Raleigh N&O gives Joe “the lax treatment”

The McClatchy Company’s Raleigh News & Observer launched the public part of the Duke hoax and led the media pack which did so much to enable the frame-up attempt.

The N&O did so with a series of error-filled, biased and racially inflammatory stories, columns and editorials portraying the black false accuser Crystal Mangum as “the victim” of a group of racist, law-breaking white Duke lacrosse players who included three men who’d brutally gang-raped, strangled, beat and robbed Mangum after which their teammates covered-up for them by refusing to cooperate with the DA and Durham Police.

There was no slime or falsehood the N&O wouldn’t fire at the Duke laxers as it shamelessly pitched its coverage to race, class and gender prejudices.

Now the N&O is giving Joe the plumber “the lax treatment” after he made remarks critical of tax increases proposed by Sen. Obama whom the N&O’s working hard to elect president.

We’ve never seen in the N&O a story examining, for example, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s repeated claim the American government deliberately spread the AIDs virus as a means of killing blacks in order to hold down the number of blacks in America.

For Wright, the N&O has little or no interest in reporting his virulent racism, misogyny and anti-Americanism or determining why Obama formed a close friendship with such a man, supported him with generous personal financial contributions and used his influence to send public money Wright's way as well.

But Joe the plumber? He's different. White like the lacrosse players, "in the headlines" like the laxers and no fan of Obama.

If you know that and know the N&O you also know the N&O's going to give him "the lax treatment."

So on Oct. 17 we find on the N&O’s front page a lede “Joe The Plumber’s Fame Bites Back” which directs readers to pg. 3A where we find a large photo and these headlines spread across five columns:

America gets to know Joe

(Unlicensed) plumber of presidential debate fame already owes back taxes<

The N&O's story's here.

Full disclosure: The Raleigh N&O describes itself as a paper that reports the news fairly and accurately.

It’s editors object very strongly when readers suggest the paper’s news columns make clear its liberal/leftist bias. They say its presidential election coverage has been fair. Editors continue to say they're proud of the N&O’s Duke lacrosse coverage.

Responding to "Obama mocks McCain and a Joe the plumber"

Here, in italics, are part or all of comments on the thread of Obama mocks McCain and a Joe the plumber with my responses in plain.

From Archer 05 - - -

The [liberal media] are vetting Joe the plumber more than they did Obama. The fact that the sludge brigade are sifting through a man’s life because he asked a simple question is beyond belief. Where does this all end? Hopefully regular people see through the information suppression and outright thuggery that is in play for this election.

I’m struck by how many people don’t or refuse to see what’s happening. Thuggery is not too strong a word for what so much of MSM is now doing to Joe the plumber.

My “anything for Obama” Raleigh N & O reported yesterday in a five-column spread Joe “owed” back taxes for a quarter. They gave that story more attention then they gave Democrat Representative Charlie Rangel’s tax delinquencies over many year that included failure to report certain income he owed the government.

From Tarheel Hawkeye - - -

Don't forget, these are the very same MSM sleuths who can't be bothered to make inquiries into the background of a man who may very well become the next president. They now know much more about Joe The Plumber than they do about Barack Hussein Obama.

As you know, TH, with your background in law enforcement and criminal investigation there is in law something called "willful blindness." It means, if I've got it right, people with a duty to look at something don't because they pretty much know what they're going to find, and want to be in a position to later say, "I never knew."

The refusal of all but a handful of journalists and news orgs to look at Sen. Obama’s background in anything but a cursory way that allows for “nothing to see here, folks” reporting is, IMO, “willful blindness.”

MSM has a very good idea of what it’s not looking at and reporting.

They also know if it did, Obama wouldn’t be elected.

Anon @ 9:36 - - -

Let's be honest about the media. It's not like they don't know the background on Obama, they are just okay with. He represents their thoughts and interests better than any candidate in recent times. That's why they are in the tank for him. To anyone who subscribes to the liberal fascist ideology Joe the plumber is as bad as a black conservative. He's a traitor to his "class" and must be destroyed.

Well said, Anon @ 9:36

And thanks to each of you for commenting.

The Churchill Series – Oct. 17, 2008

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

You may know of John “Jock” Colville. He was one of Churchill’s Private Secretaries during WW II, except for a time when he served with distinction as an RAF pilot. Colville again served as Private Secretary during Churchill’s second premiership. He remained a close friend and advisor to both Winston and Clementine for the rest to their lives.

In the course of his service Colville had a chance to learn not only about Churchill "close up" but also President Roosevelt. In FDR's case, the learning didn't have much to do with face-to-face contact, but with Colvilles work studying the communications between Churchill and Roosevelt, and often preparing and discussing draft responses on Churchill's behalf to Roosevelt.

In Winston Churchill and His Inner Circle Colville uses a philosophical metaphor to tell us something of assessment of the two men:

In nature most of the impurities cleave to the lower ground. The hilltops are bare of undergrowth; the tall trees stretch above the creepers.

Human beings obey another law. The higher they climb, the grosser the temptations they meet. Few who reach the summit can be acquitted of vanity or conceit, whatever other vices they are strong enough to resist.

I make a distinction between the two. Vanity is an infection suffered by those who care too much what others think of them. Conceit is self-satisfaction, the mark of people sufficiently sure of themselves to hold the opinion of others as of little account except insofar as it favors or impedes their progress.

Both vanity and conceit are defects, but neither need be destructive of personal charm or of zeal to serve the community. They are seldom fatal infections and they do not necessarily strangle virtues. They are more exasperating in some than in others.

Roosevelt was vain; Churchill was conceited. (pgs. 132-133)

I hope you all have a nice weekend and are back for Monday’s post.

Two “kill him” reports: one misreported; the other unfounded

Tracking the truth regarding those “kill him” claims we’re heard so much about this week reveals how much bungling, lazy and biased MSM “reporting” there is out there, along with some careful, truth-seeking, fact-based journalism.

Via AMac I learned of Patterico’s post: Nobody Yelled “Kill Him” About Obama at a McCain or Palin Rally

Here’s part of what he posted Tuesday, Oct. 14 - - -

Everyone in the country seems to think someone yelled “Kill him!” at a McCain/Palin rally, about Barack Obama. It’s just not true.

The “Kill him!” phrase was originally reported by the Washingon Post — and it was clearly yelled about William Ayers and not Barack Obama.

I quoted the relevant language in this post:

“And, according to the New York Times, he [referring to Ayers -- P] was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’” [Palin] continued.

“Boooo!” the crowd repeated.

“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.

That is unambiguously a call to kill Ayers, not Obama. As TNR writer Michael Crowley said in a comment to this post of his (h/t L.N. Smithee):

I took “kill him” to mean Ayers–not Obama. It’s just a far, far likelier explanation given the context. That’s still an ugly thing to shout–but on the other hand Ayers probably would have gotten the death penalty had his bombs actually taken a life. If I thought people were actually yelling that about Obama I would feel very differently.

Indeed. [UPDATE: Dana Milbank, who originally reported this, agreed. According to a Politico blog entry: "Milbank said that his impression was that the man meant Ayers, not Obama." Thanks to "no one you know."]

And yet outlets across the country are reporting that the man yelled “Kill him!” about Obama. For example, the New York Times reported:

Crowds in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have repeatedly booed Mr. Obama and yelled “off with his head,” and at a rally in Florida where Ms. Palin appeared without Mr. McCain, The Washington Post reported that a man yelled out “kill him. …

The rest of Patterico’s posts here.

Folks, I checked Patterico’s links including Millbank’s WaPo report. It reads exactly as Patterico reported it. So do his other links.

So much for the Florida misreported “kill him” claim.

Now to Scranton, Pennsylvania where on Oct. 14 a “kill him” claim the Secret Service says is unfounded surfaced at The Scranton Times-Tribune.

According to Times-Tribune reporter David Singleton:

There were no incendiary outbursts from the crowd about Mr. Obama during Mrs. Palin's speech, as there have been during other recent McCain-Palin rallies.

However, someone did shout out, "Kill him!" during Republican congressional candidate Chris Hackett's remarks before Mrs. Palin took the stage.

Although none of the Secret Service agents at the rally, many public safety officers or anyone in the crowd heard the remark, reporter Singleton and the Scranton Times are standing by the story.

The Wilkes- Barre Times Leader did some follow-up reporting. Yesterday, Oct. 16, in a story headlined - Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded –the paper reported (all emphases added):

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him." …

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”

“We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.”

Hackett said he did not hear the remark.

Slavoski said Singleton was interviewed Wednesday and stood by his story but couldn’t give a description of the man because he didn’t see him he only heard him.

When contacted Wednesday afternoon, Singleton referred questions to Times-Tribune Metro Editor Jeff Sonderman. Sonderman said, “We stand by the story. The facts reported are true and that’s really all there is.” …
___________________________________

The Wilkes-Barre Times Leader story included this - - -

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Folks, if you’ve seen any of those news orgs issue prominent corrections/clarifications concerning the Scranton Times-Leader’s unfounded story or even tiny ones they favor on those all too rare times they’re willing to admit errors, please let me know.

In the meantime, hats off to Times Leader for careful, truth-seeking, fact-based journalism.

I’ll post again tomorrow on this story.

The Scranton Times' story's here; the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader's story's here.

Krauthammer and Wright refute Obama’s “post racial" claim

Excerpts from Charles Krauthammer's column today followed by my comments below the star line.

From Krauthammer - - -

… The reason Bill Clinton is sulking in his tent is because he feels that Obama surrogates succeeded in painting him as a racist. Clinton has many sins, but from his student days to his post-presidency, his commitment and sincerity in advancing the cause of African-Americans have been undeniable. If the man Toni Morrison called the first black president can be turned into a closet racist, then anyone can.

And Obama has shown no hesitation in doing so to McCain. Just weeks ago, in Springfield, Mo., and elsewhere, he warned darkly that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten you by saying that, among other scary things, Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

McCain has never said that, nor anything like that. When asked at the time to produce one instance of McCain deploying race, the Obama campaign could not.

Yet here was Obama firing a pre-emptive charge of racism against a man who had not indulged in it. An extraordinary rhetorical feat, and a dishonorable one.

What makes this all the more dismaying is that it comes from Barack Obama, who has consistently presented himself as a healer, a man of a new generation above and beyond race, the man who would turn the page on the guilt-tripping grievance politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I once believed him.

Krauthammer’s entire column’s here.

Comments:

I took a “wait and see with finger’s crossed” position in early 2007 when I first heard Obama saying he wanted to be the “post racial” candidate all about “healing.”

But then I started learning about his relationship with the racist Rev. Wright whom he admired and supported financially.

Racial healing? Supporting Wright all those years was like giving matches and gasoline to an arsonist and then asking people to endorse you for Fire Commissioner.

No thanks.

Any sensible person should have realized by March 18, 2008 that Obama is not really seeking a “post racial” society.

That was the day Obama said in his Philadelphia speech the so excited his MSM Tank Corps that he couldn’t disown Wright.

Well, if you can’t disown a guy who’s been preaching the worse kind of racial calumnies including accusing the American government of deliberately spreading the AIDS virus among blacks to hold down the black population, you’re not serious about being a “port racial” healer even if the NY Times and NPR tell people you are.

Yes, Obama some weeks later did disown Wright.

But that only happened after Wright said publicly at the Washington Press Club Obama's “just a typical politician” who doesn’t believe a lot of what he says.

THEN Obama loudly and angrily disowned his mentor, close friend and pastor of nearly 20 years.

Obama at Al Smith Dinner - funny, funny and a grace note

Here are the videos of Sen. Obama's very humorous remarks and a graceful salute to Sen. McCain's military service last night at the Al Smith Dinner.

Like McCain's remarks, Obama's last about 15 minutes and will leave most of you ROFLOL.

Hat tips: Archer 05 and Drudge

McCain at Al Smith Dinner - funny, funny, and a grace note

You'll be ROFLOL. Also, I think most of you will be touched to by a graceful note Sen. McCain includes regarding Sen. Obama and what he's accomplished.

Together the two Mc Cain videos last about 16 minutes.

I'll have the Obama video up in a short while.

Hat tips: Archer 05 and Drudge.

Michelle Malkin "spirit-lifter." Palin as her haters don't want you to see her

This is outstanding and revealing.


Hat tip: Old friend

Obama mocks McCain and a Joe the plumber

Senator Obama mocks Senator McCain and Joe the plumber at a campaign rally as the crowd laughs.

"A plumber who's he's fighting for."

Too bad Obama won't give plumbers the kind of respect he gives trial lawyers, ACORN, Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers.

The Churchill Series – Oct. 16, 2008

So much is happening, I'm just racing around today.

So here's a rerun of an "oldie."

John
_____________________________________________________

Most people know horses were an important part of Churchill's life. He rode ponies as a child; trained in horsemanship at Sandhurst; was commissioned as a cavalry officer; rode as a lancer in the famous charge at Omdurman; played polo into his fifties; and kept and bred horses at Chartwell and other properties.

But most people don't know that for many years Churchill owned a racing stable. And he wasn't one of those celebrity owners who preen and eye the cameras while putting their feet in - oops - the wrong places. As with everything else he cared about, Churchill the race horse owner was informed and "hands on."

Churchill's most successful horse was a grey, Colonist II. He bought him against the advice of many racing experts. Churchill thought he saw something - a special determination - in Colonist that would make the horse "a winner."

Colonist proved Churchill right. "This tough and indomitable grey horse has performed miracles," said one racing writer in 1950. "No horse in living memory has put up such a sequence of wins in good-class races in one season." Among the prestigious races Colonist won were The Winston Churchill Stakes and The Jockey Club Stakes.

As Colonist's racing days came to a close, his trainer reminded Churchill that Colonist would be very valuable as a stud horse. The trainer offered to arrange matters.

Churchill pondered a moment, then laughed and replied,

"To stud? And have it said that the Prime Minister of Great Britain is living on the immoral earnings of a horse?"

Churchill's official biographer, Martin Gilbert, does not say what ultimately happened to Colonist. We can wish the horse had a green old age.

I wasn't able to learn what Churchill’s racing colors were. Can anyone help with that?

[Update 12-26-06: Churchill's father had owned race horses. Lord Randolph's colors were pink and chocolate and pink; and Churchill selected those as his own.]
____________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Never Despair. (pgs. 488, 522, 524, 528, 563)

A little Joe the plumber satire at Obama & Rangel's expense

a comment on althouse, regarding a tax lien on JTP for missing a quarterly tax payment:

I notice that JtP owes less in back taxes than Charlie Rangel.

Wait, Rangel's black, a congressman, and a friend of Obama's.

Sorry, I apologize for the racism.

By the way, how much more in back taxes would Rangel owe under Obama's tax plan?

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

Caution to AC and the althouse commenter - -

Your question about back taxes may also be racist.

Why don't you check with Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Frank Rich, Kwame Kilpatrick, Al Franken and of course The One.

Even if they all give you a race pass, check with Michelle Obama just to be sure your question isn't "downright mean spirited."

Understanding The One

When Sen. Obama clinched his party’s presidential nomination he said it was at that “moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”

Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

And in a comment here, Tarheel Hawkeye, who’s lived in Obama’s home city of Chicago tells us its quite common on Election Day for the dead to come back to life and vote.

Well, now we can all understand why The One has – you know - a Messiah complex.

I'm so-so on this McCain ad

I've never been a fan of those "whisper" attack ads, but a number of friends think this ad is very effective not least because it includes President Clinton acknowledging the Dems should have done more to prevent Fannie/Freddie.

So here it is.

Murtha now slimes Pa. voters

You may recall Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Jack Murtha’s reckless and false charge that U. S. Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” at Haditha.

The killing charge by Murtha and anti-American elements at home and in the Middle East has been thoroughly disproved. But Murtha has refused to apologize for his calumny which inflamed sentiment against Marines serving in Iraq, thereby making their already very dangerous service even more dangerous.

Yet he remains a good friend and ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who’s never criticized Murtha or asked him to apologize for his false accusations against the Marines who fought and risked their lives at Haditha.

Yesterday we read this via the AP:

U.S. Rep. John Murtha says his home base of western Pennsylvania is racist and that could reduce Barack Obama's victory margin in the state by 4 percentage points.

The 17-term Democratic congressman tells the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in a story posted Wednesday on its Web site that, as he put it: "There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area."

He says it's taken time for many Pennsylvania voters to come around to liking Obama, but he should still win the state, though not in a runaway.

In a separate interview posted Wednesday on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's Web site, Murtha says Obama has a problem with the race issue in western Pennsylvania that could shave 4 points off his lead in the state.

Today via CNN we read:

Rep. John Murtha, a supported (sic) of Barack Obama’s presidential bid, apologized Thursday for calling western Pennsylvania “a racist area.”

The entire AP story’s here; CNN’s is here.

Comments:

Murtha plays a race card and then “apologizes” for it. Who's fooled?

He knew what he was doing in the first place: Trying to guilt people into voting for Obama while sliming those who won’t as racists.

Then, one news cycle later, Murtha distances himself from what he did with a self-serving “apology.”

It’s an old political slime game he’s playing. It goes like this:

Yesterday – “I was glad to have a serious, sober debate last night with my opponent.”

Today – “Gee, if anyone thought I was pushing those rumors my opponent has a drinking problem, I apologize."

John Murtha is one of the most shameless, self-serving members of Congress; and that's saying a lot when you consider the competition.

Hat tip: BN

Commenters/"editors" come through on the Greeley post

I've just posted the following at the head of Our public leaders safety:questions for Andrew Greeley.

(Readers alert)

Commenters have noted there was no Secret Service confirmation of a shout of “Kill him” referring to Sen. Obama at the time Andrew Greeley’s op-ed was published yesterday. I should have noted that in my email to him.

I thank the commenters for “getting the story right.”

Other than treating Greeley’s “Kill him” charge as unconfirmed, I wouldn’t change anything else in my email.

I’ll be posting later today on claims “Kill him” was shouted at McCain-Palin rallies in Pennsylvania and Florida. The Secret Service has said the Pennsylvania claim, which came from a single reporter, is unfounded.

The Florida claim came from WaPo Obama reporter-supporter Dana Millbank who says the shout was not directed at Obama, but at Will Ayers.

Look for more later today in a post titled:“Two “kill him” reports: one's unfounded; the other's misreported.

John
__________________________________________________

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: JinC, for all its shortcomings, has some of the best "editors" in the blogoshpere.

Their smarts and care led to the alert above and the post this afternoon reporting more of the story about shouts at McCain-Palin rallies.

Joe the plumber says "McCain did better" - video

Joe Wurzelbacher a/k/a Joe the plumber is interviewed after the debate and has plenty to say.

If you think people should be responsible for their actions, families should help their members and you're concerned about the growing sense of entitlement in this country, you'll agree with what Joe says.

Hat tip: AC

The Churchill Series - Oct. 15, 2008

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

The following passage is found in the section headed "Political career before 1939" near the beginning of the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online’s Churchill biographical entry:

A self-assurance redeemed from arrogance only by a kind of boyish charm made Churchill from the first a notable House of Commons figure, but a speech defect, which he never wholly lost, combined with a certain psychological inhibition to prevent him from immediately becoming a master of debate. He excelled in the set speech, on which he always spent enormous pains, rather than in the impromptu; Lord Balfour, the Conservative leader, said of him that he carried “heavy but not very mobile guns.”

Balfour’s metaphor is wonderful, isn’t it?

The entire Britannica Online entry's here. The Web page hosts, besides a fine text summary of Churchill's career, photos and audios. I think you'd all enjoy a look around, if you haven't been there already.

The final debate: first thoughts

Neither candidate made a “major gaffe.”

That said, fact-checkers on both sides will no doubt find “errors” concerning legislative votes, etc. by the other side’s candidates.

My sense is Sen. Obama made more of those errors.

We’ll see when the “final counts” are in.

But for sure neither candidate made a game-changer factual error.

After the first debate, I mentioned Sen. McCain’s failure to look at Obama; and said it was an unforced error.

McCain did some looking at the camera tonight, but not as much as Obama.

Points for Obama on that.

Joe the plumber was big tonight.

You would have thought McCain was his oldest and best friend.

I thought McCain was clinging desperately to Joe as his “campaign-saver.”

Obama demonstrated a reasonable degree of care for Joe at the same time he put across some of his economic plans.

I give lots of points to Obama for the way he deflected McCain’s response to the Ayers question moderator Bob Schieffer laid in McCain’s lap.

McCain bungled the question.

He offered nothing that would IMO persuade an undecided voter the Obama-Ayers relationship was important and should trouble us.

If anything, McCain seemed apologetic for even having to discuss Ayers.

Obama responded to McCain’s inept thrusts with seeming effortlessness that must have left many viewers wondering what all the Obama-Ayers fuss has been about.

Wright, of course, was never mentioned.

“I’m John McCain and I approve never mentioning Rev. Wright.”

Do any of you need a snap poll to tell you this was a very good night for Obama?

Mind you, I’m not in Obama’s camp; just sharing with you my first thoughts.

I’ll say more tomorrow.

What did you think?

If Obama’s President, ACORN will “shop”

Dick Morris says the corrupt, vote fraud hustling ACORN is an election liability for Sen. Obama.

I’m not sure about that.

ACORN may provide Obama with many more “votes” then he loses because at least some of the public’s caught on his many important “connections” to it, including shoveling lots of public money and campaign money ACORN’s way.

Here’s some of what Morris said today in The Hill followed by my comments - - -

… ACORN, the radical community group, is becoming an embarrassment for Obama. It is not as if its shenanigans are likely to tip the result, with the Democrats so far ahead, but as they are raided by the FBI in state after state (11 so far) they are becoming identified as the electoral equivalent of Greenpeace -- extremists who will stop at nothing to get their way.

What makes ACORN particularly embarrassing for Obama is that he used to be one of them.

He served as general counsel for ACORN in Illinois, channeled millions to the organization from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (whose funds he distributed), and has lately spent $800,000 of his campaign money to subsidize the group's activities.

For this emolument, ACORN has registered voters 15 times over, canvassed the graveyards for votes and prepared to commit electoral fraud on a massive scale.

With friends like this, Obama doesn't need enemies. As their radical activities make headlines every day, Obama's intimate involvement with these radicals becomes more and more of a political liability. …

Morris’ entire column’s here.

Comments:

As I said, I’m not sure ACORN will hurt Obama as far as vote counting is concerned.

Let’s hope justice prevails on elections day and vote fraud doesn’t decide the election, despite all the efforts of ACORN and other Chicago-style political orgs. to steal it.

In any case if Sen. Obama wins The White House, will ACORN be seen as a political liability for President Obama?

The same MSM flacks who've covered up for Obama on Wright et all will surely be covering up or mellowing for ACORN.

So ACORN will be able to say to Obama: “Here’s our latest "shopping list." Reid and Pelosi will sign off on it; and we’ll do even more for you in the 2010 congressionals than in the presidential election.”

That thought should trouble every American concerned for this country’s future.

Rasmussen on “the persuadables”

Scott Rasmussen today - - -

As the candidates prepare for their final debate, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday once again shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 45%. That’s the fourth straight day with identical numbers and the twentieth straight day that Obama’s support has stayed in the narrow range from 50% to 52% while McCain has been at 44% of 45% (see trends).

Two percent (2%) of voters say they will vote for “some other candidate” and 3% remain undecided.

Tracking Poll results are released every day at 9:30 a.m. Eastern and a FREE daily e-mail update is available.

While the surface numbers have remained the same, there are details beneath the surface that could offer encouragement for both campaigns.

For Obama, 53% of voters now reject the notion that he’s too inexperienced to be President. That’s up five percentage points over the past two weeks and matches the response immediately following the Democratic National Convention.

For McCain, the encouraging news comes from core supporters—those who are certain how they will vote and that they will not change their mind. Just 42% are certain they will vote for Obama while 40% say the same about McCain. That two-point gap is much closer than the overall numbers. It’s also much closer than the 45% to 38% advantage among core supporters enjoyed by Obama heading into the second Presidential Debate last week.

Overall, 12% of voters remain persuadables who favor one candidate or the other but could change their mind. Those, plus the 3% who remain undecided, are the target audience for both candidates in tonight’s debate.

Fifty percent (50%) of these target voters say the economy is the top issue of Election 2008. That is similar to the overall perceptions of voters. However, while national security matters are second on the list for all voters, the persuadables have less interest in that topic--13% say that cultural issues are their highest priority, 13% name fiscal issues as number one and 11% see national security as most important. Only 5% of persuadables are most interested in domestic issues such as health care and social security. ...

Rasmussen's full report's here.

Comments:

Those "persuadables" sound like they're just the sort of voters McCain can appeal to.

Note especailly the 13% citing "cultural issues" as their highest priority.

I think they may be those "bitter people who cling to guns and religion."

They're more likely to break for McCain IMO.