Barack Obama four-to-one, and begun airing special 30-minute unanswered infomercials during the last week of the campaign.

Think the media would portray it as a savvy move by McCain?:   

Obama's massive fundraising -- whether it winds up at $70, $80, $90 or $100 million in September (and October) -- justifies the political savvy of the Illinois senator's decision to go back on his previous pledge to accept public financing for the general election.

While McCain, who did accept public funds, is limited to roughly $84 million in the general election, Obama has been free to raise and spend what he likes -- leading to huge spending edges in emerging battlegrounds like Florida, North Carolina and Indiana.

Pledges are for losers I guess.

The financial advantage is huge.  But his accomplices in the media provide him an even bigger advantage:

...we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people...

In addition to the example above, Hanson cites three more areas of national interest that were largely ignored by the media.  In making the case for The End of Journalism Hanson also provides a window into the political environment John McCain must navigate - and overcome.  It's a lose-lose situation.  When McCain is forced to address legitimate issues the media should be reporting on, he's accused of negative campaigning.  Rather than respond, Obama simply calls them "distractions" and everyone just moves along.  Those reporters who do try to get actual answers are sent packing. 

No doubt John McCain has made mistakes in his campaign.  So has Barack Obama.  But at this point, if all he needs is a "bump at the end to win", I'd say he's done pretty well.  And I pray he gets that bump.

John McCain: Don’t hope for a stronger America. Vote for one.

Freedom.

Change...From What, To What, and How?

Mike Ditka introduces Sarah Palin in Pennsylvania:

Communism, toys, and PB&J

For dummies (via Flopping Aces):

Barack Obama was joking about the GOP's negative attacks on his campaign at a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina today.

He said John McCain is "going to accuse me of being a Communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten, I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

I assume Obama shared his own toys and peanut butter and jelly sandwich?

FREE THE PEANUT BUTTER & JELLY SANDWICHES!

...the sole reason you don't have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is because a rich guy somewhere has two.  Obama just wants to liberate a few peanut butter and jelly sandwiches from their greedy cakeholes and spread them around a little, so that all Americans can have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

What about the toys? 

Obama's "euphoric supporters"

“If I help him, he’s going to help me.”   

Hope:

Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

And Change.

Welcome to Obama's America. Dissent will not be tolerated

From Drudge Report, via Confederate Yankee (my emphasis):

PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET

NY POST, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, WASHINGTON TIMES TOLD TO GET OUT... ALL 3 ENDORSED MCCAIN

**Exclusive**

The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!

The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.

This is becoming standard operating procedure for Barack Obama.  As CY notes, the Obama campaign punished two local television stations by cutting access to them after hard interviews.  Orlando’s WFTV was banned from future access because of Barbara West's interview with gaffe prone Joe Biden:

Angry over a hard-nosed interview during which Barbara West of Orlando’s WFTV peppered Sen. Joe Biden with the kind of probing questions the pro-Obama mainstream media refuses to ask, the Obama campaign has completely banned the television station from future access and interviews.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Biden was so disturbed by West's searching questions that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best, for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

Waaahhhh....Philadelphia's KYW-TV (CBS 3) was also blacklisted for tough questions, again in an interview with Joe Biden:

...As with the WFTV in Florida, KYW’s reporters had the audacity to ask Biden whether he thought Obama’s “spread the wealth” comments could be viewed as akin to socialism.  The result was the same:  Biden hemmed and hawed and tried to obfuscate the subject and the Obama campaign banned the TV station’s access immediately thereafter.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

This is a sign of things to come if Obama is elected Tuesday.  The precious few reporters and journalists who are willing to do their jobs and ask the tough questions are already being cut off.  Any reason to believe anything will change once his is president?  I expect it will get worse.  Obama has enjoyed the protection of the mainstream media throughout the campaign.  He will no doubt continue getting favored treatment as president.  Critical voices will be silenced.  From The Washington Times:

"This feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth, we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars covering Senator Obama's campaign, traveling on his plane, and taking our turn in the reporter's pool, only to have our seat given away to someone else in the last days of the campaign," said Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon.

"I hope the candidate that promises to unite America isn't using a litmus test to determine who gets to cover his campaign."

Confederate Yankee:

Of course he is.

Now, imagine what it is going to be like if he somehow wins the Presidency.

We don't have to imagine.  We already know.  And it's chilling.

The Purge has begun.

The Trend is Your Friend

The current breaking news headline at Lucianne:

NEW FOX NEWS POLL SHOWS OBAMA-MCCAIN GAP NARROWING

The RCP average has Obama +6.1  (Update: here's the link to the Fox News Poll)

Karl Rove has some good advice about polls.  Don't let them affect your vote:

Polls can reveal underlying or emerging trends and help campaigns decide where to focus. The danger is that commentators use them to declare a race over before the votes are in. This can demoralize the underdog's supporters, depressing turnout. I know that from experience.

...

...the question that matters is the margin. If Mr. McCain is down by 3%, his task is doable, if difficult. If he's down by 9%, his task is essentially impossible. In truth, however, no one knows for sure what kind of polling deficit is insurmountable or even which poll is correct. All of us should act with the proper understanding that nothing is yet decided.

VOTE.  The polls do not decide elections.


***Update on the Fox News Poll 2:29 PM CT***

Allahpundit, Sample Bias?

Dave Weigel of Reason e-mails with a possible explanation for the McCain gain: Last week’s poll used a sample of 43% Democrats and 37% Republicans; this week’s is 41% Dem and 39% GOP. It’s possible, I guess, that the new sample more accurately reflects the composition of the electorate, but I’m skeptical.

I agree with John Hawkins

George Will Can Go To...:

Isn't it bad form for George Will, the tedious, single most over-rated Beltway bubble pundit in America, to be writing a snobby column trashing John McCain and Sarah Palin on the Wednesday before the election?

And why, pray tell, is Will's column posted at Townhall?  Didn't Kathleen Parker do enough damage?

Headlines like this one don't help either.

I will echo what Fr. Frank Pavone said Monday night during his Priests for Life conference call:

The good news about the election is that it hasn't occurred yet.

It is not too late for Americans to look at the change Obama's words portend.  Change can be good, it can be bad, and it can be disastrous.  This does not overstate the risk of an Obama presidency:

An Obama presidency, aided by a willing Congress, will bring change. And that brand of change promises to ruin everything we have, beyond hope.

Our ancestors, fathers and grandfathers fought wars, shed blood and died; they worked themselves weary to give us this great and beautiful nation and to uphold principles that keep it alive and shining amid the darkness of a hostile world. Search your heart and soul before you dare to simply give all that away on a whim on Nov. 4.

As for George Will... I hope, should the unthinkable happen, that he enjoys his lofty perch under an Obama presidency. 

Obama' s reaction to a crisis...What to do, what to do?

Call Bill Clinton.  Campaigning for Barack Obama in Kissimmee, Florida, Clinton spoke of Obama's qualifications for president:

"You know what he did?" Clinton said, heralding Obama's reaction to the financial crisis. "First he took a little heat for not saying much. I knew what he was doing. He talked to his advisers – he talked to my economic advisers, he called Hillary. He called me. He called Warren Buffet. He called all those people, you know why? Because he knew it was complicated and before he said anything he wanted to understand."

Now I have no problem with a president consulting his advisers but this is a little much.  Obama apparently had no clue and wanted to make sure he didn't fumble the ball so close to the election.  I guess Obama can claim he's qualified to be president because although he's not very experienced in matters of national importance he knows who to call.  It does sound a little time consuming though.  I hope all those folks are awake at 3:00 AM.

The former president continued his praise for Obama.  What really impressed him was this:

"The second thing - and this meant more to me than anything else, and I haven't cleared this with him and he may even be mad at me for saying this so close to the election - but I know what else he said to his economic advisers - he said, 'Tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America? Don't tell me what's popular, you tell me what's right, I'll figure it out and sell it.'

Now there's something Obama's good at .  Selling it.

L.A. Times...protecting its source or its candidate?

Jeffrey Goldberg asks:  What is the L.A. Times Hiding?:

I don't think it's entirely necessary for me to explain, once again, why I believe that Rashid Khalidi is not a danger to the Republic. I also don't think I have to rehearse the controversial idea that Barack Obama was not, in fact,  the Hyde Park chapter president of the PFLP-GC. (That was Rahm Emanuel.) But there's a video out there of Obama saying kind things about Khalidi, and on the general principle that information in an open society shouldn't be kept secret and that the voters should make up their own minds about whether or not they trust certain candidates, this video should be set free. But a pro-censorship organization called the Los Angeles Times, which has the tape in its possession, is hiding it, for reasons it won't fully explain. And it's looking more and more ridiculous each passing day.

I have not read Goldberg's explanation why he believes Khalidi is not a danger to the Republic, maybe he has a point.  Khalidi is certainly a danger to the state of Israel:

Rashid Khalidi was the director of the PLO's press agency WAFA from 1976 to 1982, at a time when the PLO was conducting a massacre of 37 Israeli civilians in a bus on Israel's coastal road, the brutal murder of a four-year-old Israeli girl in Nahariya, and numerous other terrorist killings of Israeli civilians. The PLO was also waging a brutal war against the Lebanese Christian community during this period, and carried out numerous massacres of Lebanese Christians; the worst of these was the killing of about 500 people in the village of Damour. During this same period, Rashid's wife Mona Khalidi was an English translator for WAFA. Rashid Khalidi is now an advocate of a "one state solution" for all of "Palestine" - meaning the destruction of Israel and its replacement by an Arab state. Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Calt Harris, in an article in the Washington Times on July 9, 2004, summarized Rashid Khalidi's views about Israel this way: "[His] extremism comes out when he calls Israel an ‘apartheid system in creation' and a ‘racist state' that ‘brainwashed' Americans do not understand. Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority since the 1880s, he deems ‘an Arab city' whose control by Israeli ‘foreigners' is ‘unacceptable.' And so on." Khalidi also accuses Israel of "ethnic cleansing."

In 1995 Rashid and Mona Khalidi co-founded the The Arab-American Action Network, a virulently anti-Israel organization that strongly supports the Palestinian Arab terrorist movement. It regards the creation of the state of Israel as a "naqba" ("catastrophe" in Arabic). Mona Khalidi served as the group's President from its inception until some time this year, although she is now listed only as a member of its board of directors.

Rashid and Mona Khalidi became close friends of Barack and Michelle Obama during the time when both Barack and Rashid taught at the University of Chicago (1992-2003). At a lavish farewell party for Khalidi in Chicago in 2003, when Khalidi left his prestigious position at the University of Chicago for an even more prestigious one at Columbia University in New York, Obama gave Khalidi a glowing eulogy. He said that he and his wife Michelle had been frequent dinner guests of the Khalidis, and that the Khalidis had frequently babysat for the Obama children. According to a Los Angeles Times account based on a video of Obama's speech, he added that "his many talks with the Khalidis, . . .had been ‘consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation-a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table,' but around ‘this entire world.'"

Obama's assistance to the Khalidis, however, went beyond mere kind words at a farewell party. In 2001 and again in 2002, Obama, in his capacity as a member of the board of directors of the Leftist non-profit organization the Woods Fund, voted to give the Arab-American Action Network co-founded by Rashid and Mona, and directed by Mona Khalidi, $75,000 in grants.

Rashid and Mona Khalidi anticipated Obama's generosity to AAAN by holding a fundraiser in their house for Obama's unsuccessful run for Congress in 2000. It would seem that it later proved to be a profitable event for the Khalidis

This is the most recent (Tuesday, October 28) explanation from the L.A. Times as to why the tape will not be released:

The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.

The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago. The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.

...

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

It is interesting that when Jim Hoft (Gateway Pundit) spoke with the writer of the April 2008 story, Peter Wallsten, there was no mention of the promise to his source.  Hoft spoke with Wallsten on October 22:

On Wednesday I talked with Peter Wallsten from the Los Angeles Times about the article on Obama and Khalidi:

Wallston was one of the few mainstream media reporters to report on this radical Obama associate.

Wallston said that the article was written after he watched video taken at the Khalidi going away party. When I asked him about the video he said that as far as he was concerned he was through with the story.

I asked him if he was planning on releasing this video of Obama toasting the radical Khalidi at this Jew-bash. He told me he was not releasing the video. He also would not comment on his source for the video. Wallston also said he did not know if Khalidi's good friend Bill Ayers was at the event or not.

L.A. Times Readers Rep Jamie Gold made no mention of the promise in her response to a reader at LGF on October 27:

From: Readers Rep
Date: Monday, October 27, 2008 16:14
Subject: RE: Not read: The L.A. Times Suppressing Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape?
To:

[...]

The Times did write about the tape, so I’m not sure what you mean aboutsuppressing the video or information from the video. Here is a copy of the report about the video.

Thanks again for writing,
Jamie Gold
Readers’ Representative

...

If that is the case, then release the video that you have of the event and don’t merely report it. Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi - former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?

...

Thanks for your note back.  It sounds as if you don’t find “mere reporting” to be enough, but The Times is not suppressing anything.

Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light.   

Thanks again for taking the time to write.

Jamie Gold
Readers’ Representative

It's possible the promise was made "after the fact".  It's possible that when the existence of the tape became public the source got nervous and contacted Wallsten.  I have no proof of this of course but the timing of the "promise to our source" defense is suspicious.  

Free the Tape!

***Update 2:19 PM CT***

Charles Johnson:

I’m not going to mince words: I don’t believe the LA Times is telling the truth when they say they had an agreement with their source not to reveal the tape.