Lou Dobbs, along with Glenn Beck, are probably the only two CNN hosts who are not completely in the tank for Barack Obama. So it is interesting to see this report by Dobbs about early voting in Ohio which allows people to register to vote and cast an absentee ballot at the same time. This opens up a great opportunity for election fraud as this report demonstrates. A check on Google News shows absolutely no MSM coverage, other than this story by Dobbs, on the topic of potential vote fraud in Ohio due to the relaxed rules instituted by the highly partisan Democrat Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, who changed the voting rules by directive (emphasis mine):
LOU DOBBS: A presidential election now 35 days away. Election fraud still posing a dangerous threat to this democracy. Perhaps even worsening. Early voting began today in Ohio.
Your humble correspondent realizes that a lot of celebrities are in the tank for Barack Obama but he is especially disappointed to learn that Homer Simpson appears to be numbered among them. The November 2 (just two days before the election) episode of the Simpsons will include this clip of Homer casting his vote for John McCain then changing his mind and attempting to vote for Barack Obama numerous times to no avail. Each Obama vote that Homer casts is registered as another vote for McCain. When Homer finally accuses the voting machine of being rigged...well, you'll have to see his fate in the video. The video itself is actually pretty funny as you can see and it might end up helping McCain since it will cause extreme leftwing paranoia should the race be tight by election day. That could be very counterproductive for the Democrats since the voting public could be turned off by their paranoid antics.
The New Republic associate editor, Eve Fairbanks, needs to send a royalty payment to her senior editor, Michelle Cottle. Actually, Fairbanks might as well bypass Cottle and send the payment directly to your humble correspondent since The New Republic senior editor ripped me off when she wrote that the Washington Post compared Todd Palin to Hillary Clinton just a half hour after I made the same suggestion. Since the Washington Post story never mentioned Hillary, where do you think Cottle got her story idea from? The following update to my September 22 blog post explains:
The Los Angeles Times seems to have taken a sudden new interest in biblical study. No, they haven't become religious or anything close to that. Instead, they are microanalyzing the Bible for passages that they think they can use to slam Sarah Palin for running for vice-president. They are also searching the countryside to dig up the very few strongly religious Christians they can find who think Palin is wrong to run for public office. Let us now join Times reporter, Teresa Watanabe, as she begins her biblical studies in her story with an ulterior motive (emphasis mine):
In a white-steepled church along a stretch in picturesque canyon country, the preacher laid out the basic blueprint of a godly marriage: Husbands lead, wives submit.
See where this is going right from the get-go? The reporter is going to use the Bible to suggest to believers that Sarah Palin is violating the "basic blueprint of a godly marriage."
Remember all the doom and gloom warnings that if the $700 billion bailout bill did not pass yesterday that we would be facing an immediate financial collapse? Well, the bailout bill didn't pass yesterday thanks in large part to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan rantings in that chamber. So today comes and instead of financial collapse and panic, the stocks surge as you can see in this Associated Press story. However, the fact that the economic sky did not fall hasn't kept the AP Chicken Littles from continuing to plug for that bailout bill (emphasis mine):
Good news for Alex Jones and his fellow 9/11 Truthers. They will finally have a television outlet in which to spew their absurd theories about how "9/11 was an inside job." The reason is that Jesse Ventura has been named as the host of a TruTV mystery show about conspiracy theories. Here is the report from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune announcing the show that is sure to light up the tinfoil hats of conspiracists in dark basements all across the land:
Jesse Ventura may or may not have a "judge" show in his future, but one thing's for sure: He's definitely going to be searching for justice.
The former governor will host a new program for TruTV (formerly Court TV) in which he'll travel the country, exploring modern-day conspiracies and getting input from believers and skeptics.
"I've been a mayor; I've been a governor. Now I get to be a detective and seek the truth," he said in a news release.
What is it with the American mainstream media when we have to turn to Britain to get a more accurate analysis of our political scene than we can get here? First we had my previous post in which the UK Times provided a much better analysis of how Nancy Pelosi's partisan rant caused the bailout bill to fail in Congress while the New York Times basically provided cover for the House Speaker. And now we have this column by Dominic Lawson in the UK Independent that gives us a clear picture of how utterly unqualified Joe Biden is to become vice-president. Yes, while the Amercan MSM remains obsessed with pointing out how Sarah Palin might not be familiar with every last detail of political policy (including the "Bush Doctrine" which almost nobody knew about until Charlie Gibson sprung it as a gotcha question) they continue to overlook not just gaffes but astounding gaps in Biden's basic wisdom. So let us allow Lawson to now go where the American MSM fears to tread (emphasis mine):
This is a tale of two Times. One Times, the one in New York, pretty much provided cover for Nancy Pelosi's highly partisan speech as a cause for the failure of the bailout bill to pass in Congress. The other Times, the one in London, gave an accurate analysis on how Pelosi's partisan rant caused the bailout bill to fail. First we have the New York Times, in an article written by Jackie Calmes, placing most of the blame for the bill's failure to pass on "evil" Republicans (emphasis mine):
From the White House to Congress to the presidential campaign trail, the principal players did not rally the votes they needed in the House. They appeared not to comprehend or address in a convincing way an intense strain of opposition to the deal among voters. They allowed partisan politics to flare at sensitive moments.
If there was any doubt that President Bush had been left politically impotent by his travails over the last few years and his lame-duck status, it was erased on Monday when, despite his personal pleas, more than two-thirds of the Republicans in the House abandoned the plan.
Hmm... Since your humble correspondent was the first to coin the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel Dueling Columnists with the highly accurate monicker of "Dulling Columnists," perhaps I would be justified in charging a royalty payment from Daily Pulp writer, John de Groot, for titling his recent column, "Dulling Columnists Score Major Snore." Here is what I wrote about the Dulling Columnists, Stephen Goldstein and Kingsley Guy, on the Ides of March:
Following the controversy over the authenticity of Barack Obama's birth certificate can be a bit confusing with all its detailed analysis. Your humble correspondent will leave that up to the experts. However, in response to the charge that Barack Obama is not an American citizen, Obama's Fight the Smears website, quoting FactCheck.Org, has made a bombshell admission...Barack Obama was once a citizen of Kenya. You read that right, Obama had Kenyan citizenship until 1982. Here is the startling admission published in Fight the Smears (emphasis mine):
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”
Chicago Tribune correspondent, Howard Witt, seems to have found the villain to blame in case Barack Obama loses in November: elderly prejudiced white people. However, such "prejudice" is not their fault, Witt "generously" allows, since they suffer from atrophied frontal brain lobes. Witt's article claims that such people will be more likely to vote against Obama due to the prejudice induced by these diseased frontal lobes (emphasis mine):
As your humble correspondent noted earlier today, one needs to have some training in reading liberal tea leaves in order to determine which candidate actually wins presidential debates. In the case of this Newsweek article, written by associate editor Andrew Romano, absolutely no such training is needed. The title flat out tells us: "McCain Won." However there is also one highly laughable caveat added on: "But Will It Matter?" First Romano tells us why he thinks McCain won (emphasis mine):
Tonight, John McCain was the more effective combatant.
Julia Roberts might not be too happy when she finds out that the woman she portrayed in a movie of the same name, Erin Brockovich, is currently praising Sarah Palin. This is considered an act of treason by the left. And that is not the only "heresy" committed by Erin Brockovich who, until recently, was considered to be a "progressive." An article by John Vidal in the UK Guardian details Brockovich's "thought crimes" (emphasis mine):
...Although she rates herself as a leading environmentalist, she is extremely keen on Sarah Palin, the huntin', shootin' Alaskan governor running for vice president with the Republican candidate John McCain.
Environmentalists have painted Palin as the arch-enemy, to the right of Bush, because until last week she was denying climate change had anything to do with man, thought polar bears could go live on land and wants to see the Arctic drilled to within a quart of its oil.
Your humble correspondent is of the opinion that, without even knowing who wins the election in November, one can easily determine the winner by simply looking at the screen shots of liberal members of the MSM on the day after the election. Are the faces of Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, etc. mournful? That will pretty much tell you who won the election the previous day. Likewise, simply by reading an analysis of last night's debate in Oxford, Mississippi in liberal publications, one can determine who won that debate without even watching it. It is called reading the liberal tea leaves and, since the NewsBusters Eye of Sauron has been upon them lately, The New Republic has been chosen as an example.
The first story chosen for this liberal tea leaf reading is titled, "They Both Lost." This was way too easy. What the title really tells you, without even having to read the story, is "McCain Won." The article itself merely confirms what was pretty much shouted out in the title (emphasis mine):
The New Republic has come up with a new way to drag conservatism through the mud---Simply describe racists as "racially conservative." Get it? They are implying that if you are a conservative then you must somehow be a racist. Your humble correspondent caught them using this term in a story headlined on The New Republic front page as: "Are People Who Hang Up On Pollsters More Racist Than Those Who Don't?" The story itself pretty much goes nowhere since no voting trend by people who refuse to talk to pollsters can be discerned. However, the story does link conservatism with racism (emphasis mine):
This is a story that could only happen in Berkeley---militant tree sitters accused of racism. And the funniest part is that the Berkeley Daily Planet reported this story with a completely straight face as if tree sitters are some sort of a legitimate group like Teamsters or Ruthenian-Americans (Tom Selleck is one). It seems that the tree sitters (union or non-union?) have been living up in the Berkeley trees for almost two years protesting the construction of a high-tech gym at the UC Berkeley campus. You can see a video of the "wonderful" life of these tree sitters in the upper right.
This is probably an article that the New York Times wishes it didn't have in its archives because it reveals the true culprits behind the current Fannie Mae meltdown. You will find "uncomfortable" truths in this September 30, 1999 article by Steven A. Holmes starting with the title, "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending," that you won't find in current editions of the New York Times (emphasis mine):
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
The leftwing blogosphere has a new villain in addition to John McCain and Sarah Palin: Bill Clinton. They have been suspecting that Clinton has not been giving all out support to Barack Obama including his announcement to Larry King that he wouldn't begin campaigning for Obama until after October 9 out of respect for the Jewish High Holy Days. However, the straw that really broke the leftwing camel's back was Clinton's statement today to Chris Cuomo on ABC's Good Morning America defending John McCain's request for a debate delay until after the financial bailout crises is resolved. Here are a couple of things that Bill Clinton said that drove the left absolutely bonkers:
We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates.
It looks like the Democrats are shocked by a nominee who actually takes the initiative to show some leadership in the economic bailout bill as evidenced by the reaction of Democrat activist and CNN political contributor Donna Brazile. Appearing on a panel yesterday hosted by Campbell Brown which also included Gloria Borger and Tony Blankley, one could almost hear the song, "Don't Worry, Be Happy," in the background as Brazile assured us over and over that "progress" on the bailout was being made so there was no need for the nominees to appear in Washington except to passively cast a vote. Here is a transcript of the proceedings (emphasis mine):
CAMBELL BROWN: John McCain's big move today, a Hail Mary pass, responsible leadership, stroke of genius, politically, strategically, what do you think?
Slate political reporter, Christopher Beam, has come up with a bizarre analysis of Joe Biden's many gaffes: He is immune to the effects of gaffes because he makes so many of them.
I kid you not as you can read Beam's own words in defense of Biden (emphasis mine):
When Joe Biden described an Obama ad attacking John McCain's inability to use a computer as "terrible," the world acted as if the Joe-pocalypse had finally arrived. Jonathan Martin of Politico called it "perhaps his most off-message statement yet." Newsday dubbed him "gaffe-a-minute Joe." National Review's Victor Davis Hanson said it raised "serious concern whether Biden is up to the job."
Martin Peretz, the editor-in-chief of The New Republic, didn't make many friends with the hard core left which nowadays makes up a large part of Democrat activists with his latest article: "Red Dusk: The Rosenberg bombshell." It is about how many in the American left, despite the evidence that Julius and Ethel Rosenburg were indeed Soviet spies, still can't accept their guilt just as they can't accept the culpability of communists and communism in general (emphasis mine):
In America and in other Western societies, however, there still remain coteries of intellectuals and other high-minded people who have trouble absorbing the simplest historic truths, truths which ordinary workers in highly ideological Labour England, say, have had absolutely no difficulties absorbing. Even more so among unionized workers in the United States. The blindness of these meta-minds does not quite absolve Stalin of his crimes--but it willfully looks away from those of Castro or Che, who still hold a special place in the hearts of people calling themselves progressives.
Call it the Blame Game. The liberals are already coming up with excuses if Barack Obama loses in November. We have already seen how members of the MSM are blaming it on racism. However, Huffington Post blogger, Paul Slansky, has found another villain: Bill Clinton. Slansky lays out the blame scenario in his blog:
Given that we would never have had the odious George W. Bush in the White House in the first place if it wasn't for your blow jobs, Bill, it seems obvious that you owe it to the people of this country, and especially to the parents whose kids died in the Iraq War that Gore would never have started, and to all the parents whose kids would be killed in the WarFest that would be a McCain/Palin -- sorry, Palin/McCain administration -- to do everything in your power to get Barack Obama elected.
Don't expect too much from Barack Obama at this Friday's presidential debate because his debating skills are not nearly as good as those of John McCain. That is the message from the New York Times to prepare viewers for the debate. Therefore if Obama fails to quite match up to McCain, that really should be counted as a victory for Obama...at least according to this manufactured debate expectations game. The truth is that McCain is not really a skilled debater but that didn't keep the Times from touting his supposed oratorical skills as you can see in the very title of this story: "A Scrappy Fighter, McCain Honed His Debating Style in and Out of Politics." To read this story, you would think that McCain is one of the great debaters of our time:
Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, heads into the first debate on Friday with a track record as a scrappy combatant and the instincts of a fighter pilot, prepared to take out his opponent and willing to take risks to do so.
It sounds like the rabid rantings of some poor demented shlub posting at the Democratic Underground. Instead, it is Al Gore's former fashion adviser, Naomi Wolf, indulging in sanity-challenged fantasies on her Huffington Post blog. The target of Wolf's derangement is Sarah Palin and it is so over the top that one might suspect Wolf is an agent provocateur working for conservatives in order to discredit the left. Think I'm kidding? Check out this sampling of Wolf's plunge off the political deep end (emphasis mine):
Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah "Evita" Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state.
Does anybody remember Bill Clinton boasting in 1992 that a vote for him means "buy one, get one free?" Of course, he was referring to the fact that by electing him, you would also get Hillary as a virtual co-president. No big outrage in the liberal media back then about a spouse being too involved in the political affairs of her husband.
However, the Washington Post has now taken the involvement of Todd Palin in Alaska civic affairs to suggest that perhaps he is some sort of Machiavellian power behind the throne. Unfortunately for their premise, the facts dug up by Washington Post writers, Alec MacGillis and Karl Vick, actually shows Todd Palin to be an upstanding citizen with very limited involvement in political affairs. In fact, the criticisms of the "First Dude" in their article are so lame as to laughable. One is the charge that Todd sat in on a state budget veto meeting (emphasis mine):
On Friday's Situation Room, CNN's Jack Cafferty asked, "Is Sarah Palin's 15 minutes of fame over?" As you can see, Jack seems very anxious for Palin to become a has been of little consequence in this election:
Funny how a stock market crash, the failure of a few big investment banks will distract Americans from the flavor of the day. There doesn't seem to be the burning interest in who makes Sarah Palin's glasses that there was a few days ago. Former White House advisor and Republican strategist Karl Rove told the Associated Press this week that the Palin phenomenon will fade between now and the election, and that may be already happening [transcript continues below the fold].
Jonathan! Oh Jonathan! Paging Jonathan Chait! To paraphrase a certain wide stance senator, you've been a bad boy, a naughty boy. In fact, you're probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy. You see, you've written a long smear of Sarah Palin in the New Republic where you are The senior editor and yet a certain name was missing in your attack. What was that name? Why, Joe Biden. And why is Chait so reluctant to so much as mention Biden nowadays except in passing? Simple. When it looked like Biden had not a chance in the world of ever being nominated for president, Chait felt free to write what he really thought of the verbose senator last year (emphasis mine):
They say love conquers all and that might just be the case with Susan Estrich. The normally liberal columnist seems to be absolutely smitten with Todd Palin. Her recent column sounds more like a love note to him than a political analysis:
First Dude. That's what they call him in Alaska. It's OK. Todd's Ok. Whatever. He smiles at Greta Van Susteren. Not a touch of noblesse. More like plan old politesse. I always laugh a little when I see people who are very much not ordinary Americans in any respect (pay, fame, education or overall wealth, for starters) try to speak for them. "This is what ordinary Americans want," says someone whose only contact with them may be while his face is getting powdered for TV.
You can almost hear "Love Is A Many Splendored Thing" playing in the background as Susan continues to verbally ogle Todd:
There may be only one truly regular guy, a guy regular enough that he doesn't begin to have the arrogance to believe he speaks for anyone other than himself, in this race. And therefore, of course, he does.
It was a beautiful sight to behold. The obviously pro-Obama Campbell Brown snarling throughout an interview at the heels of former Hillary Clinton fundraiser and now McCain supporter, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, for "daring" to switch sides. After several minutes of accusing de Rothschild of everything from being an elitist to acting as a traitor to the Democrats, Campbell Brown set herself up for the grand slam dunk by Ms Rothschild using the very words of the Lightworker to turn the tables on the CNN interviewer. First we see in the transcript how Campbell Brown begins with an elitism charge against de Rothschild (emphasis mine):
Get the scene. The McCain/Palin ticket wins in November and soon afterwards mobs of wild eyed bible-toting evangelicals will burn stacks of books in giant bonfires. Sound ridiculous? Well, that is exactly what Andrew Greeley is laughably claiming in his latest Chicago Sun-Times column ominously titled, "Next Chapter for radical right: Burn books." Years ago, Greeley sounded somewhat sane but lately he has gone off the deep end such as his claim in June that it is racist not to vote for Obama. Greeley's latest sanity-challenged screed presents a bleak future of crazed book-burning evangelicals taking over the country. Try not to laugh too hard as you read Greeley's rantings (emphasis mine):