Steyn poking fun at The One

I missed this Mark Steyn column when it first appeared in June. Maybe you missed it to.

Stayn begins - - -

The short version of the Democratic Party primary campaign is that the media fell in love with Barack Obama but the Democratic electorate declined to.

"I felt this thrill going up my leg," said MSNBC's Chris Matthews after one of the senator's speeches. "I mean, I don't have that too often."

Au contraire, Chris and the rest of the gang seem to be getting the old tingle up the thigh hairs on a nightly basis. If Obama is political Viagra, the media are at that stage in the ad where the announcer warns that, if leg tingles persist for more than six months, see your doctor.

Out there in the voting booths, however, Democrat legs stayed admirably unthrilled. The more the media told Hillary she was toast, and she should get the hell out of it and let Obama romp to victory, the more Democrats insisted on voting for her.

The more the media insisted Barack was inevitable, the less inclined the voters were to get with the program.

On the strength of Chris Matthews' vibrating calves, Sen. Obama raised a ton of money – over $300 million – and massively outspent Sen. Clinton, but he didn't really get any bang for his buck. In the end, he crawled over the finish line. The Obama Express came a-hurtlin' down the track at 2 miles an hour.

But what does he care? Sen. Obama has learned an old trick of Bill Clinton's: If you behave like a star, you'll get treated as one. So, even as his numbers weakened, his rhetoric soared.

By the time he wrapped up his "victory" speech last week, the great gaseous uplift had his final paragraphs floating in delirious hallucination along the Milky Way:

"I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people … . I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal … . This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation."

It's a good thing he's facing it with "profound humility," isn't it? Because otherwise who knows what he'd be saying. …

As for coming together "to remake this great nation," if it's so great, why do we have to remake it?

A few months back, just after the New Hampshire primary, a Canadian reader of mine – John Gross of Quebec – sent me an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign:

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." …

Steyn’s entire column’s here.

You’ll smile when you read it unless you believe like Speaker Pelosi The One is sent by God to save us.

If that’s the case, keep checking those ocean levels and reading those Greenpeace press statements.

This made me smile

A friend passed on J. Paul Getty’s “formula for success:"

Work late, rise early and strike oil

More about Democrat Al Franken

This morning I posted Franken involved in SNL’s McCain ridicule.

The short of it: Liberal activist, Obama supporter and Minnesota Democratic senatorial candidate Al Franken was involved in a NBC Saturday Night Live skit ridiculing Sen. John McCain. The post includes a video of the skit.

A few minutes ago I came upon Powerline’s Scott Johnson’s post “Comedian, Satirize Thyself.” Here’s part of it:

Last night's sketch serves up the party line of the Democratic/Media Complex about John McCain's allegedly nasty and false campaign advertising. I noted a few days ago in "How low can you go for Al Franken?" that Franken's buddies at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are running one of the dirtiest ads I've ever seen on behalf of Franken himself.

The DSCC ad all but accuses Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman of killing Army National Guard Major Stuart Anderson in Iraq in January 2006.

Franken is the angry liberal scourge of corporate America who didn't get around to paying the taxes he owed in at least 17 states. This year he wrote checks totaling some $70,000 in taxes and penalties to the various states in which he had taxes owing since 2003.

Franken finally got around to paying the taxes only when his nonpayment was exposed in the course of the current campaign.

In his business capacity, Franken has also somehow overlooked the little man for whom he purports to wage his political battles. Franken was found to owe a $25,000 penalty to the New York State Workers' Compensation Board for failing to carry workers' compensation insurance for employees of his namesake corporation from 2002 to 2005.

New York officials who made numerous attempts to contact Franken about the worker's compensation matter since April 2005 never received a reply. Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr said that neither Franken nor his wife Franni were aware of the matter before it was exposed in the course of the campaign in March of this year.

Now that's funny, as are the efforts of Franken's campaign to lie on his behalf about his contribution to the show last night.

Johnson’s entire post’s here.

************************************************

Comments:

Yes, Franken bills himself as a scourge of corporate America.

That’s why, he tells campaign audiences, he’s a member of the party “that fight’s for the little guy.”

That’s funny, too, because if Franken was a Republican, MSM would have chewed him alive long ago and the GOP would have dumped him.

Franken owes his current status as a U. S. Senate candidate to the fact he’s a Dem.

Latest battleground states' poll averages

At RealClearPolitics.com on 9/21/08 @ 2:45 ET.

Battleground States	Obama	McCain	Spread
Colorado	47.3	44.8	Obama +2.5
Ohio	44.9	46.5	McCain +1.6
Florida	45.4	48.2	McCain +2.8
Pennsylvania	47.0	45.3	Obama +1.7
Michigan	47.8	44.2	Obama +3.6
Virginia	45.3	47.3	McCain +2.0

You can click on any of the states for more information about the polls, their data collection dates, etc.

Franken involved in SNL's McCain ridicule

Politico reports today - - - Al Franken, the former "Saturday Night Live" star now running in a high-profile Senate race in Minnesota, helped craft the opening sketch mocking John McCain that kicked off the NBC comedy show Saturday, according to two well-placed sources inside the network. Franken, who hasn’t been a staff writer on the show for 13 years, “phoned in” a spoof of McCain recording campaign ads in an edit booth, said an NBC source. Seth Meyers, the show’s current head writer, wrote it, but the sketch was hatched by Franken, a longtime liberal satirist and comedian. An SNL insider said that, as of the Wednesday script read-through, Franken was the “credited writer with Meyers” on the opening sketch. Show veteran Darrell Hammond is to play McCain. Franken’s input to the show blindsided his campaign staff, who have been forced to explain away some of the more crass and profane parts of his past writing and acting that have been used as fodder against him in a state known for its polite manners. … A Franken campaign aide said the candidate had been taping an ad earlier in the week and had wondered out loud how McCain could include the disclaimer candidates are required to include in their commercials — “I’m John McCain, and I approved this message” — when his spots were so “over the top.” … But word that the network’s signature comedy show has allowed a liberal Democrat Senate candidate to shape content mocking the Republican presidential nominee may fuel sentiment that the network is sympathetic to the left. Told of Franken’s role in Saturday's show, a spokesman for Sen. Norm Coleman’s campaign said it was ironic that the Democrat had a hand in spoofing negative campaigning. “Angry Al has run one of the nastiest, most negative attack campaigns in Minnesota history,” said Coleman spokesman Luke Friedrich. “Angry Al complaining about someone else’s campaign ads is about as funny as 'Saturday Night Live' will get this year.” Franken's campaign was damaged earlier this summer when Republicans unearthed a racy Playboy article and even more when it was revealed that in 1995, his last year on the program, Franken had joked about rape while crafting one of the show’s skits. Faced with a groundswell of criticism, Franken distanced himself from his past work as a comedian. In June, he apologized for some of his more controversial comedy routines when he accepted his party’s endorsement. … Aside from exposing Franken's campaign to further questions about the seriousness of his commitment to public office, his role in the skit also leaves the NBC network vulnerable to criticism about the propriety of allowing a partisan candidate for high federal office to craft a segment mocking a presidential candidate of the opposing party. Franken and his wife, Frances, have both maxed out as donors to the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. If nothing else, the timing of Franken's involvement is inopportune for the broadcast network, coming just weeks after delegates at the Republican National Convention chanted "NBC" in response to a line in GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's acceptance speech criticizing the media. Conservatives have come to view NBC in the way they did CNN — once derided as the “Clinton News Network” — for many years. Republican enmity has been mostly aimed at the network’s politically oriented cable station, MSNBC, and particularly liberal-leaning hosts Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. But word that the network’s signature comedy show has allowed a liberal Democrat Senate candidate to shape content mocking the Republican presidential nominee may fuel sentiment that the network is sympathetic to the left, even if the treatment of McCain is relatively gentle. … Representatives for Obama declined to comment on Franken’s hand in mocking their rival. The McCain campaign also declined to comment. The entire Politico story’s here. ******************************************* Comments: You can view the SNL skit below. A few months back Sen. McCain cancelled a fund-raiser at the home of a man when it was disclosed that about 20 years ago he’d told a “rape joke” for doing which he subsequently apologized. Al Frankein tells a “rape joke” and he gets a Democratic Party U. S. Senate nomination. Who says there isn’t a difference between the two parties? Politico talks about how Republicans and Conservatives have come to view NBC as biased against McCain. Polls show they have. Polls also show that Independents, by percentages almost as large as Republican and Conservative respondents, view the mainstream media, including all three TV networks, as biased as biased against Sen. McCain. Politico should have mentioned that. Hat tip: AC

Obama’s latest false attack ad plus the truth

Annenberg FactCheck.org posts “Scaring Seniors” with a subhead that gets right to the point:

An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!

FactCheck continues:

A new Obama ad characterizes the "Bush-McCain privatization plan" as "cutting Social Security Benefits in half." This is a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all.

The ad refers to a Bush proposal from 2005 to hold down the growth of benefits for future retirees. Compared to the buying power of benefits paid to today's retirees, that would not have been a "cut" for anybody. It would have been a "cut" of half only in relation to benefits now promised to retirees who have yet to be born. And for average workers, that "cut" in 2075 was projected by one of Obama's own economic advisers to be 28 percent, not "half."

The ad also says McCain voted "in favor of privatizing Social Security." The term "privatizing" could give the wrong impression. McCain does support creating government-managed accounts that would allow individuals to invest some portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in widely diversified stock or bond funds. …

FactCheck follows that with an extensive analysis of the false Obama-Biden attack ad before ending with this, which is what Sen. Obama should be talking about to the American people instead of spreading falsehoods about Sen. McCain:

For the record, McCain has said that he would seek a bipartisan deal with Congress to fix Social Security's financial problems.

During a Republican candidate debate last year in Orlando, Florida, he said:

McCain, Oct. 21, 2007: Look, what Americans need is some straight talk. They need to know -- every man, woman and child in America needs to know that both of these are going broke. They're going broke and we've got to do the hard things. We've got to fix it for the future generations of Americans.
Don't we owe that to young Americans today? I say we do. ...

It's got to be bipartisan. ... And you have to got to the American people and say we don't -- we won't raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we got to fix this system.

The system isn't exactly "going broke." But the latest official projection is that the trust fund will be exhausted by the year 2041, after which current tax rates will finance only 78 percent of currently scheduled benefits.

We agree that "straight talk" is needed and that finding solutions will be hard. Ads like this [Obama-Biden ad], however, misinform the public and make the job of fixing the system more difficult.

You can read the entire FactCheck.org statement here.

*************************************************

Comments:

Paraphrasing President Reagan, there the Dems go again trying to scare voters with falsehoods about the GOP wanting to cut Social Security benefits.

The Dems do it so often it must be a reflex action for them

I don’t doubt the Dems’ Social Security lies and other scare tactics help keep uninformed voters in their column.

But Americans pay an enormous price as a result of the Dems’ politicizing Social Security reform, a matter that should be non-partisan.

What’s in Howard Kurtz’s “closet?”

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air blog:

Howard Kurtz issues a rather amazing analysis of John McCain’s ad connecting [former Fannie Mae chief executive] Franklin Raines to Barack Obama.

The Washington Post media analyst calls the basis of the McCain ad a “disputed premise” — despite his own newspaper’s reporting on the Raines-Obama relationship:

Analysis: This John McCain ad is based on a disputed premise.

There’s no dispute that Obama has no background in economics — but then, neither does McCain, which makes this an odd charge for the Arizona senator to hurl.

Fannie Mae did collapse, requiring a government takeover, and Raines, its former chairman, paid $25 million in April to settle a case brought by federal authorities investigating his role in the agency’s accounting problems. But he has never been a close adviser to Obama.

Morrissey follows Kurtz’s “analysis” with praise for Kurtz whom he says “usually tries to approach [his work] without bias, and mostly succeeds[.]"

Morrissey has more praise for Howard Kurtz before saying:

So when I tell you that Howard is talking out of his hat [on the McCain ad], I say it with respect and affection.

Why do I say that? His own newspaper has twice reported the relationship between Raines and Obama, and on one of those occasions, Raines was their source:

• 7/16/08: “In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae’s chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case’s D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

• 8/28/08: “In the current crisis, their biggest backers have been Democrats such as Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (Mass.). Two members of Mr. Obama’s political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae.“

Howard never mentions these articles. What are we to make of this omission, and of Howard’s declaration of the relationship as a “disputed premise”?

Morrissey answers his rhetorical question:

It seems that the lesson is that readers shouldn’t trust the reporting at the Washington Post. After all, these articles contain no corrections and have not been retracted, and more to the point, never raised an objection from Barack Obama until now. (all emphasis Morrissey’s)

Morrissey does a fine job letting readers know Kurtz’s “analysis” is indisputable bosh.

Now my rhetorical question: Why does an intelligent, articulate media critic like Howard Kurtz jump into print and the Net with an “analysis” that’s such indisputable bosh?

IMO because, for all his protestations of non-partisanship, there are Democratic Party “clothes” in the Kurtz “closet.” And from time-to-time such as now, Kurtz slips them on under his non-partisan cover. But his Dem "clothes" are showing through.

Morrissey's closer: "Howard needs to rethink his analysis, or the Post needs to start issuing retractions."

What do you think?

Morrissey's entire post's here; Kurtz's "analysis" is here.

Durham conviction’s tossed. N&O ignores its Duke frame sames

The front page of today Raleigh News & Observer headlines:

Man walks free after 7 years in prison

Judge throws out Durham case that put a youth behind bars

The story under reporter Anne Blythe’s byline begins:

Erick Daniels spent nearly a third of his 22 years behind bars for crimes a judge said Friday he did not commit. …

Judge Orlando Hudson threw out the case and ordered his release Friday after a day and a half of hearings.

Carlos Mahoney, a Durham lawyer who took on the case several years ago, argued that Daniels had ineffective legal representation at the trial and appeals level. Mahoney also said Daniels was the victim of prosecutors who withheld evidence that would have helped his defense, and of police who used a flawed photo lineup to identify him. …

His case was sent to Durham Superior Court and, at age 15, he was tried as an adult. At trial, a prosecutor relied on [the victim’s] identification of Daniels. She identified him from a middle-school yearbook photo after 30 minutes of study.

The state offered no physical evidence or corroborating testimony linking Daniels to the crime. Daniels was found guilty and sentenced to 10 to 14 years in prison. He would have been eligible for release in 2012. …

Robert Harris, the lawyer who defended Daniels at trial, testified at the hearing this week that, in hindsight, his counsel had been flawed. ...

Harris also opened the door for this week's hearing. A client told Harris that he committed the burglary and robbery, information that was not available during Daniels' trial.

Knowing that put Harris in a difficult spot. The evidence could exonerate Daniels, but under rules that govern attorney-client relationships, the information was privileged and potentially damaging to his client.

Eventually, Harris told Freda Black, the prosecutor in the case, that another man had confessed. Black, called to the stand Thursday, testified that she did not pursue the information. …

The entire N&O story’s here.

Comments:

Reporter Anne Blythe was bylined in spring 2006 on many of the N&O’s racially inflammatory and biased Duke Hoax stories, including the most infamous of them: the deliberately fraudulent and racially inflammatory March 25 story with a headline telling readers it was about a woman’s “ordeal” during a night which ended in “sexual violence.”

In truth, the Duke lacrosse case was really about the trashing, libeling and endangerment of the Men’s lacrosse team and an extensive frame-up attempt of three of its members.

The Duke frame-up attempt, led by now disbarred former Durham DA Mike Nifong with enablement from many others, included withholding of evidence and a rigged photo ID process.

The frame-up attempt has resulted a number of major suits, including three now working their way through the federal court system.

Yet with all of that, there’s no mention of the Duke frame-up attempt or the suits in Blythe’s almost 900-word story.

Why is that?

IMO Blythe and the N&O want people to forget about the witch hunt, frame-up attempt and ongoing cover-up, in all three of which the N&O's played a leading and disgraceful role.

In its print edition, a small sidebar using very small font accompanies Blythe’s story:“Durham Prosecutions Take Another Hit.” The N&O notes past instances of both Durham police and prosecutorial misconduct. It says only this about one of the most important, extensive and notorious cases of police and prosecutorial misconduct in North Carolina’s history:

The Duke lacrosse case of 2006-07 case exposed the misconduct of Mike Nifong, the former district attorney who was stripped of his license and ousted from office for withholding evidence of the accused players' innocence.

ACORN, Vote Fraud, Durham County & Obama

The Durham Herald Sun reports today - - -

Republican National Committee officials on Friday blasted a group that's registering voters in Durham, calling it "a quasi-criminal, Democratic-affiliated organization" that represents a danger to the electoral process.

The move by RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross and Communications Director Danny Diaz followed a Herald-Sun report that Durham County Board of Elections Director Mike Ashe wants state officials to check about 80 voter registration forms for possible fraud.

The forms came from a group called the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The group is more commonly known by its acronym, ACORN.

Cairncross said RNC officials "commend the vigilance" Ashe showed, and will continue to monitor the situation. He added that ACORN is "a malignant organization" with a long track record of vote-fraud transgressions.

He added that if voters aren't sure of their registration status, they should check it with the Board of Elections.

The board operates a searchable, online registration database at

http://www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/elec/votersearch/index.cfm.

Ashe's move this week came after elections officials discovered that ACORN workers had registered a 14-year-old, claiming the youth was born in 1989. The minimum voting age is 18.

They also knew of "less than half a dozen" people who, after receiving a formal notice from the board telling them they'd registered, got in touch with officials to say they'd never filled out a registration form, Ashe said.

In addition, election workers also noticed that ACORN-submitted registration forms so far have included up to 125 duplicate names. It appeared that ACORN registrars -- who are paid and subject to a per-shift quota -- were using the same names repeatedly, Ashe said.

"I got like 15 Brenda Greens," Ashe said. "We're starting to get enough now that the names are looking familiar."

Similar problems tied to ACORN have been reported this summer by media outlets in New Mexico and Ohio, which like North Carolina are battlegrounds and potential swing states in this year's presidential election. …

Cairncross said ACORN has figured in vote-fraud allegations in past elections in Washington, Missouri and Pennsylvania. Registrars from the group have faced criminal charges in all of those states. …

The GOP operatives alleged that Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama has longstanding and continuing ties to ACORN. Obama North Carolina campaign spokesman Paul Cox could not be reached Friday afternoon for comment. …

The entire Herald Sun story's here.*
************************************************

Comments:

Sen. Obama’s ties to ACORN are not just something “GOP operatives [have] alleged."

You can check out Obama’s ties to ACORN by doing what a commenter on the H-S story’s thread advises: “Google Obama and ACORN to see the extent of Obama's involvement (beginning in the late 1990s), and also his involvement in ACORN Housing, which was a direct contributor to the current Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac housing crisis.”

ACORN’s involvement in vote fraud is far more extensive than the H-S story indicates. See, for example, my Jan. 9, 2008 post: Voter-Fraud Court Case.

You might also be interested in reading this Aug. 3, 2008 post: John Edwards, ACORN and voter fraud.

Like Obama, former Sen. Edwards, the self-described "poverty fighter" who favors $400.00 haircuts and a very expensive mistress, is a long-time supporter of ACORN.

I’ll keep reporting on ACORN and vote fraud. I’m afraid we’ll be seeing a lot of both during this election.

The Churchill Series – Sept. 19, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

I’ll be brief today and simply try to put a few smiles in your weekend.

Many of you know of Churchill’s good friend F. E. Smith’s (later Lord Birkenhead) quip: “Winston is easily satisfied with the best.”

Churchill enjoyed the quip and often repeated it.

Here from page 79 of Dominique Enright’s The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill (O’Mara Books Limited, 2001) are a few of Churchill's own quips echoing F. E. Smith’s assessment of him:

“I always manage somehow to adjust to any new level of luxury without whimper or complaint. It is one of my most winning traits.”

“I have in my life concentrated more on self-expression than on self-denial.”

His self-deprecating humor is one of his qualities that makes Churchill such a wonderful “companion” with whom to spend time.

I hope you have a book handy or search the Net to find something that will allow you to spend some time with Churchill this weekend.

I continue to think about those of you impacted by Ike. If you have suggestions for organizations to send various forms of help, please provide the addresses and I’ll post them.

Best,

John

Obama & “these fat-cat lobbyists”

A while back Sen. Barack Obama assured us:

“I don’t take money from federal registered lobbyists, because I want to answer to you when I’m in the White House. I don’t want to answer to all these fat-cat lobbyists!”

Today American Digest asks:

”So now that he’s scoring political points for the ban, what impact has it actually had?”

It seems virtually none.

Take a look at American Digest’s post - "How's that Obama 'No money from lobbyists' thing working out?" – here.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Biden, “patriotic” taxes, and charitable giving

Liberal Senator Joe Biden says if we were really patriotic, we’d all want to pay more taxes. That way, people like himself, Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Charlie Rangel would have more of our money to spend.

The Democratic Vice-presidential candidate didn’t real say the part about him and his fellow Dems wanting more of our money to spend, but that’s what it amounts to.

Biden’s “patriotic” remark reminded a JinC Regular to send along a link to a March 2008 George Will column which begins - - -

Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers.

Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on.

But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data.

They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government. …

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households.

But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

Will’s entire column’s here.

Comments:

Using the Gore standard, the most “charitable” people in the world are members of Congress led by liberal Democrats.

That being the case, can we consider the earmark Sen. Barack Obama obtained for his wife Michelle’s employer, the U. of Chicago Health System, about the time it gave her a promotion and a hefty six-figure pay increase a case of "charity" beginning at home?

Message to Sen. Biden: If you want to talk people’s money and their patriotism, salute entrepreneurs who create jobs.

Salute commercial builders and developers whose work increases communities tax bases and provides places where people can work, earn a living and pay a reasonable amount of taxes for honest and needed government services.

And demand the sleazy Charlie Rangel step down from his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congress’ committee charged with writing tax legislation and bills affecting Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs.

Hat tip: BN

The Churchill Series – Sept. 18, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Grace Hamblin, O.B.E., became one of Churchill’s secretaries in the early 30s and subsequently served as Clementine’s secretary through 1966. The two women also became close friends.

During a talk in 1987 before the International Churchill Society, Hamblin recalled one of Churchill’s “most endearing qualities:”

One of his most endearing qualities was his love of animals. He surrounded himself with them.

In his out of door peregrinations - building a wall, making a dam or an island, touring the farm, feeding the fish or his beloved black swans - he was always accompanied by a dog.

In the early days this was a pug, which didn't suit him at all really. Later there was his faithful poodle, Rufus.

Rufus, I'm sorry to say, took rather a liking to me. Poodles are very one-man dogs, you know. And this made Sir Winston rather cross.

He'd say, with his head down, "You've stolen my dog's affection."

I didn't, really. It was just that I was there, and I took him for walks which nobody else did. No wonder the dog liked me. He was a good dog, because after Sir Winston had been away, he would always welcome him back - which was very decent of him.

When Rufus died, I had him at Chartwell, and Sir Winston happened at that time to be in hospital in London with a broken hip.

I telephoned to Lady Churchill and asked her what action she'd like me to take because it was quite a big thing in our lives. She said, "You'd better write him a little note and I'll take it along to him," which she did.

She told me afterwards that when he read it the tears came to his eyes. He was very emotional and the tears came easily. He had said, "Poor Miss, she must have a puppy."

So you see, I was forgiven.

Grace Hamblin’s entire talk is hosted here at the Churchill Centre’s site.

The AP "covers" Biden’s “patriotic” statement

Most of you already know about Sen. Joe Biden’s “patriotic” statement which Sen. Obama’s MSM Tank Corps is struggling to cover over.

Obama’s AP’s cover over effort follows. If you’re familiar with it, you may want to scroll down below the star line where comments begin.


The AP’s cover over in full - - -

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."

Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

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

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

McCain released a television ad Thursday charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.

"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork," the ad says. "And we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"

The McCain campaign said the ad is set to run nationally.

********************************************************

Comments:

Where to begin?

Let’s start with the AP's:

Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic [and AP] presidential candidate Barack Obama . . . the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.”

The dissembling AP knows the kind of tax Obama's talking about - income tax - is one on which almost 50% of those filing tax returns pay no taxes at all.

So how do you give people who pay no income taxes an income “tax cut?”

Well, even The One can't can’t really do that.

But as Lincoln said,“You can fool some of the people all the time.”

And you have your best chance of fooling people if you’re a liberal Democrat like Sen. Obama with most of MSM pitching your shill.

That being the case, you get the kind of “cover” the AP provided for Obama when Biden made his “patriotic” statement.

With that "cover," the public won’t learn what the National Taxpayers Union reports (with comparative tables) and what a knowledgeable JinC friend summarizes thus:

The attached shows that based on 2006 Federal tax returns, the top 10 % of income earners paid 71% of our country's total income taxes -- the bottom 50 % of income earners paid only 3 % of total taxes.

In 1999 the top 10 % paid 66 % of total taxes which means the percent of total taxes paid by the highest income earners is growing over time.

What Senator Biden refers to as the "wealthy " are already paying more than their fair share of taxes. In stating that "it's time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal," Senator Biden is implying that these hard working taxpayers are currently shirking their responsibilities to their country, which can't be farther from the truth.

As you know ,raising taxes on the individuals and businesses who drive our economy is irresponsible economic policy . This will lead to a worsening of the current economic conditions and hurt people at all income levels, particularly those at the lower income levels.

The Obama/Biden tax plan is really a welfare plan designed to redistribute wealth in this country -- a Marxist-type recipe for disaster.

How did the Dems ever decide the way for us to show our patriotism is to pay more taxes?

Michelle Obama's "She's cute." But what about Rev. Wright?

Here's the video of Mrs. Michelle Obama making her "she's cute" remark.



MSM needs to ask Michelle Obama why she and her husband took their children for religious instruction to a church where the pastor was the raving racist, anti-American Jeremiah Wright?

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin for the video link

AP Obama reporter-supporter in action

This from the AP’s Obama reporter-supporter Glen Johnson:

Top aides to Republian John McCain are claiming Democrat Barack Obama and his advisers are exploiting Wall Street's financial problems for political gain.

Aide Steve Schmidt, who worked for the Bush-Cheney team in 2004, told reporters Thursday aboard McCain's plane that Obama is "cheerleading this crisis." He said McCain is seeking a bipartisan solution although Schmidt and aides Mark Salter and Nicole Wallace also said Democratic congressional leaders should be condemned for considering adjourning without addressing the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the sale of Merrill Lynch and the emergency government loan to insurer AIG.

The aides say the Arizona senator will make the same criticisms during his speeches.(all emphasis added)

The first sentence of Obama supporter-reporter Johnson’s story could have read:

Top aides to Republian John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama and his advisers of exploiting Wall Street's financial problems for political gain.

Reporters and bloggers know “accused” is stronger the “claiming.”

That’s no doubt why Johnson went with “claiming.”

Reporters routinely quote campaign aides without referencing their past campaign affiliations unless doing so is relevant to the story at hand.

Schmidt’s connection to the ’04 Bush-Cheney team is not relevant to Johnson’s story.

But tying Sen. McCain to Bush-Cheney is part of Team Obama’s strategy.

So “on strategy” reporter-supporter Johnson drops the Bush-Cheney reference into his story.

Johnson uses “although” to suggest there’s something contradictory regarding McCain seeking a bipartisan solution and his aides condemning Dems for considering adjournment without addressing the current financial market turmoil.

But leaders often seek bipartisan solutions while aides condemn the other side.

At the time of the integration of Central High in Little Rock, President Eisenhower sought bipartisan solutions to many of the crises in Little Rock even as some of his aides condemned those Dems in Congress who were doing nothing to help the President and, in fact, were supporting the segregationists.

Obama’s AP won’t cooperate with Secret Service on Palin Hack

The AP reports today - - -

Hackers broke into the Yahoo! e-mail account that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin used for official business as Alaska's governor, revealing as evidence a few inconsequential personal messages she has received since John McCain selected her as his running mate.

"This is a shocking invasion of the governor's privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these e-mails will destroy them," the McCain campaign said in a statement.

The Secret Service contacted The Associated Press on Wednesday and asked for copies of the leaked e-mails, which circulated widely on the Internet. The AP did not comply.

The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business. The practice was revealed months ago - prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate - after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides.

The rest of the article’s here.

Who’s surprised the AP, a leader of MSM’s Obama Tank Corps, is refusing to cooperate with the Secret Service?

And who’s surprised the AP’s trying to make it seem Palin is the one who somehow did something wrong.

The slimes and smears never stop and the hacks go on, all gleefully reported by the AP.

Hat tip: Drudge

London editor praises Petraeus; cautions U. S.

Excerpts from the Times of London’s associate editor Rosemary Righter’s column today, followed by my very brief remarks below the star line.

Righter notes - - -

This week General Petraeus handed over command to his stalwart deputy, General Ray Odierno, with thanks to American and the much improved Iraqi forces for turning hard but not hopeless into “hard but hopeful”, and this time was hailed for his modesty. Incontrovertibly, Iraq on his watch has pulled back from the precipice.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not finished, as constant suicide bomb attacks attest; but it is no longer an existential menace. Its losses since April are reported on jihadist networks to be double its casualties in the four years from 2003 to 2007 - not least because of the Sunni “Awakening” against the nihilistic brutality of al-Qaeda's methods.

Anbar, the “unwinnable” western province that was the heartland of the bloody Sunni insurgency and also of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is in consequence now so peaceable that on September 1 it became the 11th of Iraq's 18 provinces to be handed from American to Iraqi military control.

In the south, Basra has been reclaimed from Shia militia rule (despite rather than because of Britain's inadequate and in part shameful contribution), as, for now, has the militantly Shia Sadr City area of Baghdad. Countrywide, daily attacks have fallen from around 180 last year to around 25, and there has been a drop of almost 80 per cent in civilian deaths. Street markets, even the odd swimming pool, have reopened. Despite still-dysfunctional electricity and water supplies and inefficient and corrupt public administration, the economy is picking up.

The surge has ended: the additional units are out of Iraq. The gains are holding, with monthly US military fatalities dramatically down, from a peak of 126 as the surge got under way to 18 last month. They are holding because the surge involved much more than extra US troops.

Militarily, it underpinned the switch, masterminded by General Petraeus, to a counter-insurgency strategy that moved forces out of barracks into Iraqi streets with a mission to protect the Iraqi population and earn their trust. Politically, the surge sent the all-important message that the US was not, after all, going to cut its losses and run.

That altered the dynamics in Iraq. Factions that had been jostling for power ahead of America's discomfited departure realised that the US would stay around until it could in some confidence leave Iraq to manage its own destiny. The Sunni switch to alliance with US forces was the most dramatic consequence, a turnaround that General Petraeus shrewdly encouraged and financed. Political conciliation is not yet a fact but at least it is talked about.

General Petraeus, however, no more does modesty than he does cock-eyed optimism. If he says that progress is fragile and still reversible, he must be taken seriously.

It would be as big an error to declare the surge a “success”, as Mr Obama has abruptly found it expedient to do, as it was to oppose it in the first place, if doing so is a prelude to cutting American troop strengths in Iraq rapidly and “moving on”. This is perilously close to being the new Washington consensus. (emphasis added)

It is not the Iraqi consensus. As Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, said this week: “What we do next is critical to the viability and endurance of any hard-won gains we have made.” Big tests are imminent.

Nouri al-Maliki's Shia-dominated Government takes over paying the wages of the Sunni “Sons of Iraq” from the US next month. It could make the huge mistake of refusing to incorporate more than a fifth of these fighters into Iraq's security forces: they could return to insurgency. It is still foot-dragging on vital laws on elections and sharing oil revenues throughout Iraq.

Mr Zebari did not say so, but until Iraq's factions get serious about sharing power a relapse into violence is a real risk; and most Iraqis know, even if they resent the American presence, that it is their insurance cover. Politically as well as militarily, the US holds the ring.

There is, Mr Zebari insists, no fixed timetable for US troop withdrawal: decisions must be “conditions-led on the ground” to avoid “a vacuum of instability”. Nor must there be. There are no short cuts to stabilising Iraq. And that is not what Americans want to hear.

Righter’s entire column’s here.

****************************************************************

Comments:

I’m traveling in a few minutes. I’ll be shutting down blogging until early this evening.

However, Righter’s column is outstanding so I wanted to call it to your attention ASAP.

I’ll say more tonight.

I’ll be interested to hear what you think.

Hat tip: RealClearPolitics.com

The Churchill Series – Sept. 17, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In In Search of Churchill: A Historian’s Journey Sir Martin Gilbert recounts some of his efforts and adventures tracking down and interviews around the world people who’d known and worked with Churchill.

Gilbert tells us - - -

Secretaries are seldom mentioned in political biography either by worked or name, yet they see their employers at close quarters, in all circumstances and moods, and at critical moments. Might not they too be of help in the search for the character of their employer? (p. 153)

[Gilbert located former Churchill secretaries beginnings with one who’d actually worked for him before 1910 right through to ones who’d worked for him up to his last years. The all had wonderful stories to tell and good things to say about Churchill; all save one.]

Gilbert continues - - -

For the post-war years, Jane Portal, Chips Gemmell, Catherine Snelling and Doreen Pugh each gave me vivid glimpses of their boss. Each had worked with him for five years or more, itself a testimony to his qualities.

One lady, not one of those who became devoted to him, who worked with Churchill for just under three months in 1931 while he was in the United States, did not like him. She made her objections plain when, nearly sixty years later, she was interviewed at length by the BBC.

It was curious, and for me distressing that the other secretaries, who were with him for so much longer, and saw him at his daily work, were given far less time to say their piece.

The overriding impression that his secretaries gave me was of a man who worked hard himself, drove them equally hard, but did so with humour and kindness, alert to their personal needs and quick to apologize for any outburst of anger. (p.270)

“Pelosi will clean up the House?”

The same MSM now pumping all those “elect-Obama” stories were pumping “Pelosi will clean up the House” stories during the ’06 congressional campaign.

So how’s House Speaker Pelosi doing?

From JamieWearingFool using Pelosi’s "I See No Reason Why Mr. Rangel Should Step Down" for a post title and following with - - -

Proving she's as arrogant as she is clueless, Nancy Pelosi just giftwrapped a campaign issue for the GOP. They'd be wise to open the present and share it with the entire country.

Embattled US Rep. Charles Rangel will not give up his plum leadership position on one of the most powerful committees in Congress, his lawyer said yesterday.

Despite growing calls for him to step aside as chairman of the tax-law-writing Ways and Means Committee - because he failed to report rental income from his Dominican Republic hideaway on his own tax returns - Rangel will stay put as the House Ethics Committee investigates his personal finances.

"Mr. Rangel has not considered, nor has it ever been on the table, that he would step aside from his current position as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee," said the Harlem Democrat's lawyer, Lanny Davis.

Since Pelosi doesn't see any reasons, let's provide some for her.

* The congressman's Sunny Isles, Fla., condo was purchased in 2004 for $335,000 and listed as a rental, although he didn't report income on it. He then sold it in 2007 for a $60,000 profit, but didn't list the sale, as is required.

* He never disclosed, as mandated, the sale of his Washington, DC, home in 2000. Property records list the price as $500,000.

* He only sporadically listed rental income for a West 132nd Street home. Then, when he unloaded it in 2004, he didn't report the sale. The home's value was listed as less than $100,000 in 2002; in 2004, Rangel said it was worth $250,000 to $500,000.

* The value of his personal portfolio fluctuated wildly without explanation. The investments he reported grew from $50,001 in 2000 to somewhere between $177,000 and $530,000 in 2001. In 2002, he reported new holdings worth $115,000 to $315,000.

Normal people would be facing jail time for such shenanigans.

Be sure to visit JamieWearingFool here.

And don’t forget Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel BOTH want you to vote for Sen. Obama for President.