MacPac '08

Old Glory, The DNC, And What Constitutes Refuse

2008-09-06T22:12:00.014-04:00

It appears that the Demo cratic National Convention had a little problem figuring out what to do with about 12,000 extra hand flags from their extravaganza at Invesco Field, so they decided to throw them away, instead of recycling or reusing them as they had promised in the well-advertised spirit of their convention. Fortunately those flags were saved from being sent to the landfill by a vendor.

Today, at a McCain rally in Colorado Springs, those very same flags were used by an estimated 11,000 enthusiastic McCain supporters, myself included, at the JetCenter at the Colorado Springs airport. I'm not going to go into the issue of how the Democrats were going to discard those flags; you can decide for yourself if the story has been exaggerated, or manufactured. Today I just want to share my thoughts from the rally, and in particular that moment.

The M.C. at the rally told us all about the 12,000 flags that were going to end up in a landfill, and how they had been rescued and were being distributed through the crowd. We were asked that if we had a place for a flag at home, we should take one; if not, pass the flags along to the next person in the crowd. I don't recall anyone NOT taking a flag as they passed by.

As they were passed from the front of the crowd to the back, what I saw was a wave of United States flags, moving toward me, as people took one, passed along a few more, then held theirs high. As I grabbed a bundle, it was all I could do to make sure I got one, because every one was grasping to get one for themselves. But inside of 15 minutes, everyone in that crowd was equipped with their own personal flag, waving them for a genuine American hero, and proud to be there at that moment, in a sea of Old Glory.

Shortly thereafter, we stood there, and cheered for Senator McCain and Governor Palin, and heard their stump speeches, and left more enthused than ever about our next President and Vice President of the United States. But what I'll always remember is standing there with 11,000 of my fellow Americans, waving my rescued flag, celebrating the American spirit there under a spectacular blue Colorado sky, glad to live in the land I love.

My Take on McCain's Speech

2008-09-06T21:01:00.007-04:00

I enjoyed Senator McCain's acceptance speech very much. It wasn't stylishly delivered as Obama's or Palin's speech, but it was delivered in a serious and sincere tone. It fits his straight-talk style very much and it sounds presidential. It may be the best speech from the two conventions. Yes, I like it even better than Palin's speech. :) After listen to Palin's speech, I smile and even laughed abit, but after listening to McCain's speech, I have a very humble and sobering experience. McCain's speech is nicely layout. Jay Cost wrote an article Friday. It states:

"Last night - McCain did three things: (a) Reminded us that he's a maverick; (b) Told us what the maverick would do if we elect him; (c) Told us why he's a maverick. [So, contrary to some pundits, it was actually a very well-organized speech.] The confession at the end was the "why." He fights for the country, not for a party, because it was in Hanoi that his country saved him. Country first, party second."

The speech successfully reintroduced McCain: his life, his experience and his character. It also reassured voters about his knowledge in military and national security. He shows that he understand some Americans are experiencing economic hardship and he offered solutions, such as job training. Personally, I think McCain can spend more time on the economy. Yes, he said he will keep the tax low and Obama will raise the tax, but these messages are too general and most independent voters will probably not be persuaded. They will ask how McCain's economic plan different from President Bush's. Americans, on average, are not worry about inflation or wages. They are most concern of job security/job opportunity. Instead of attacking Obama on tax increase in general, McCain needs to specially attack Obama for wanting to raise corporate tax, and wanting to increase minimum wage which actually makes low-wage jobs more vulnerable. When you put a higher tax on companies and make their labor more expensive, then you are actually encouraging companies to move out of the county: resulting more job outsourcing. To be fair, Obama states that he will keep corporate tax low for companies that create high tech and innovative jobs, but he is going to raise corporate tax on average. Therefore, on average, corporations will be forced to move oversea. McCain team need to explain their economic plan beyond "lower tax". They need to demonstrate that 1) McCain has a good economy plan and 2) he understands the economy. Overall, I am very fond of the speech. Of course, the speech was watched by many which must have been a great news for the McCain team – it received a slightly higher rating than Obama's speech.

Today, both Gallup and Rasmussen polls have shown McCain and Obama are essentially tied. Make no mistake, this is still a Democratic year.

Guess which card Obama pulled out of the deck today?

2008-09-06T02:19:00.002-04:00

Hot Air has an interesting blog written where, on how desperate has Obama gotten? Looks like he’s playing the race card once again:

“I know that I’m not your typical presidential candidate,” Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told executives and employees of the Schott glass company Friday afternoon, “and I just want to be honest with you. I know that.”

“And I know that the temptation is to say, ‘You know what? …The guy hasn’t been there that long in Washington.,’ You know, ‘he’s got funny name,’ You know, ‘we’re not sure about him,’” Obama continued. “And that’s what the Republicans, when they say, ‘This isn’t about issues, it’s about personalities,’ what they’re really saying is, ‘We’re going to try to scare people about Barack. So we’re going to say that you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections or we’re going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he’s not patriotic.’

Once again, Obama has resorted to a smear campaign against the McCain campaign. They have never –never — even hinted that Obama has “Muslim connections”. They have never made even a slight attempt to make his race an issue, despite this fourth repeat of this particular smear. Neither has the RNC nor any mainstream Republicans.

If Obama wants to argue that some misdirected bloggers have made these kind of attacks, he might have a point. But by that standard, the Democrats have attacked Bristol Palin, smeared Sarah Palin about the maternity of her youngest child, and questioned the mental capacity of John McCain. If Obama wants to start making these kinds of accusations, then maybe he ought to get his own house in order first.

Actually I am tired of all the race baiting card that Obama laid out. This election is about economy, oil drilling,climate and issues that facing Americans. Its doesn't matter what color you are but it is absolutely astonishing for a Presidential Nominee to keep playing a race card. For someone who preach solidarity and peace, race baiting shouldn't be one of them. Is Obama trying to divide this country? There is a saying that I used to hear when I'm growing up;

'Those who cause divisions, in order to injure other people, are in fact preparing pitfalls for their own ruin'.

Maybe Obama should take a deep breath and think before he starts using another race card. It doesn't do any good for him, supporters, especially those from liberal bloggers and this country.

Newest Palin Smear: She Cut Special Needs Budget

2008-09-05T13:28:00.006-04:00

The Weekly Standard has written a blog by Brian Faughnan where CNN's Soledad O'Brien sandbag former White House Communications Director Nicole Wallace by asking her how Sarah Palin can claim to be a defender of special needs children when she cut the budget for that Alaska office by 62 percent. Wallace wasn't familiar with the charge -- which isn't surprising, since it's only being made on DailyKos and another liberal site.

This charge is based on looking at the budget for Alaska's Special Education Service Agency for 2007-2009. In fact, the December 2006 budget document that they cite would have been prepared by the outgoing administration -- that of Republican Frank Murkowski, whom Palin defeated. What's gone unmentioned is that the Palin signed into law a dramatic reform of the state's education financing system that equalizes aid to rural and urban districts, while significantly increasing funding for special needs students.

According to the publication Education Week;

Gov. Sarah Palin and state lawmakers have gone ahead with an overhaul of Alaska’s school funding system that supporters predict will provide much-needed financial help to rural schools and those serving students with disabilities.

The plan, enacted in the recently concluded session of the legislature, is based on recommendations issued by a legislative task force last year. It will phase in a greater flow of money to districts outside of Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, over the next five years.

Advocates for rural and remote schools have lobbied for years for more funding, in particular noting the higher fuel, transportation, and other costs associated with providing education in communities scattered across the vast state.

A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.

So the Netroots and CNN allege that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent, by crediting her with the budget proposed by a political opponent. And the truth is that rather than a 62 percent cut, she's actually increasing special needs funding by 175 percent.

It's no wonder a majority of Americans think the media is trying to hurt Palin. Advice for MS O'Brien, DailyKos is not a reliable news site. They are made up of common liberal bloggers who spew hate,Race baiting,sexism,sneaky,lies,demeaning,belittle anyone, any supporters, candidates, voters who don't see eye to eye with them nor for those who doesn't support The ONE'.

Ms. O'Brien ,George Bernard Shaw use to say;

"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."

Kristol's and Sanchez's take on Sarah Palin

2008-09-04T10:11:00.008-04:00

Last night Governor Sarah Palin delivered a surprising and wonderful speech. As many would have guessed, I wasn't completely sold on the Palin candidancy in the beginning. I didn't know her very well. Yet, I have to admit that she did wonderfully and I have no doubt that she gave the best speech in this convention. Frankly, I am worry for Senator McCain for following such a strong act. Overall, we have three great speeches yestersday from Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, and I would rank them in that order.

Bill Kristol has written a wonderful and very short column on Palin's speech. In it, he pointed out that Palin's critics claim that she didn't write her speech and any other person can give the same speech and have the same effect. That is unfairly nonsense. No candidate write their own speeches. Obama doesn't write his own speech, Biden doesn't write his own speech, and frankly McCain doesn't write his own speech. They all have speechwriters to help them. So why should we single out Palin for not writing her own speech? In addition, no other candidate could have given the same performance as Palin. What made Palin's speech so interesting is that she had received more unfair treatments than anyone in this campaign. For example, Ed Schultz actually said Palin is a bad mother because her child got pregnant on CNN Larry King. I didn't read about it. I heard it with my own ears. Here is the short transcript:

SCHULTZ: I don't think Governor Palin could get 40 million viewers on TV. So -
she's got to raise the bar when it comes to interest. Half the country doesn't
even know who she is.

And, Larry, I want to announce tonight that most
liberals think that we have absolutely the best vice-presidential pick in Joe
Biden. Experience does count. And the fact is, look, it's unfortunate that there is maybe an unwanted pregnancy of a teenager.

That's not the issue. The issue is the Republicans have made themselves
out to be the party of values and have talked down to Democrats saying that
we're Godless, that we have no values.

They put both value signs up in
yards in South Dakota to defeat Tom Daschle. This is their signature issue. And
now, when this comes along and it doesn't really fit too well, oh we can't talk
about it anymore. Come on.

SANCHEZ: That's not...

SCHULTZ: The facts are this. What kind of mother is she? Is she prepared
to be the vice president? Is she going to be totally focused on the issues.

MOLINARI: Wow. You got to be...

SANCHEZ: Whoa, whoa, whoa.

SCHULTZ: There are questions.

MOLINARI: I bet you don't have a
lot of women listeners there, do you? If you do, you're not going to have them
tomorrow after...

SCHULTZ: Actually, today on my show, I took only phone
calls... MOLINARI: Oh my gosh.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

SCHULTZ: from women
and they are not happy with them.

MOLINARI: So every -- so every person
out there who has an unwanted pregnancy in their family is a result of bad
mothering? Wow. That's really bold to say that.

SCHULTZ: Don't
tell me she's a role model.

MOLINARI: Come on...

SCHULTZ: You know, most professional gardeners have a really
nice yard, you know what I mean?

SANCHEZ: You know what,
she's...

SCHULTZ: Most professional gardeners cut their own lawn.

SANCHEZ: No, I'm thinking in all of our families...

SCHULTZ: It seems to me they have trouble in their backyard.

Instead of getting beaten down by idiots like Schultz, Palin stood up and deliver an outstanding and historical speech. This is what we look for in a leader: can he or she weather the storm? Sarach Palin can and she did it with a smile.

Before I finish, let me say what a moron Ed Schultz is, and I am being polite here. How can you possibly call anyone a bad mother because her child got pregnant as a teenager. Does it also mean Obama's grandmother is a bad mother? Teenage pregnancy occurs in alarming numbers in the black community. Do Ed Schulz thinks blacks are bad parents?

Reagan Speaks on Behalf of McCain

2008-09-02T16:54:00.003-04:00

If our beloved Pres. Ronald Reagan were here today to speak on behalf of Sen. John McCain at the Republican National Convention, what might his speech sound like. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to think it may go a lot like this:

Ronald Reagan Speech - 1964 Republican National Convention

This video is lengthy, but very worth watching.

What makes McCain's heart beats?

2008-09-01T23:15:00.014-04:00

The selection of Governor Sarah Palin has generated much excitement. In this election, McCain's victory can only be achieved by winning over the independent voters because the republican base is smaller than that of the democrats. Nominating Lieberman or Ridge as the vice presidential candidate can generate excitement for independents, but this may demoralize the Republican base. Selecting Romney or Pawlenty can reassure the base, but will generate little excitement for the independents. This is why Palin is so unique: she can do both (Jindal possibly may have similar effect) On the other hand, Palin does not have the national experience as the other candidates. She will need to continue to impress the nation. Bill Kristol has repeatedly pointed this out. Why do so many people trust Senator Obama to lead? Certainly, not because of his resume. It is due to his outstanding speeches and performance. Governor Palin will need to perform well in the next few weeks. She needs to prove herself to the nation. Her teenage daughter pregnancy story will be an nonissue. The only story which is of concern is the troopergate story. Hopefully, McCain team has fully investigated this allegation.

In all honesty, Palin does not have the same level of experience as of Biden, who is the Chairman on foreign relations and was the Chairman on the judiciary. Interestingly, Palin and Obama have approximately the same level of experience. The Democrats have started attacking Palin on her lack of experience, but this can clearly backfire on them. By attacking Palin's lack of experience, it casts doubts on Obama as well. This is why I think the attack goes much deeper. It is not an attack on Palin's experience, but on McCain's integrity/judgment. The attacks always include the followings: 1) McCain believes experience is important. 2) McCain picks someone with little experience. 3) Thus, McCain made a political choice. So far the attacks stop here, but naturally these attacks lead to: 4) McCain is not a principle guy. These lines of attacks are very damaging – if it sticks. Independent voters are willing to vote for a republican or a democrat, but never an un-principle person, which is also why the "flip-flopper" attack is so powerful.

In truth, Palin's nomination is much more than a campaign stunt. McCain picked Palin when his staffs prefer others. What did McCain see in her? We have been so blinded by all these campaign rhetorics that we kept referring McCain as the experience candidate and Obama as the change candidate. Sure, McCain has extensive experience, but this is not what wake him up in the morning and keep him up late at night. It is not what makes his heart beats. The answer lies in his original choice: Joe Lieberman (according to Bill Kristol and several other pundits). So what do Lieberman have in common with Palin? Not foreign relation experience, not social policies, not fiscal policies, not religions. They share little in common, except they both has a history of taking on their own respective parties. They both risked their political careers for what they believed to be right. Now, I happen to also know another maverick, and I think you do too. Palin nomination is not a stone-cold political calculation. It is a choice with deep convictions. McCain sees himself in Palin: a person who not only reflect much of his political stances, but also core values.

Let McCain be McCain. Let him be McCain the Maverick, McCain the Reformer, and McCain the Straight-Talker, but never McCain the Experience.

Experience: Who Has More - Obama or Palin

2008-09-01T08:38:00.003-04:00

Gereard Baker contributes an excellent side by side experience comparison of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin for Real Clear Politics that shows who has more leadership. Baker compares and contrasts the two on Political Experience, Biography, History as well as Appeal, Executive Experience, Religious Influence, Record of Bipartisan Achievement, and Human Life . It's very interesting to see the Democrats have anointed a candidate that essentially has less true leadership and reform experience to offer than John McCain's VP choice. Sarah Palin has a proven record of reform and will continue to work for a better, more efficient government. Take a moment to read Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama

McCain-Palin in Ohio

2008-08-30T08:36:00.002-04:00

For Those Of You That Missed It!

It's Sarah Palin for VP

2008-08-29T13:04:00.002-04:00

John McCain made history today by choosing Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate. On the anniversary of women winning the right to vote, Palin is a fitting pick. The Alaskan Governor brings many positives to the ticket and McCain made a wise choice. Sarah Palin is a socially conservative republican mother of five that also shares views on climate change, second amendment rights and pork spending with McCain. Change is coming to Washington!

Obama -- Out of Touch With Reality

2008-08-29T00:24:00.003-04:00

Tonight I was struck by one comment by Barack Obama during his clunker of an acceptance speech in Denver:

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.."

Um, John McCain has a record of 26 years in Congress, with an outstanding record of bipartisanship to get things done in Washington. What have you done lately, Mr. Obama, other than run for the next higher office?

Dear Gov. Schweiter,

2008-08-27T15:44:00.003-04:00

Dear Gov. Schweiter,

As much as I enjoyed having Montana represented at a National Convention with your speech at the DNC, I was seriously disappointed by some of your words. I know you are a Democrat & are voicing the positions of the Democratic party, but this is the exact opposite of what we need in this country. I supported you because you have what I perceived to be moderate views & the fact that you have a LT. Gov. who is a Republican.

The reason I supported you, is the reason I support Sen. John McCain. I felt he, like you, isn't interested in playing partisan politics, as you can see by his good friend Sen. Lieberman. You know, as well as I, that Barack Obama opposes coal; which is one of Montana's most abundant resources & refuses to include drilling, coal-to-liquid or oil shale production in a comprehensive energy solution. We can't take any options off the table as far as our energy future. I felt it was very disingenuous of you to say that Sen. McCain opposes wind, solar & etc., because that isn't true. Sen. McCain is for EVERY form of energy, but won't vote for something that is going to increase spending without other budget cuts that will allow us to balance our national budget; like we have been able to do here in MT with the cooperation of both Dems. & Reps.

I am not sure you will be able to count on my continued support, because I though you were above politics. The swipe at Sen. McCain on his number of houses, although cute & clever, was pandering to the crowd. When you were attacked over your houses & money, our support never faltered & we looked past the attacks to what was important to us as Montanans.

You are for gun rights; Obama is against.

You are for the further expansion, exploration & utilization of MT resources, such as coal; Obama opposes this.

Sen. McCain has worked across party line, like you, but Obama is the #1 most liberal Democrat.Sen. McCain is for opening up markets to MT grain & other MT exports with free trade agreements, like the ones that have opened up overseas markets to MT beef & grain. Obama opposes free trade.

Sen. McCain is for drilling, nuclear, coal, & his plan will include: wind, solar, tide, etc. & no options are off the table. Sen. Obama said, No! to drilling, No! to nuclear & No! to coal. I was one of the over 1.6 million people that signed the "Drill Here, Drill Now" petition & we were Dems, Reps, & Inds. that are concerned with our energy future. Sen. McCain listened to the voices of the people, but Sen. Obama thinks he can do alone.

My Montana values are more inline with Sen. McCain. I believe that Sen. McCain is the best thing for MT & our future. He balances conservation with reality, as I thought you have done. I never thought of you or Sen. McCain as being partisans, but now I need some of your reassurance.

So my question to you Gov. Schweiter is this; Is it Montana or Party?

Sincerely,
Travis (AKA Bodyman)

American Issues: Obama Trying to Censor Us

2008-08-27T01:33:00.002-04:00

Newsmax today reported that;

The Barack Obama campaign has resorted to a campaign of intimidation and legal threats to convince television stations and the federal government to force off the air an ad by the American Issues Project detailing the link between Sen. Obama and remorseless domestic terrorist William Ayers.

The Obama campaign has been contacting stations running American Issues Project's ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot. The Obama campaign also sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice asking the government to investigate American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors. With no success on either front, the campaign has begun running its own ad in response. Notably, this ad fails to dispute a single fact in the American Issues Project's initial ad.

American Issues Project sent a letter today to the Department of Justice responding to the Obama campaign's claims. Key points from the letter:

AIP is organized as a qualified nonprofit corporation as that term is defined in the regulations of the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") 11 C.F.R. A114.10. As such, AIP enjoys the protections of the provisions of the Supreme Court's decision more than twenty years ago in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 646 (D. Mass. 1984), aff'd, 769 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1985), aff'd, 479 U.S. 238 (1986)...

AIP complies with each and every one of the provisions outlined by the Supreme Court in the MCFL case, as well as the regulations of the FEC promulgated subsequently...

Counsel for the Obama Campaign is undoubtedly fully knowledgeable of the reporting and compliance responsibilities of qualified nonprofit corporations, such as NARAL-Pro Choice America ("NARAL"), an organization that, ironically, also claims protection as an entity described in Massachusetts Citizens for Life v. FEC...

Surely we have not come to a point where the government and its agencies are used to protect presidential candidates from citizens' speech, essentially destroying the very purpose, meaning and historical essence of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"The Obama campaign knows it can't argue the facts of the link between Obama and Ayers, so it is instead resorting to a desperate campaign of intimidation and legal threats," said Ed Martin, American Issues Project's president. "The scary question this raises is if Barack Obama demonstrates this little regard for free speech from his opponents during the campaign, what could the American people expect from him as a president?"

Please read also Obama threatens stations over ad. Fox News and CNN have declined to air the anti-Obama ad. I guess media have lost their integrity for Obama.

Could Biden as VP Bring Us Back To The Days of Carter?

2008-08-25T21:47:00.008-04:00

Amir Taheri writes that "BY choosing Sen. Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate, Barack Obama sent three messages. The first two are implicit admissions that Hillary Clinton had a point in the primaries. The third tells us more of what Obama means by "change."....."But the third message is that "change" means a return not to the Camelot of President John Kennedy, but to the foreign policies of Jimmy Carter. For Biden, an early supporter of Carter in his quest for the presidency in 1976, shares the former president's view of the world and the United States' place in it.

Are we headed back to a Jimmy Carter presidency? Take a moment to read Back To Jimmy -What Biden Pick Really Signals and leave your thoughts. Enjoy!

Let's Face Reality

2008-08-25T11:44:00.050-04:00

There is a lot of talk about Sen. Obama’s resemblance to a Socialist leader coming to power, as we’ve witnessed all too many times in the past in other countries. Personally, I’ve been extremely stubborn in my own aversion to careless accusations, and I consider Socialist Dictatorship such a horrible crime against the self-evident freedoms of humanity, that I do not throw the terms around lightly. It’s a very serious accusation as far as I’m concerned, and I was actually offended when I first started hearing others making the comparison, even though I felt that same discomfort within where Obama was concerned.

However, I am beginning to feel very different about the subject. Very different. I don’t think anyone could be more sorry than I am to have to say such a thing … but I must be honest. After all, freedom of speech requires honesty in order to retain its value, doesn’t it? Of course, it also requires freedom and speaking.

In, “Obama Nation: The Berlin Wall Within Our Midst,” Kenneth D. Gartrell, MS, MBA, Ph. D., CPA provides a frighteningly honest review of Obama Nation by James Corsi. Moreover, Gartrell analyzes the press reviews of Corsi’s book, as well as the Obama machine’s attempts at refuting Corsi’s own analysis. Dr. Gartrell states,

One way to evaluate the validity of the book Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi is to
consider it and all the significant comments and reviews on Amazon, side by side
with the recent “40-page” Obama campaign response. Such an analysis reveals that
the controversy over the book is fueled by (and confused by) our timid
unwillingness to go to the main point of this election – which is that the Obama
candidacy is in fact not about race, or any single issue such as Iraq, oil or
abortion. It is rather a much bigger issue that affects all the other issues.

Namely, our dilemma is nothing less than a referendum on Marxism and
Communism in America and once that is acknowledged, the whole kaleidoscope of
current political issues at the eye of the Corsi controversy takes focus and we
are left wishing that Ronald Reagan was still here, just because we know he
would go to the south side of Chicago and say, “Mr. Obama, tear down this wall."

In conclusion, Dr. Gartrell states,

“When the smoke clears, now it appears we may start to shift to the central question of the meaning of Marxist/Communism. To what degree do we want to elect Obama and give the radical left coalition a mandate for Communism to proceed in the United States after millions of lives were given in the 20th Century precisely to rid the world of it?”

Dr. Gartrell enlightens the reader that Obama’s responses obfuscate rather than refute the accusations against him. Gartrell also rightly points out the mainstream media’s left-wing bias in refusing to report a balance of information.

The media bias provides circular reasoning which defies logic or reason, as one left-wing source is used to reference another, and so on. In essence, adding to the danger Obama represents to Democracy by denying the voter an opportunity to use their own logic and reason.

Thomas Jefferson said,

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her Tribunal every fact, every
opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded
fear."

Of all our founding fathers, I most closely identify with Thomas Jefferson, politically and philosophically. I have been criticized in the past for my fondness of Jefferson. Many consider him to be a liberal; I’ve even heard some express that Jefferson is such a liberal that he borders on being a socialist.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jefferson valued individual freedoms and responsibilities above all else.

Jefferson was more than suspicious of a strong central government; he fought it at every opportunity. Jefferson was one of the most critical thinkers of his time. He was a flawed individual, as we all are, but he was most definitely not a socialist. Jefferson was instrumental in the fact that our American Democracy is structured as a Republic.

Jefferson said,

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

And, consider this quote from, “The End of a Free Republic,” printed in the Canada Free Press,

Jefferson said, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense
of taking care of them.”- “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away
from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

[Americans] have failed to stop Democrats from doing just that and this
reality leaves us with two more Jefferson quotes…

“Every generation needs a new revolution.” “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

I wish a single Democrat were as wise and as American as Jefferson!

Until they are again, it’s up to the rest of the nation to keep them far
from power.

Interesting words from our neighbor to the north, eh?

Despite the American mainstream media’s propaganda beaming utopian visions into our living rooms of peace, love and international kool-aid festivals throughout Europe, many of our European friends in the media are calling on Americans to better scrutinize the candidates and really think about what we’re doing here. Although we have ‘family’ quarrels with Europe, the rest of the free world depends on American Democracy. In recent years, Europe has been systematically replacing their once left-leaning leaders with moderates and conservative ones. They have learned their lesson and are expressing concern over what they see in America.

A final thought from Jefferson, do drive my point home:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to
take away everything you have.”

We must do everything within our power to ensure that Sen. McCain wins this election.

Period.

We The People are responsible for our government, not the other way around.

What Joe Biden REALLY Thinks of Barack Obama

2008-08-23T08:13:00.001-04:00

Obama Dethroned

2008-08-22T18:57:00.003-04:00

Gerard Baker , a columnist forThe Times-UK, posted a great article that may cause Obama supporters to faint. Baker suggests Obama followers " Cancel the coronation. Send back the commemorative medals. Put those “Yes We Can” T-shirts up on eBay. Keep the Change" . For months now Barrack Obama has gotten a free ride as the media's golden boy, the crowned prince, The One. Europe loved him, they flocked to his appearances, swooned as if seeing Elvis or The Beatles. It's time people realize that while he is a great orator, he is severely lacking in substance. Inexperience and naivety when it comes to dealing with threats to our National Security and geopolitical advisories requires a proven, tested strong leader.

Take a moment to read Baker's entire article 'Yes we can'?Make that:"Oops, we may not"

The fact is that the 47-year-old Democrat, less than four years in the Senate, is still largely a blank page for American voters: a great orator and an attractive figure, but unknown and untested. The Republicans have been filling in some of the gaps and pointing out how thin his real biography is.

The second problem is that Senator Obama is having difficulty - curiously enough - with Democratic voters. Polls indicate that while Senator McCain has just about locked up the votes of those who supported other Republicans in the primary election, Senator Obama is still regarded with mistrust and dislike by large numbers of Hillary Clinton's former supporters.

For many of these working-class types, he's just a bit too cerebral, a little vague. His campaign lacks both substance and passion. While unemployment is rising, incomes are slipping fqarther behind rising inflation and house prices are falling, Senator Obama keeps talking about hope and change, keeps promising a new type of politics. These benighted Democratic voters don't really want a new type of politics. They want to know what exactly he's going to do to raise their living standards.

The irony for Senator Obama is that he has built a campaign on a pledge to put an end to cynicism in the political system, but the more he offers only vague promises of hope, the greater the danger that he increases voter cynicism about politicians in general and him in particular.

The third problem is that events have not helped the Democrats. The war in Georgia has emphasised that the world is a dangerous place, and that simply being willing to talk to your enemies, as Senator Obama sometimes seems to suggest, isn't going to keep your people safe.

The key to understanding the presidential campaign as it enters its phase of maximum intensity is this. The more the campaign is about the concerns of the American voter, especially the state of the economy but also the general anxiety about the direction of the country, the more likely they are to throw the Republicans out.

But the uncomfortable truth for the many devoted fans of Senator Obama is that the more the race is about him, the less likely he is to win it.

Saddleback Turns The Tide

2008-08-19T08:17:00.004-04:00

David Gergen has an interesting post on the Anderson Cooper blog this morning, reflecting on the shifts in polling data since the Forum Saturday At Saddleback Church:

...McCain showed that he can be a much more formidable and effective campaigner in a joint appearance than hardly anyone imagined. The debates this fall are going to be pivotal to the final outcome of the election, and McCain gave a clear wake-up call to the Obama team that he may be much tougher to beat than expected.

Moreover, McCain is now on a sustained roll in his campaign. Since the time he shook up his organization a few weeks ago, he has been much more focused and has started to get through to voters. Democrats — and the press — didn’t like the quality of those ads, but they seem to have worked politically. His stand on drilling and on Russia have also strengthened his aura of command. And now Saddleback.

That’s quite a run and it is reflected in the polls: not only have the national numbers tightened up but McCain has actually moved ahead (slightly) in three key battleground states: Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.

A web site that averages all significant polls, RealClearPolitics.com, has previously projected that just looking at polls, Obama was ahead in states with over 300 electoral votes; now he is down to 275 — a tiny cushion since 270 is the magical number for winning...

...In short, the tide is moving for the first time in the Republican direction. And the realization is setting in that McCain might just win.

Its been kind of fun listening to the excuses that Obama supporters are throwing out as to why McCain did so well, from "He wasn't REALLY in the cone of silence" accusations of getting the questions ahead of time, and of course simple pandering to a conservative audience. They also like to chant how much more THOUGHTFUL, more NUANCED Obama's answers were, blah, blah, blah....

If you really got down to it, Rick Warren's questions were directed to a single ultimate question: "Who are you, and what do you believe in?" John McCain firmly made his case for who he is and what he believes in. He explained his core beliefs, based on a lifetime of experience and self-reflection. When you understand yourself, like John McCain understands HIMSELF, you have the luxury of not having to parse your words as carefully as Obama did on Saturday.

John McCain spoke frankly about how the personal crises in his life framed who he is, and won because he was unafraid to be honest, both about himself and WITH himself. Barack Obama lost because he failed to do the same.

Obama Lied About Vote Against Live-Birth Abortion Ban, Media Mum

2008-08-19T01:53:00.003-04:00

Warner Todd Huston of Newsbusters wrote an interesting article on 13th August; Jill Stanek has done yeoman's work on uncovering the fact that Barack Obama and his surrogates have been outright lying about Obama's constant votes against the Live-Birth abortion bills when he was in office in the State legislature. His claims have been a staple of Old Media reports from the beginning, but now that Stanek has revealed the truth we will have to see if the Old Media corrects the record or if they suddenly just go mum on the subject like they have so far.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) both in the Illinois and Federal legislatures was meant to make illegal death by neglect of born but unwanted infants. These bills were opposed by the bulk of the Democrat Party because of the fact that the original bills could have been construed to say that a pre-birth fetus was a "person" that was protected by law. So, the bill in Congress was altered to address that concern by adding a "neutrality clause" that made it clear that the bill would not protect a fetus in utero.

As Obama continues to tell the tale, as a State Senator he said he voted against the Illinois bill because the Federal "neutrality clause" was not included and that therefore he could not support the Illinois bill. Turns out he is not telling the truth about this fact. Even worse, he knows better because he was part of the legislative committee that added that very "neutrality clause" to the very bill he voted against in 2003.

As Stanek found, Obama not only was part of that committee adding the Federal "neutrality clause" to the Illinois bill, he was the chairman of that committee.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the IL state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

It strains credulity to believe that Obama was unaware that the "neutrality clause" was added to the bill if he was the chairman of the committee that put it in there, doesn't it? So we are forced to realize that Obama knows the truth but is trying to rewrite history and with the willing accomplices in the Old Media he has succeeded in doing so thus far.

Stanek points out that only two years after his "no" vote, Obama had developed his "change" version of history.

Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the "neutrality" clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the "neutrality" clause.

Stanek has the whole sordid history on this affair, with links to the actual bills and umpteen news stories and legislative resources to prove her case. Go on over and take a look at her extensive research.

However since the August 13th Newsbuster report, Obama was a guest with CBN's David Brody File where he told the world that anyone who doubts his word on his Illinois BAIP vote is a "liar."

Here in part is what Obama told David Brody in Saturday's August 16 interview:

'Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying.
I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level.'

The same day the interview aired, the Obama campaign did a 180 on the issue admitting that Obama did vote against the very bill with the very language in it that Obama has claimed for 6 years did not exist. This from the New York Sun:

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.

So, even with the same "neutrality clause" in the bill, placed there by the very committee of which he chaired, Obama still voted against the bill. Even though for 6 years he has claimed he would have voted for the bill if the "neutrality clause" was there -- that he has been saying this whole time that the lack of that clause made him vote against the bill -- even with that claim being proven a lie, the media stays silent.

The fact is, Obama's abortion record is far more extreme than he and his willing Old Media accomplices are allowing for. Obama is in favor of allowing babies to die from neglect even if born completely healthy, but unwanted by the Mother. This is an extreme view.

So, where is the media reporting this admission of an outright lie? Why have they not pounced on Obama with sharpened talons exposing his lie?

You tell me.

How McCain Won Saddleback

2008-08-17T12:24:00.004-04:00

Bryan York of NR wrote an interesting article on the 17th August- It’s fair to say that in the hours before John McCain appeared with Barack Obama at the “Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency,” here at Pastor Rick Warren’s famed southern California mega-church, there were at least a few McCain insiders who were a bit nervous about their candidate’s prospects. Obama can be remarkably polished in this sort of situation. Unlike other Democrats, he’s not afraid to hang out with evangelicals. McCain, on the other hand, can at times be cranky and take pleasure in irritating his base. Could he come out ahead in this one?

Team McCain needn’t have worried. This was not your usual political TV show. Warren — Pastor Rick, around here — asked big questions, about big subjects; he wasn’t concerned about what appeared on the front page of that morning’s Washington Post. And his simple, direct, big questions brought out something we don’t usually see in a presidential face-off; in this forum, as opposed to a read-the-prompter speech, or even a debate focused on the issues of the moment, the candidates were forced to call on everything they had — the things they have done and learned throughout their lives. And the fact is, John McCain has lived a much bigger life than Barack Obama. That’s not a slam at Obama; McCain has lived a much bigger life than most people. But it still made Obama look small in comparison. McCain was the clear winner of the night.

The contrast was striking throughout each man’s one-hour time on stage. When Warren asked Obama, “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make?”

Obama answered that opposing the war in Iraq was “as tough a decision that I’ve had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a bad person and there was no doubt he meant America ill.” But Obama was a state senator in Illinois when Congress authorized the president to use force in Iraq. He didn’t have to make a decision on the war. That fact was a recurring issue in the Democratic primaries, when candidates Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, and John Edwards argued that they, as senators, had to make a choice Obama didn’t have to make. And now he says it’s his toughest call

When McCain got the question, he was able to tell an old story with a sense of gravity and poignancy that he seldom shows in public. He described his time as a prisoner of war, when he was offered a chance for early release because his father was a top naval officer. “I was in rather bad physical shape,” McCain told Warren, but “we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture.” So McCain refused to go. He made the telling even more forceful when he added that, “in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m very happy I didn’t know the war was going to last for another three years or so.” In one moment, he showed a sense of pride and a hint of regret, too; he came across as a man who did the right thing but not without the temptation to take an easy out. In any event, the message was very clear: John McCain has had to make bigger, more momentous decisions in his life than has Barack Obama.

McCain bested Obama again when Warren asked for an example of a time in which he “went against party loyalty and maybe even against your own best interest for the good of America.”

“Well, I’ll give you an example that in fact I worked with John McCain on,” Obama said, “and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform.” But it turned out that was an issue on which Obama had briefly allied with McCain and then jumped back to the Democratic mother ship, causing McCain to write Obama an angry note about the abandonment of what had been a principled position. As far as bucking your party goes, it wasn’t very big stuff. You can read the exchanges of letter here;

When McCain got the question, everyone in the room thought he would bring up campaign-finance reform, the issue on which he has alienated the Republican base for years. But he didn’t. “Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture,” he said. “The list goes on.” McCain’s prime example, though, was his story of opposing Ronald Reagan’s decision to send a contingent of Marines to Lebanon as a peacekeeping force. “My knowledge and my background told me that a few hundred Marines in a situation like that could not successfully carry out any kind of peacekeeping mission, and I thought they were going into harm’s way,” McCain said. But he deeply admired Reagan, and wanted to be loyal to the party; it was a difficult decision.McCain answered the whole question without touching on campaign finance; he had so much more life experience to draw on that he could swamp Obama without using everything he had.

And on it went. On questions like the nature of evil and causes worth dying for, McCain’s depth stood out. And that was true even when he admitted wrongdoing. Early on in the questioning, Warren asked each man, “What…would be the greatest moral failure in your life, and what would be the greatest moral failure of America?”

Obama answered that he drank and “experimented” with drugs as a teenager, which he attributed to his own selfishness.

McCain, on the other hand, said, “The failure of my first marriage. It’s my greatest moral failure.”McCain’s actions in that matter are nothing to brag about, but what came from it onstage at Saddleback was the sense that he was willing to dig deeper and take a greater risk in his answer than had Obama.

McCain knew that critics on the left, looking for a way to change the subject from the John Edwards affair, had been pointing to the end of McCain’s first marriage. But McCain took the subject straight on. “He could have avoided that altogether or come up with some other answer,” Chip Pickering, the Mississippi Republican representative, told me later in the “Messaging Room.” (There’s no “Spin Room” at Saddleback; just a “Messaging Room.”) “But he very quickly, cleanly, and clearly confessed his failure.” Still, I said to Pickering, adultery doesn’t sit well with evangelicals, and that’s what McCain was talking about, wasn’t it? “The clarity of confessing his failure — there will be respect in the evangelical community for doing so,” Pickering answered.

Warren brought it up, simple and straight. “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” he asked Obama.

“Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade,” Obama answered. “But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.” Obama went on to say that he is pro-choice. Even for people who agreed with him, it wasn’t a terribly impressive answer.

An hour later, when Warren asked McCain the same thing, he got this: “At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate, and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies.”

Obama had nothing to win on the question; if anything, he seemed wary of saying something that might anger his pro-choice base. But McCain had a lot at stake with this group, and his answer seemed to settle the concerns of social conservatives who have been rattled by reports that he might be considering a pro-choice running mate. While many evangelicals have softened on the issue of gay marriage, they wanted to hear a solid, clear statement from McCain on abortion. “Abortion and marriage are still pivotal issues…but I think that abortion is probably more pivotal than marriage,” Marlys Popma, the Iowa social conservative who is now McCain’s national coordinator for evangelical issues, told me after the forum. “Abortion is still very, very solid with this group, even the younger ones [who are more liberal on marriage]. Life is a real delineating factor.”

As far as the crowd is concerned, it was clear that McCain was the favorite. That was hardly a surprise; at a small gathering I attended a few years ago, someone asked Warren how many of his parishioners voted for John Kerry. He thought for a moment and said 15 percent. So the conservative Saddleback crowd, while happy to see Obama in their midst, was not going to be on his side. What they wanted was proof that John McCain was on theirs, and that’s what they got.

Inspirational Support from Democrats for John McCain

2008-08-15T11:23:00.013-04:00

One of the most wonderful things I've experienced through my support of John McCain for President, is getting to know so many supporters from all walks of life. In stark contrast to the partisan rancor Barack Obama insights in his followers, the McCain supporters I've met are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. As a lifelong Republican, I've been extremely blessed to experience such unity with folks who have many different perspectives, all coming together because of the proud realization that John McCain is by far the best choice for leadership at this difficult time in our nation's history. I am learning so much from people I had previously thought I had little or nothing in common with.

Take a look at this short video clip of some well known Democrats commenting on what they think of John McCain:

Although many of the McCain supporters I know have experienced extreme harassment, ridicule and intimidation from Obama's supporters, we are united in diversity and friendliness unlike anything I've ever seen. Sen. McCain is a visionary leader who inspires greatness and courage from average people just like me. In addition to the wonderful people I've met, I'm also inspired by Sen. Leiberman's very strong support for Sen. McCain. In May, Lieberman published an article in the Wall Street Journal outlining his reasons for leaving the Democratic party - the party he had grown up in and which he loved so dearly.

Below are some of Lieberman's very heartfelt reasons for supporting Sen. McCain over Sen. Obama:

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these [anti-Bush] opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.

It was also at this same time that Sen. Lieberman created " Citizens for McCain ," a beautiful example of American unity rallying around a candidate the likes of which we have not seen in many years. Not just a place for displaced supporters of Sen. Clinton (and there are millions), but a place for all Americans to learn why they should vote for the best candidate.

John McCain's decades-long record of bi-partisan service to our country is at once humbling and inspiring. The partisan stranglehold of our government is something we can bring to an end by electing John McCain as our next President. Please visit Citizens for McCain today to learn more about how you can help our country return to unity and civility, prosperity and strength, as well as energy independence and so much more.

Thank you, Sen. Lieberman for demonstrating such courage and leadership.

Thank you, Sen. McCain for inspiring such courage and leadership by your example!

Strength and character.

McCain 08!

Newt Gingrich On John McCain

2008-08-13T22:11:00.006-04:00

The former Speaker of the House shares an anecdote that illustrates the character of John McCain.

"...what you're not gonna get from John McCain is any typical politician behavior, because he is literally incapable. He couldn't do it if he had to."

Enjoy the whole story here.

Making The Case For An Obama Loss

2008-08-12T20:56:00.004-04:00

David Thrush writes for Politico.com a list of reasons Obama may not win in November.

7 Worrisome Signs For Obama
Mr. Thrush gives readers 7 in depth reasons this could be a loss for Obama in spite of the many reasons no Republican should win this year. Everyone is aware of some of the reasons but a few might surprise you, take a moment and check out the list.

Obama Vs Obama on Off Shore Drilling.

2008-08-12T00:00:00.000-04:00

Obama recently reconsidering off shore drilling. The Palm Beach Post reports that;

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said today he would be willing to open Florida's coast for more oil drilling if it meant winning approval for broad energy changes. 'My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,' Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

'If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done,' Obama said."

But however Obama Has Vehemently Opposed And Derided Offshore Drilling. During the remarks At Campaign Event, Springfield, MO, 7/30/08 Obama stated;

"Now the latest scheme is well, we're going to drill offshore. Now, I want to be absolutely clear to everybody about this. If I thought that I could provide you some immediate relief on gas prices by drilling off the shores of California and New Jersey, I understand how desperate folks are. I met a guy who couldn't go on a job search that lost his job, couldn't go on a job search because of the high price of gas. Just couldn't fill up his tank. I met a teacher in South Dakota who loved her job as a teacher on an Indian reservation, she had to quit because the drive was too far, it was taking up too much of her paycheck. I know how bad people are hurting. So If I thought that by drilling offshore, we could solve our problem, I'd do it."

Editorial by the PowerLine said it the best;

This is the same kind of post-modern political speak that characterizes Obama's positions (and those of Democratic presidential candidates in the recent past) on key issues of foreign policy and war and peace.

Drilling for oil offshore is either a good idea or bad idea. If it's a good idea, then there is no reason why lifting the ban needs to be "part of an overaching" "really thoughtful" energy package. If it's a bad idea, then Obama should not consent to it, and certainly should not signal his willingness to do so.

But to Obama, in all likelihood, off-shore drilling is neither a good idea nor a bad idea; it's just a suddenly thorny political issue.
.

Enough With The Race Card, Already!

2008-08-11T00:32:00.004-04:00

Charles Blow at the New York Times gives his thoughts on the results of a recent poll, in which 5 percent admitted that they would not vote for a black candidate for President,and 19% stated that other people they knew would not, either.

Welcome to the murky world of modern racism, where most of the open animus has been replaced by a shadowy bias that is difficult to measure. As Obama gently put it in his race speech, today’s racial “resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company.” However, they can be — and possibly will be — expressed in the privacy of the voting booth.

Undoubtedly, there is racism in this country, and there are a certain number of people who won't vote for Obama based on his race alone. But there are other factors here.

This has been the most racially-charged Presidential election in memory, if ever. Charges of racism have been coming out of the Obama campaign and his supporters since early in the primary season,
including from the candidate himself:

“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’"

The fact that race has been brought up time and time again this campaign season and the fact that Barack Obama has been practically crowned by the media before the election, is enough to influence the the results of the poll Mr. Blow discusses. Because even though the question was "Would You Vote For a Black Presidential Candidate," the media influence and constant charges of racism make the question in the mind of the respondent to really be: "Would You Vote For Barack Obama, A Black Man, For President?"

Its not surprising that in this environment, the number of people responded as they did. Because the question becomes a question about Barack Obama, instead of a generic black candidate. Given that there are obvious doubts about Obama's experience, his extreme policy positions, and his dubious associations, the answer to the question is much more complex than the color of Senator Obama's skin.

What would the results of this poll have been 5 years ago, before Barack Obama emerged from the anonymity of the Illinois State Senate? What would the results of this poll have been if the candidate was, instead of the least experienced, most liberal member of the U.S Senate, the candidate was a highly experienced, talented, and widely-admired person such as Colin Powell?

Is it possible that many of the respondents to this particular poll would indeed be willing to vote for a black Presidential candidate, just not this particular one? On election day, a lot of people will go into the privacy of the voting booth and the decision is going to be one about TRUST, not RACE.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this country could get beyond these problems if Obama and his supporters could find a way to stop filtering everything through the prism of race.