Looking for Some Kind of Politcal Advantage

Bruce McQuain, this morning:

To the blockheads who run Congress:

Dean Baker, a liberal economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said he has told congressional Democrats that Bush is the one who is in the delicate situation and would therefore be unlikely to veto whatever package Democrats send to him, as long as it gives Paulson some of what he needs.

“I can’t imagine Bush would veto something Democrats send him,” he said. “I just can’t believe he’s prepared to say, ‘If you don’t give me exactly what I want, the financial markets collapse.’ I can’t believe he’d do that.”

Don’t even think about larding this bill up with pork or “stimulus” packages or any other misbegotten idea your twisted little political minds can come up with which hasn’t a chance of passage at any other time.

Heh.

Well, look, in looking around, my take is, that’s already begun.

One thing you may or may not have noticed is how the whole of congress more or less went on vacation when this crisis finally hit, and how Reid said ‘bobody knows what to do”.  The fact is, they were busy looking for political cover, if not political advatage in  this situation right at the off. Barring either, the Demorat leaership wasn’t about to make a move, which explains Reid’s statement.  Now that they’ve had a few minutes and the crowd hasn’t shown up with the tar and feathers yet,  their crafty little minds are coming up with ways to try and leverage this thing to their advanage. No shock that Chris Dodd should be the first kid on the block to figure out how to use this new toy.

Cynical? You bet your sitting device I’m cynical. Democrats are still involved; I don’t have much choice in the matter. For example… does it bother anyone that Barney Frank is still dictating lending policy?

I will say this again, this is a failure of government. Not because of too little regulation, but too much.

As attributed by the Jawa Report:

Statement of Ethan WinnerThe following is in response to questions I have received regarding the post on the Jawa Report website.

I produced and posted on the Internet the video entitled “Sarah Palin: A Heartbeat Away.”

The idea for the video was mine. No one paid me to produce it. The only out-of-pocket cost will be the fee for the voice-over narrator, which I will pay personally when I receive an invoice. Contrary to the allegation in the Jawa Report, the voice-over artist has never done any work for the Obama campaign. I retained her through a talent agency based solely on the quality of her voice.

Neither the Obama campaign nor any independent political action committee has had a connection with the making and/or posting of this video. Just like the thousands of Americans who have posted videos on the Internet regarding the current Presidential campaign, I produced this video as an expression of my right to free speech, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

I believe the American people have a right and a need to know information about candidates for political office and their views. I made this video because I think it is important for the public to be aware of the association between Sarah and Todd Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party. The New York Times has reported that the Alaskan Independence Party website describes the party as seeking, in the words of the party, “a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority,” including “advocacy for state’s rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.”

While a number of media outlets have said that reports that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party may have been erroneous, her attendance at the party’s 1994 convention, her video speech to the 2008 convention and her husband’s membership in the Alaskan Independence Party have not been called into question.

Some people have asked why I have pulled the video from the Internet. The reason is simple. Following the posting of personal information about me by the Jawa Report, my family began to receive threatening and abusive phone calls and emails.

Ethan Winner claims to have produced a video.   The video was a lie.  Winner now claims that the Barack Obama campaign had no connection to his video.  Sure.

Now to the snarkiest, most densely packed read available anywhere in the blogoshphere, BitsBlog’s Nightly Ramble:

• Art Smith at Conservative Reader notes our buddy McGehee’s back from his Hiatus. Face it, Kev… you’re hooked.
• Another one who is decidedly showing signs of a similar addiction is See Dubya.
• Sister Toldjah has a picture of a protest you really want to see.
• McQ points to, not gun control… but (ready?) Knife control. Idiots.
• Speaking of Bruce, he also has a gem of a post talking about how Big Government has failed us yet again. Implicit in his point is that Obama does not represent change away from that.
• Meanwhile, is there a 2nd amendment fight brewing between Joe Biden and The Annointed One?
• When are we going to see SNL skits on Obama suggesting incest as we did with Palin over the weekend?  We’ve seen complaints regarding the number of houses and cars McCain owns. When are we going to see complaints about Obama and his jet? Or is that just too factual to deal with?
• Want to know who the richest members of both houses of Congress are? The Hill has your answer.
• A little back and forth at OTB:
  

  I cannot help but wonder: if these institutions are too big to allow to fail, then should we have approved the financial merger mania of the past two decades? Is the industry over-consolidated, thus leading to the “too big to fail” fallacy?

  That the question is even asked should put the squash to the argument that this has anything at all to do with a free market. If the market was free, such questions wouldn’t even be asked.

• Boortz does this well:
  

  1.  Almost all of the financial problems we see today are based on bad mortgage lending.  That would be lending money to people to buy homes who didn’t qualify for a loan.

  2.  The Democrats, under Clinton, strengthened a government-created monster called the “Community Reinvestment Act.”  This law was then used by “activists” and “community organizers” (like Obama?) to coerce lending institutions to make these bad loans … millions of them.

  3.  Now we see what happens when political “wisdom” supplants good loan underwriting.  When private financial institutions are virtually forced to make loans to people with a bad credit and job history .. this is what you get.  Enjoy it.

  This is exactly the argument I’ve been making, for the last week or so.  Look; if I ran my car into your house, wouldn’t you want me to pay for the damages? These failures are government induced, people… and all of it comes back on the Clinton misadministration, and on the Democrat congress since then. The current bailout wouldn’t be needed but for the misguided and ultimately disastrous off-the-cliff leadership of the Clinton administration. One point I’ve been trying to make here is reinfo rced, here. Ideas have consequences, people. In ostensibly and arguably trying to help more people get to home ownership, the facts say Clinton and the leftists backing him, and driving him, broke the economy  I say Government should not only pay for the damage, but also admit it’s guilt. Paying for the damages when you’ve got taxpyers to milk is the easy part. That’s about to be done, since there’s nothing else for it.  So when might we see the admission of guilt? . That we ever will seems doubtful… there are far too many left-wing ideologs shielding their eyes for the truth for that to happen. But there is where the blame really lies.

• Kevin Hasset at the American Enterprise Institute confirms my read on all of this in today’s Bloomberg wire.
• Right Wing News asks what we should do with the remains of the 9/11 hijackers. I figure they should be placed, piecemeal,  in urinals all over the country. Past that let the American people decide how best to treat these animals. I think they’ll know what to do.
• Speaking of RWN, David wrote to this over the weekend. this guy calling himself “Dianne Shroer”  John links Stacy McCain, who says:

• Just because I’m at a very early stage of transition — being a married father of six and all that — doesn’t mean that I don’t have rights as a transgendered lesbian. So I’m applying to be an op-ed columnist for the New York Times and if they don’t hire me? Hey, see you in court, you sexist homophobes! (I’ll also sue the Pulitzer Prize committee for their years of discrimination against me.)

  I knew I liked him. And you know, for all the jokes out there about how Ann Coulter is a guy in drag…. (I dunno, I always liked her looks myself.) ….no, I’m not gonna go there. You may be eating dinner about now, and the picture is enough of an offense, already. But look at the picture, here. Is there any doubt?   I do have to ask, though, why are we using law and the courts to reinforce the mental illness so obviously involved here?

• And speaking of such things, I see that mincing train-wreck George Micheal is at it again.  Why in the name of sanity is this guy continually given “Get out of jail free” cards? (Sigh) I suppose it’s the same kind of BS non-judgementalism that surrounds Shroer.  I guess the comparison f the two situations will provide an object lesson of how far our society has wilingly regressed.
• Someone in feedback yesterday asked me what I use for sourcing. Well, I use a number of sites a few dozen, most of which are run through my account at Bloglines. I also watch who’s linking to us. I find I’m exposed to new folks that way. BTW, Bloglines is highly recommended, particularly if you’re hitting feeds from a number of physical locations,  as I do. It grabs my RSS feeds and keeps stuff I’ve not read yet in my face, keeping track of what I have and have not read. A great help to staying on top of things, particularly as regards what goes on in the blogging world. It’s free, too. And no, I’m not getting anything for the mention.
• Uh-oh… Obama just touched the third rail.  Of course I suppose he had to given the lies he’s been telling on the subject. I’m telling you, kids… Obama is in serious trouble and knows it. His vision of ‘change people can believe in” has been altered to include anything voters will believe, instead. Look at the changes listed at the first link, and you’ll see what I mean. Forget anything about being guided by principle. He’ll say whatever it takes.  Do you begin to understand the treachery involved here?

If BO is running a post-racial, post-political campaign based on Hope and Change, my name is Andrew Sullivan.   Rusty Shackleford, Jawa Report, has linked the Barack Obama campaign to Internet smear of Sarah:

Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.

Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.  

Video: 

[wp_youtube]p6luB4ptWas[/wp_youtube]

Hat tip: Patterico’s Pontifications.

As with BO’s Spanish smear ad, the Messiah appears to trying to fly below the radar, and failing.   What BO forgot, or never knew, is that bloggers like Rusty and his Jawa Report crew are experts at tracking down cyber terrorists.   What Rusty learned to track down cyber criminals in places like Yemen, also works to track down cyber criminals working out places like Chicago.

Ace sums up the BO campaign (salty language):

Not only is this tactic dishonest, but it demonstrates a flagrant contempt for the intelligence of the average voter.

Here’s a story:

Obama thinks you’re fucking stupid. And furthermore, he thinks the only way he can win your vote is to lie to you.

On that last score, he’s probably right.

I suspect that BO internals polls tell him that his campaign is in dire trouble   For BO is campaigning like a man who is losing and knows it.

An elementary school class started a class project to make planters to take home to their parents.

They wanted to have a plant in it that was easy to take care of, so they decided to use cactus plants.

The students were given green-ware pottery planters in the shape of clowns which they painted with glaze.

The clown planters were professionally fired at a class outing so they could see the process.

It was great fun!

They planted cactus seeds in the finished planters and they grew nicely, but unfortunately, the children were not allowed to take them home.

The cactus plants were removed and small ivy replaced them and the children were then allowed to take them home instead.  Here’s why.

The teacher said cactus seemed like a good idea at the time!

The LA Times:

Exactly 44 years after Lyndon B. Johnson became the last Democrat to capture the state of North Dakota in a presidential election, it looks like Barack Obama won’t be the next.

The Associated Press reported this evening and an Obama spokeswoman confirmed that the Chicago-based campaign is pulling its 50-some staffers out of the heavily Republican state full of embittered small towns and shipping the workers east to Minnesota and Wisconsin, where the Democrat’s prospects seem brighter and closer.

We keep seeing indications of Camp Obama giving up on various states. This is one more pin in the balloon.

And don’t be telling me how this is because McCain is spending massive money up there. McCain doesn’t have anyone up there. No people, no offices. And he’s winning there, going away.

Rusty Shakleford over at the Jawa Report has a grea t read up this morning:

Hope, Change, & Lies: Orchestrated “Grassroots” Smear Campaigns & the People that Run Them

In Rusty’s words;

Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.

Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.

It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign.

It actually goes on for quite a bit, and dives deep into the underside of modern political dirty tricks as only the Democrats can bring them, and I commend it to you reading.

It was just a short while ago… 2007, in fact… that our government set us on a path which they told us would be leading us toward energy independence.  It was called the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, passed by the U.S. Congress in December, which called for a five-fold increase in ethanol production by 2022 and provided tax incentives and grants to ethanol producers. Just think; We could grow as much gasoline as we want, the government told us.

Turns out, though, while Ethanol makes a marginally attractive alternative fuel, it does have a few issues the government didn’t tell us about.  Among them, comes the idea that what the government calls an alternative source for Gasoline, is in fact a primary source of food, for which there really isn’t much in the way of alternatives. And so, people around the world are noting …and complaining about…increases in food prices.

It also turns out that while the government told us that ethanol was clean burning, we’ve now found by way of a report in the journal Science that Ethanol produces virtually double the greenhouse gasses as more conventional fuel over the same 30 year period. Time magazine concluded the same thing, in an article called “The Clean Energy Myth“. Even worse, It turns out that grain based biofuels take more energy to produce, than they provide when burned, if you include the energy required to help the growing process along… to say nothing of the problems such growing causes to our water tables.

Well, I’d like to take this opportunity to propose an alternative fuel to grain based ethanol: Oil.

Think of the advantages…

Allowing exploration and exploitation of what oil we have will provide us with a 30% cut in CO2 emissions at the off. It will cause a massive cut in the amount of expenditures in government support for Ethanol production at a time when we certainly need such a help in our economy. It will cause a massive drop in  food prices, world wide, which will doubtless make the UN happy. It’s not been very happy about US caused food shortages. (Leaving aside, of course the issue of hwy we’re bending over forward on food prices for the rest of the world while we’re paying the long buck for the energy to produce said food…)

Oil is a mature and reliable source of energy, provided we allow ourselves to explore our own part of the world for it. The delivery system for it is already in place.  Perhaps it’s time to invest serious effort in our own alternative energy… Oil. All we really need to do is get government out of the way.

Of course, that will be tough… the toughest job of all. As it stands, oil production currently is efficient, efficient, profitable, and clean. As it stands right now, we are sitting on more raw crude oil materials than exists in the the whole of the Middle East. However, because of governmental regulations established to satisfy questionable calls to protect ‘the environment’,  we can’t touch it. Thank you government.

Look, gang… China and India are preparing to drill off our southern coats… for OUR oil…, but we can’t for “Environmental” reasons. More correctly, political reasons. Even more correctly, governmental interference. Brazil, for all that they were running on Ethanol, is about to become energy independent because of their recent huge finds of oil. Of course, they’re out there LOOKING for the stuff, too, you see, whereas our own government has told us we cannot.  As a result of this misguided “environmental’ policy, we’re the ones being left behind, being turned into a third world country… all because our government forces us to eschew oil as an energy source.

My answer? Drill, baby, Drill. Start producing an alternative to Ethanol.

And do it now.

The laws of economics are no more mallable than the laws of physica, just more controversial.   Bad economic policy leads to bed economic outcomes.    The collapse of the Frannie and Freddies can be tracked back to the phony concerns about red-lining.

Apon reading this intrduction Lisa Schiffren, Natinal Review, I had to hear what Mark Levin had to say:

I always listen to Mark Levin while making Friday night dinner. Tonight he is giving the most serious, intelligent, cogent explanation of the current economic crisis I have heard or read anywhere. He is giving a precise political and legislative history going back several administrations, but concentrated in the Clinton Administration, where the major changes that led down this road were initiated. Funnily enough, he has explained just what it is community organizers do. Advocating, for instance, for affordable housing for the poor — the poor who traditionally rent, because they are bad loan risks. The day that reasoning by banks was junked as “racist,” was the day this crisis became a possibility.  I don’t think he’s ad-libbing — and I, for one would love to read the transcript at NRO in the next day or two.

No transcript, but here a link to Mark’s audiio.

Imagine if a victim somehow survived a lynching and a presidential canidate were to be so clue-less as to advocate such victims of failed lynchings be taken out and relynched?   The National Assoiciation of [Liberal] Colored People staged a jihad aimed at George W. Bush for what the NA[L]CP  deemed an insensitive reaction to the lynching of James Bryd, Jr.

Thirty-one years ago Giana Jessen survived a lynching abortion.  Jessen has publically argued that person who survive abortions should be protected by law.   Well so you’d think.  However Barack Obama is now attacking Jessen for daring to suggest that people like her should be protected by law:

[wp_youtube]DEBDNGLl5TQ[/wp_youtube]

While BO conflats Jessen with John McCain, it is Jessen who BO is attacking.  Jill Stanek, Executive Director, BornAliveTruth.org:

“It is despicable, repulsive and beneath contempt that Barack Obama would attack Gianna Jessen. She is a courageous abortion survivor and living miracle who would not be with us today if Obama’s policies had been in place when she was born.”

Gianna Jessen:

“Mr. Obama is clearly blinded by political ambition given his attack on me this week. All I asked of him was to do the right thing: support medical care and protection for babies who survive abortion – as I did 31 years ago. He voted against such protection and care four times even though the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a bill identical to the one Obama opposed.”

Hat tip and more, MIchelle.

There is an old Russian saying “Everyone wants to be equal…. with the rich”.

It’s ironic such a saying would come up in Russian parlance, given the long history of communist ideology in that country should demonstrate so very clearly that a command and control economy doesn’t make such equality happen… in fact it’ lends itself to the opposite happening.

So, along comes Joe Biden the other day, explaining the position of the Obama/Biden ticket, in one short line:

[wp_youtube]ArJkzRYffec[/wp_youtube]

We want to take money and put it in the pockets of the middle class people…

The whole of the Obama campaign, thusfar, has been about fanning the flames of class warfare, and given the history of the Democrat party we shouldn’t be thinking there’s going to be any chance of a change in this.  Of the last 8 years, we’ve heard nothing but “Bush tax cuts for the Rich” and ‘crackdowns on CEO pay” and other such easily disproved nonsense… but because it so easily feeds into the mantra the Democrats have been chanting for 60 years, now,  it’s been a non-stop drumbeat. Indeed, the speeches Obama has made bear a striking resemblence to Totalitarian regimes of the recent post… Stalin, for example. Hitler for another., where sacrifice to the state is held highest, in the name of ‘equality’ of course.

Now, make no mistake; I think Bill O’Reilly is a bombastic horse’s ass. But he’s been right on the money with Obama so far, and particularly so when he pointed out that Obama’s rhetorical calls for ‘economic fairness’ are in fact nothing more than socialistic ‘economic redistribution’ as was attempted, but never achieved in the Russian culture, despite Simon-pure adherence to socialism. Obama, knowing this to be his personal third rail, backed off the question, and sadly, O’Reilly let him off the hook.

Thing is, this comment from Biden has brought all of this back into sharp focus.  So while this spotlight is turned on it, let’s look closely.

The economic redistribution sought by the Democrats is proposed as a moral crusade, but ironically, makes no mention of whose money they’re talking about taking… more correctly, stealing. Isn’t stealing immoral?

I’d point out further, as I have several times here and elsewhere that we’re currently in a financial meltdown because we tried boosting the degree of home-ownership for the ‘have nots’, by forcing banks to lend money to people with no credit… certainly such policy is also based on income redistribution. Look what that’s bought us. Think Obama’s additional socialism is going to change anything for the better?

Obama seems to be operating from the basic socialistic premise that the economy is a zero sum game… something that was soundly disproved in the Reagan years and since. But how did Reagan prove this? By removing attempts to punish achievers, and celebration of achievement. Along comes Obama/Biden…

We want to take money and put it in the pockets of the middle class people…

… reversing all of that, and ignoring the lessons Reagan taught us. Given the indications of history… both ours and the Russians, Obama is a mistake we as a nation cannot afford to make.

As attributed by Tim Graham, Newsbusters:

When Sandra [Bernhard] warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting.

So question fir Kim Gandy, NAG, so when did the rape of womenfolk become an appropoiate topic for stand-up humor?   Is rape supposed to funny?:

Question for the Reverend Al Sharton, since when did perpetuating some of the ugliest sterotypes about black males become an appropriate subject for stand-up humor?

Hat tip and more, Michelle.

,

Well I suppose one doesn’t need to study biology to get a degree in journalism.   I supppose it would prevent stupid stories like the one, Jeffery Diamond, ABC News:

A transgendered woman, who lost a job offer because of her sexual status, has won a potentially groundbreaking federal sex discrimination lawsuit.

A federal court judge ruled today that Diane Schroer, a transgendered woman, was discriminated against when the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., offered then rescinded a job because of her sexual status.

Diane Schroer was born David Schroer. and served twenty-five years in the U.S Army, as a male.   Schroer was born a male, is a male and will die a male.   Sex is immutable.

Sadly stupidity is not limited to journalistd   The judge is also mind boogling stupid as well:

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Schroer, said Judge James Robertson’s ruling is the first to hold that the federal sex discrimination statute, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, applies to transgendered people

I’ll grant you that the Library of Congress did indeed discriminate against Schroer.   However is sure was not sexual discrimination.   Schroer was a male when he was hired and he was male when he was fired.

Meryl Yourish:

Meryl Yourish

Why is it, exactly, that so many Jews are Democrats? That’s right. Because Democrats are the champions of liberal, social causes. They’re against tyranny and all for liberty, freedom, and especially, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

But heaven help you if you go against what the Democrats want. Like, say, having Sarah Palin appear in the same venue as Hillary Clinton, even if it’s to protest Jew-hater Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Because then, forget about your freedoms of association, speech, and assembly.

Sources tell CBS 2 HD that a decision to disinvite Palin from the high profile rally after Clinton pulled out in a huff came as the result of intense pressure from Democrats.

[…] Sources say the axes were out for Palin as soon as Sen. Clinton pulled out because she did not want to attend the same event as the Republican vice presidential candidate.

[…] The groups sponsoring the rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN were reportedly told, “it could jeopardize their tax exempt status” if they had Palin and not Clinton or Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on hand.

So all politicians were disinvited, most prominently, Palin.

Got that? Not only would Clinton not appear, but if the groups did not disinvite Palin, Democrats threatened their tax-exempt status. Why? Because they’d sic the IRS on them by calling it a political event. Who was threatened? Well, basically, every major Jewish group in America.

(Bit Aside: CBS-HD-2 is a local subchannel  on Channel 2 in NY, established a few months back, and is an all-local news outlet, basically competing with the local Time Warner Cable news outlet down there, NY-1)

I commented on this stuff the other day. As I said then…

If Hillary Clinton is the only political attendee, it’s non-partisan, but if Sarah Palin shows up and might be seen with Clinton, uniting against  Ahmadinejad, suddenly, it’s a partisan event?

Ummm. Yeah. Okaaayyyyy..(Backing away)

There were a number of things about it like that, that didn’t make sense, particularly when Palin got un-invited… to the point where I waited for the dust to settle before commenting further.Mostly because I’ve not been fully ‘plugged in’ in the apple for some time.

Now, that having been accomplished, and some of this stuff trickling out, I look on this with no small amount of wonder, that as Yourish suggests, any Jew would vote Democrat.  Certainly, they are no freinds to the Jews. And interestingly, Yourish notes:

. CBS didn’t have the story about Jewish organizations having their tax-exempt status revoked for having Palin speak at the rally.

Obviously, they knew about it, but simply decided not to report it. Gee, I wonder why, huh? THese little snippets keep popping up, telling us how much in bed with the Democrats the news people are. Well,these thuggish tactics and this rather incestuous Democrat news agency relationship, particularly given the combined thuggery, should remind one very easily of a propaganda ministry… and certainly such threats against opposition groups would not be reported by that news agency, either.

And in support, you may ask of whom? Simple.

Steve at Whizbang notes:

Make no mistake that this was an Obama op and that it was Obama operatives directing the screenplay. Upon news of Palin’s invitation, it was assured that the event would garner a higher level of attention than it already commanded. And the images and footage of Palin speaking in protest (popular protest, it should be added) of Iran and the messianic Ahmadinejad upon the backdrop of the common perception of Obama’s weakness in foreign policy and national security simply could not stand. Furthermore, it would have provided endless campaign fodder with Palin shown standing against the world’s foremost state sponsor of international terrorism amid the audio-visual bites of Obama stating he would hold talks with Iran without preconditions. The effects would potentially be more than just stinging.

It had to be derailed at all costs. And the first step in the mission was to characterize it as a politicized event. Getting Clinton to step away from the invitation was easy enough – her own vanity played against her as noted above. Having her spokesmen give a ‘politicizing’ reason for withdrawing from the rally planted the seed. And the trap was laid expertly.

All that remained was Palin and the media hyper-focus on her. If she remained, the meme of a ‘politicization’ of an otherwise honorable event would be hung around her neck – and Malcolm Hoenlein’s – like an albatross. Yet she refused to rescind her acceptance as Hillary Clinton had.

Here’s where it gets a bit dirty. The Obama campaign could not publicly cajole her to stay away, yet they needed her away. Desperately. So the pressure was then applied to Malcolm Hoenlein and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.

Enter the National Jewish Democratic Council, which supports the Obama Campaign. They were enlisted and put to the front to apply direct pressure to the Conference of Presidents, also a Jewish organization. And it is not a stretch to imagine (though wholly my conjecture) that the Conference of Presidents has donors among the NJDC, and therefore more than simply conceivable that there were threats of significant funding halts and other future obstacles from among powerful NJDC members.

And through whatever ugly back room pressure was brought to bear squarely on Malcolm’s shoulders, he felt compelled to disinvite Sarah Palin against his wishes, but likely in hopes of saving the greater organization’s future from political saboteurs within his own faith.

And the Obama camp wins. Sarah Palin is denied the stage to demonstrate foreign policy leadership and voice principled opposition to the world’s premiere state sponsor of terrorism on Manhattan, in front of the UN and before recording FOX News cameras and microphones. No near-lethal ads this October running in Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan – where voters would get the message loud and clear.

The amazing part about all of this, is that as Yourish says:

It won’t stop my liberal Jewish friends from voting Democrat in any way. It won’t even make them think twice about the tactics used by the Democrats.

It all comes down to, as I said the other day, the basis of support for Obama not being based in fact to begin with, and that on that basis, mere facts cannot be used to argue against it. One can only hope that these thuggish tactics will backfire on the Democrats… but I wonder, particularly based on the history of the thing, which gives me no cause to think this will go down any way but how Yourish describes it..

Lemmings.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks …

I know, I know… I”ve just broken my own rule about using AP as a source for BitsBlog. But in my defense I will say the purpose is to explain one reason WHY AP is no longer a valid source, here.

How many months has it been that they’ve been pushing this meme of ‘If you’re not for Obama, you’re a racist’?

But now, wait a second. Who is this we’re talking about, here? We’re talking about DEMOCRATS. So, now we’re to understand that the reason Obama is in trouble is DEMOCRATS are racist? How can THAT be? I thought Democrats by their very nature harbored no racism.

Dan Riehl notes the same story:

Here’s a thought – were Obama conservative to Right-leaning, I’d vote for a guy like that in a minute and I suspect many other Right-siders would, too. In my opinion, were a Colin Powell or a Condaleezza Rice slightly more to the Right and able to appeal to values voters, they’d have strong backing from Right-side voters throughout much of the land, despite some existing stereotypes propagated by the media.

Unlike Obama, they’ve actually accomplished something relatively significant in their lives through hard work and not just talked a good game to get ahead.

Joyner at OTB agrees saying:

Yes, Obama will lose some votes because of racism.  Yes, McCain will lose some votes because of concerns about his age.  In a truly close election, that could amount to the difference.  But saying that they therefore lost “because” of that one factor — when dozens of factors were more important in deciding the election — is absurd.

And, indeed, if one keeps reading, we find:

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.  Three in 10 of those Democrats who don’t trust Obama’s change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

That’s Obama-specific.

And so it is. Think, folks… We’re talking about the Democrat party… the party of post-racialism. How can they possibly have so many racists as to affect the outcome of this election?  The fact is, they don’t.

The media and the left (but I repeat myself) has been pushing this meme of ‘the reason Obama’s losing is because of racism’ for some months now.  Until now, though, the charge has been focused on independents and Republicans. Now, they’re willing to blame Democrats. Why the change?

Simple… the leftists see Obama struggling, where if all the Democrats were behind him, no such struggle would occur, based on overall party numbers. Add about half the independents and there’d be an Obama rout.  The Democrats can’t fathom, cannot accept, that Obama would be defeated on issues, or his questions about his  competency, so they hunt around and find a reason that matches with what they CAN accept… their long chanted mantra of ‘racism’.  So desperate are they to attach this meme to Obama’s impending loss that they’re willing to tar their fellow leftists with the title of ‘racist’.

If nothing else, it’s an attempt at swaying voters with guilt. But in my view they’re also becoming increasingly aware Obama will lose this election… and they want something in the public discourse that wll explain it without running afoul of their leftist sensibilities.