Forget Taxmaggedon: here's the tax hike exemption card you were promised by Barack Obama!

The Washington Post calls the panoply of 2013 Obama tax hikes "Taxmageddon":

If you thought paying your taxes was painful this year, get ready for more heartache next year, when taxpayers could be on the hook for almost $500 billion in higher taxes... That's the size of "Taxmageddon."

Taxmageddon is the tax hike set to slam the economy and taxpayers on Jan. 1, 2013. It's made up of seven different categories of tax cuts set to expire, and six tax hikes from the health-care law set to kick in, as soon as the ball drops on New Year's Eve.

Fortunately, you and I are exempt from the Obama tax hikes thanks to his 2008 campaign promise!

A couple of years ago, Americans for Tax Reform offered to ship taxpayers their own, valuable tax hike exemption card for a nominal contribution. Here's the way it worked:

If you make under $250,000 a year and find yourself confronted with any of the taxes highlighted on the Heritage Foundation website or the ATR site ("Tax on Indoor Tanning Services," "Medicine Cabinet Tax," "Special Needs Kids Tax," etc.) simply follow these instructions:

How to use the card:

Step 1: Present the card to merchants, employers, and tax authorities like the IRS.

Step 2: If challenged, pleasantly ask: "How dare you, sir? Are you calling President Obama a liar?"

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

--Candidate Barack Obama, Sept. 12, 2008

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”

--President Barack Obama, Feb. 24, 2009

“The statement didn’t come with caveats.”

--Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, April 15, 2009, when asked if the pledge applies to healthcare

Which should be extremely helpful when the Bush tax cuts expire*.


Hat tip: Amalaur.

* Thanks in part to the ludicrous John McCain -- of McCain-Feingold, Amnesty for Illegals, the Gang of 14, and numerous other affronts to the Constitution.

Super: Speaker Boehner Wants to Nominate Another Maverick

As if you needed more proof that we need a new House Speaker, the barely coherent John Boehner has endorsed the John McCain-like RINOs Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie.

House Speaker John Boehner didn’t watch last week’s Republican presidential debate, but he knows whom he wants to see in the next one: Govs. Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels...

...without prompting, Boehner brought up the Indiana governor, who has been slightly warmer to a candidacy than Christie. “I think Mitch Daniels is looking at this seriously … [a] person with a track record of reform in his state, the kind of reforms we need in Washington, D.C.”

I can't stress this enough: we don't need a proxy for the pathetic Dick Lugar (Mitch Daniels), nor a pro-global warming, pro-amnesty "maverick" (Chris Christie).

We need high fidelity to our highest law. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty are the only candidates I see that qualify as constitutional conservatives (Marco Rubio and Allen West would definitely make the list if they ever throw their hats in the ring).

We have the right playbook. It's called the Constitution. Now we need a leader who embraces it -- 100% of the time. Mavericks need not apply.

Oh, and before I forget: we need a new Speaker of the House. Perhaps Allen West would consider that job.


Hat tip: TrendingRight.

Mike Castle is a staunch supporter of 'the right to choose'; should help him cope with having his political career aborted by Christine O'Donnell

Mike Castle vs. Christine O'Donnell: Who Gets the Coveted 'Doug McLovin Ross Endorsement'?

I really don't give a crap what the beltway insiders and the faux conservatives think. I'll use a simple analogy.

Imagine you're putting together a football team. You've got an experienced, veteran receiver who, no matter what you do, runs the wrong pattern 50% of the time. It's hard to have a cohesive team with that kind of person playing a key role.

Mike Castle is just that sort of rogue player. He's wearing the wrong uniform. If he wants to help out the other team, he should put on the other jersey. And the Senate is too small a group, each member is too important, to gave a seat to another unprincipled, lifetime political hack.

Castle voted for Cap-and-Trade, the Orwellian DISCLOSE Act, he won't promise to repeal or de-fund ObamaCare, he voted against the CLEAR Act to end the Obama offshore drilling ban, against the Bush Surge strategy, voted for the ludicrous SCHIP bill, and for TARP.

Castle obviously doesn't believe in the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment and likely a whole swath of other conservative principles.

O'Donnell is a normal American. So she had some financial problems. That puts her in the same boat as most folks. Castle has served in Congress been on the public dole since nine-teen-freaking-sixty-six. In the process, somehow, he's amassed great wealth -- and no one's asking how he earned that money.

Regular readers know I've been trying to raise money for Ms. O'Donnell for weeks. Join Sarah Palin and other principled conservatives: click here to send her a couple of bucks.

Somewhere, John McCain just high-fived Russ Feingold: Democrats Move One Step Closer to Banning Certain Political Books

The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee just filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, arguing that marketing a book violates election law.

The "Young Guns" have a book. They also have a promotion tour and a video. Now, the Democrats could engage in a battle of ideas. But that’s not what they do. (are you surprised?)

...What is the mechanism? The publisher posts a  video by the authors about their book that contains a link to a website that takes political contributions. It is after all, a political manifesto.

...Democrats use the power of the federal government to attempt to prohibit the political speech and promotion of speech by their political enemies. That’s the kind of thing that lead to the American Revolution. Tea Parties make perfect sense in this context.

This sort of thing shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan (thanks, Goober Graham!) believes banning books and movies is a perfectly acceptable practice.

Elena Kagan argued on behalf of Citizens United essentially stating it would not be a violation of the First Amendment to have movies or even books banned. Of course, she only meant certain movies/books for specific times, but even so, I believe the point remains... all tyrants find a pretext for their tyranny.

The ill-named DISCLOSE Act was a similar effort. Its goal was to suppress free speech by conservatives, while leaving unions and other Democrat supporters unscathed.

The Disclose Act that House Democrats passed Thursday would "shred" the U.S. Constitution and represents a "blatant partisan maneuver to protect their incumbency," according to U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President R. Bruce Josten... Only two Republicans voted for the act: Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana and Rep. Michael Castle of Delaware...

...Groups opposing the measure span the political continuum, including the ACLU, the Sierra Club, PIRG (the federation of state public interest research groups), the chamber and many others... The chamber recently called the bill a "desperate attempt" by Democrats to grab a political advantage in the midterm elections.

The act requires companies and associations to submit a mountain of paperwork to the Federal Election Commission if they want to run an ad.

Of course, the progenitor of these unconstitutional efforts was John McCain. Partnering with a far left Social Democrat, Russ Feingold, McCain led the effort to pass The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

The bill is better known as McCain-Feingold or, as I like to call it, "The Incumbent Protection Act". It banned, among other things, political ads funded by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. In January of this year, the Supreme Court -- by a narrow 5-4 margin -- ruled large swaths of the law unconstitutional.

The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

But let's not forget that John McCain and the National Social Democrat Party helped open Pandora's Box to egregious violations of the First Amendment by Congress.

When the federal government can ban movies, when it can ban books, when it can tell you what you can and can't say, then we are no longer living in the Constitutional Republic our founders created.

Oh, and thanks, "Maverick".

Bank of America's Jeffrey Rosenberg: Smell the Change, As Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Will Kill 1.3% of America's Entire Economic Output

Prepare for the powerful thrusts of the Obama recovery.

As our economics team has highlighted, the policy implication of most pressing concern is the expiration of Bush tax cuts. They estimate an impact of 2% annualized reduction in household income worth about 1.3% of GDP, and that such an increase if not reversed could trigger a double-dip recession.

...The political shifts affect that outcome with one school of thought that a divided congress raises the odds of no legislation (and hence a default scenario of expiration). In the face of increasing evidence of a slowing economy, a compromise to avoid a fiscal tightening that could exacerbate the risks of a double dip likely rises, in our view. The question will be one of timing – can a compromise be reached ahead of the election (in our view, unlikely), in a lame duck session (again unlikely).

...In our view, that leaves a retroactive extension passed in January as the most likely compromise. But the damage to confidence in the intervening period may already be done under such a potential scenario. A further deceleration in the data may yet change that assessment, but in the intervening period, political uncertainty will not positively contribute to the economic outlook already diminished by a successive wave of negative data.

I can summarize this in one sentence: Democrats are economic illiterates.

By the way, you can also thank John McCain for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. 'Cause he's a 'maverick'.

Pure Karma: Steele calls it 'a war of Obama's choosing'

Boy Moto offers a different take on Michael Steele's controversial remarks on Afghanistan. And, indeed, it warrants analysis:

Some have overtly treated Michael Steele with hostility, with many frustrated conservatives expressing disagreement with some of his more controversial and tenuous remarks.

While he is far from perfect, removing him could be more destructive -- and rather pointless to boot.

However, give credit where credit is due. This is golden irony offered from Mr. Steele. He is absolutely on target with this offering, (even if I personally disagree with any conception, suggesting the U.S. cannot win 'again' in Afghanistan):

"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," he said. "But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by building a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?"

The other day, we watched an utterly dishonest Mr. Obama offering numerous lies on many subjects.

Perhaps his biggest fabrication is the subtle implication that his administration holds some responsibility for the finished job in Iraq. Of course, that is utter nonsense. It should not only be ridiculed -- but highlighted -- as another example of Obama's gargantuan dishonesty. We all know, had Obama succeeded in his Senatorial agenda, that we would have a humanitarian disaster on our hands in Iraq.

Few seem to note that the jihadists had their asses kicked in Iraq, and predictably have reformulated along the Pakistani-Afghan border in order to recover some semblance of order.

Mr. Steele, however, turns the tables quite nicely here. He could even have asked, what happened to the Obama Doctrine? The one that declares the U.S. should not "meddle" in the affairs of others?

The Democrats' cheap, dishonest and ugly rhetoric, designed solely to gain power, debased an admirable mission in Iraq (which they overwhelmingly voted for -- including Clinton and Biden). With an honest media, their turncoat mantra would have been laughable; certainly it was unserious. Obama personally advocated a sophomoric concept suggesting this Global War on Terrorism Man-Made Disasters need only occur in one place: Afghanistan. It is actually quite possible, Steele implies, that then-candidate Obama could have encouraged the radical Muslim militants to see Afghanistan at the front line, once again.

Of course, the McCain campaign never bothered to challenge the provinicial offering from candidate Obama. The Illinois Senator had advocated some sort of delusional isolationist folly in which freedom and Democracy meant nothing.

McCain could have turned the tables, as Mr. Steele did, with the simplistic challenge: "I am surprised Mr. Obama does not seem to care about the millions of formerly oppressed human beings in Iraq... the rape rooms, torture, millions of murders and utter depravity."

Remembering John McCain's 2008 Campaign Adviser -- Open Borders Pal Juan Hernandez, Erstwhile Revolutionary and Virulent Anti-Semite

John McCain was a terrible -- terrible -- candidate for president in 2008. He advocated cap-and-trade to deal with the non-existent warmal colding scam; he tried to shove amnesty for illegal immigrants down our throats; he tried to destroy freedom of speech with McCain-Feingold; he was one of the "Gang of 14" that let Democrats illegally filibuster conservative judicial nominees; and he couldn't articulate a coherent sentence during the campaign ("Heh, heh... my friends"). And he certainly doesn't understand the Constitution and the principles of our founding.

McCain acts tough on the border now that people are dying in Arizona and public outrage is building. He wants you to forget his past: like the fact that Juan Hernandez joined the McCain for President campaign late in 2007. Who is Juan Hernandez?

He is a former head of Mexico's Ministry for Mexicans Living in the United States. According to Michelle Malkin, who debated Hernandez on multiple occasions, Hernandez' mission is to tie repatriated Mexicans "emotionally, linguistically, politically to Mexico, because then they‘ll continue to send money home.”

In fact, Hernandez publicly stated that the area is "not two countries; it's just a region.”

Hernandez refers to the so-called region of "Aztlan", the mythical southwestern portion of the United States that Chicano revolutionaries claim as their own.

Aztlan: an attempt to overthrow the United States government

Universities in the Southwest facilitate student participation in groups like MEChA. MEChA is one of several groups that intend to "reclaim Aztlán" (the outlined portion of the United States):

...we are a Chicana and Chicano student movement directly linked to Aztlán. As Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán, we are a nationalist movement of Indigenous Gente that lay claim to the land that is ours by birthright. As a nationalist movement we seek to free our people from the exploitation of an oppressive society that occupies our land...

MEChA's mission is straightforward: overthrow the United States Government and establish a new form of government.

Hernandez: backed by Antisemites

An article from the Aztlan Communications Network (2002) blames Hernandez' prior problems on the "Zionists" ("Fox extends Mexican Government into Aztlan"):

The new cabinet level agency replaces the "Office for Mexicans Living Abroad" that was headed by Juan Hernandez of Dallas, Texas. Mr. Hernandez was born in Texas but he obtained dual citizenship in Mexico under a recent law passed by the Mexican Congress. Mr. Juan Hernandez was ousted by Zionist Foreign Minister Jorge Gutman after he stepped on the mercurial secretary's toes...

The "Revolutionary Council and Provisional Government of Aztlan" sent a copy of a communique to La Voz de Aztlan stating that it welcomes the Mexican government's initiative to help Mexican nationals here in Aztlan but that it vehemently rejects the Mexican government's new connections to Zionists and Zionism...

Juan Hernandez is a standard-issue, open-borders revolutionary who is intent on overthrowing the U.S. Government. Furthermore, by dint of his Aztlan connections, he is linked with virulent antisemitic forces.

He, for a time, was intimately involved with McCain's operatives during McCain's doomed presidential campaign. These are the same operatives working for the same candidate who wouldn't even mention Barack Obama's Marxist, anti-American preacher of 20 years during the campaign. Who wouldn't raise Obama's dozens of other radical connections, any one of which would have disqualified him from the office of the presidency in the eyes of most Americans.

To put it bluntly: McCain played patty-cake with Obama while acting like Donald Segretti against fellow Republicans. Let's not forget the bizarre positions of RINOs like McCain and fellow nutcase Lindsey 'Goober' Graham.

If you've had enough of mush-mouthed Republicans who can't read or, worse, simply don't understand the Constitution, I urge you to support J. D. Hayworth for the United States Senate.

Krumm's prediction

Bob Krumm has John McCain winning the the electoral college but losing the popular vote. If he's right, my Y2K bunker will come in handy.


Though the canned goods may be a little ripe.

Update: VoxDay comes up with a similar result.

Cover o' the day: One More Mission

The Boston Herald has the winner.

Via Jules Crittenden (hat tip: Larwyn), who has the back story.

If McCain springs the big upset, what are liberals to do?

If McCain springs the big upset, what are liberals to do? Click the image to watch what I call "The Baldwin Effect."

Update: Fat-fingered link is now repaired.

RED ALERT: Early voting shows polls off 18% in California!

RedState has the update:

California has begun early voting already as well as mail-in balloting. The number of people who have gone in to vote in person has been extensive. The results so far prove what we had always suspected. The polls are being proven as totally unreliable. Although the results of early balloting have not been disclosed,of course, how many Republicans and how many Democrats have voted has been revealed.

The results are simply shocking. The polls showed Barack Obama with an 18 point lead in California just a few days ago. The results thus far are the complete opposite. In the most liberal state in the entire country,the results are that 99,000 Republicans have voted and 96,000 Democrats voted. In the mail-in balloting the results so far are that 9,000 Democrats sent in their ballots and that 5,000 Republicans did so. So with nearly 210,000 people having voted, the Democrats have only a 1,000 vote advantage!

If we take the liberty of assuming that all Republicans will vote for John McCain and all Democrats will vote for Obama, then the race is incredibly close. I'm sure that Obama will eventually win in California, but if he is struggling here after he pushed so hard for early voting, then he will lose the election ! Everybody thought he would win California in a landslide, but so far anyway, it's very tight. That means that in the less liberal states he is in real trouble.

Ignore the pundits. Forget the polls. Get out there and vote for John McCain. The results in California show the wisdom of Yogi Berra who said, "It's not over until it's over."

In retrospect, perhaps this isn't as much of a story as it might first appear. If the last presidential exit polls were to be believed, President Windsurfer Von Kerry would just be wrapping up his first term.

Update: AJ Strata says that this is actually the "Third Early Voting Indicator National Polls May Be Way Off."

Linked by: American Digest. Thanks!

Tipster says the fix is in for tonight's debate

Tipster W provides a prediction for tonight's debate:

BOB SCHIEFFER TO SABOTAGE OBAMA AT HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

So Goes CBS's GOP support. Example: Dan Rather fired to promote the Bush administration, now, the set up is CBS's Bob Schieffer to sabotage Obama. Three of many CBS/Schieffer hits on Obama: (1)Listen for the repeated re-questioning of Obama regarding serious topics while light and airy questions are presented to McCain. (2)Watch Schieffer call speaking time on Obama while allowing McCain to 'talk on' at his leisure. (3) Schieffer will question Obama about 'terrorist association' McCain has accused him of, simultaneously, Schieffer will refuse to ask McCain about the many 'evil' & 'terrorist' associations McCain & Palin have amongst themselves, noted below.

THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS ANOTHER GOP LIE, IT'S SKILLFULLY PORTRAYED AS SUCH BUT REMAINS THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA AS OWNED BY RNC FRIENDLY CORPORATIONS. The Times reveals that Brokaw has "played a pivotal role out of public view, both within NBC and in its dealings with the campaign of John McCain. Browkaw had Olbermann and Matthews fired from NBC's coverage of the presidential debates and election night on behalf of the McCain Campaign.

* As a result of John's friendship with CBS & Bob Schieffer, there's some special knowledge of Debate topics as McCain, while on the Mark Readon Show, promises that moderator Bob Shieffer will bring up the Ayres & Wright associations. (Link)

* Guess Who The #1 National Debate Sponsor is: Anheuser-Busch Companies (BUDWEISER)~Isn't there a strong association/connection here, to Cindy McCain?
(Link)

The fix is in for a GOP candidate?

I'll believe it when I see it.

Guest Post: A Clear Choice -- Words or Deeds?

Papa B submitted this one for your consideration.

A Clear Choice: Words or Deeds?

The voters in this presidential election will have a clear choice between two individuals: one who is practiced and skilled in words and another whose deeds define him.

The infatuation with Senator Obama emanates from his words, his speeches and his charisma... and not his deeds. His deeds are indeed unremarkable and his followers are inclined to ignore his judgments, long term associations with anti-American organizations and people; his decisions to vote “present”; and to initiate so little legislation especially considering his capabilities. He has consistently followed his party mantra and not sought consensus as has Senator McCain.

John McCain certainly does not have the speaking presence that Senator Obama has. However, while his words may lack theatre, his deeds reflect courage and character. When faced with crisis or danger, he moved toward it whereas Senator Obama consistently avoided it. Continued choices to avoid confrontation or crisis are a reflection of ones character.

All of us have failings. All of us take missteps, or misspeak. That makes us human. When one errs or makes a poor judgment, it is an incident and we have the opportunity to make amends, apologize and at the very least learn from our error. When we continue the same pattern of “incidental errors”, this pattern becomes a “condition”. An association with one individual of poor character is an incident and we have all done it. Continued associations with individuals of questionable character are a “condition” and reflect flaws in judgment or conscious choices either for gain or comfort.

“Past performance is a predictor of future performance.” Most managers know that when hiring a new employee or reviewing a current employee, that past behavior issues will usually recur. Individuals can change but behavior modification is not a high-probability occurrence.

We are being asked to vote for someone and ignore his past conduct in exchange for his charismatic speech and rhetoric. The alternative is to vote for someone whose persona reflects only courage and character. Churchill said “A politician thinks about the next elections – the statesman thinks about the next generations.” Senator Obama has truly managed an outstanding campaign. But, is this a test of a true statesman? When you make your decision, listen carefully to the words but make your judgment on their deeds.

What McCain needs to do right now

Introducing Secretary of the Treasury:

Governor Mitt Romney, proven turnaround specialist.

Get to steppin' John. Name him.


Then contrast him with Obama's economic advisers: Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, the crack Fannie Mae management team that left in a cloud of accounting scandals, subprime rot and undeserved bonuses.

Update: Linked by Vanity Fair's James ("Extra Lipitor with those Nachos") Wolcott -- renowned "misogynist and antisemite" who calls the idea "desperate and dumbass." Though not nearly as desperate and dumbass as naming disgraced Fannie Mae executives your economic advisers.

Update II: Wolcott's apologists are still hysterically claiming that Franklin Raines never advised Obama. For the 162nd time:

• The Washington Post, 7/16/08: “In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae’s chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case’s D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”
• The Washington Post, 8/28/08: “In the current crisis, their biggest backers have been Democrats such as Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (Mass.). Two members of Mr. Obama’s political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae.“

Remember: these weren't lobbyists, they were running the show at Fannie Mae.

* * *
Of course, real Obama backers may need to report this post to the Missouri Truth Squad.


I've got some board games to play while I wait for the authorities to show up.

Linked by: American Digest. Thanks!

The Atlantic hires Leni Riefenstahl for a Photo Shoot

I thought Leni passed away a few years ago but I was apparently mistaken 'cuz it appears the Atlantic hired her for a McCain photo shoot.

To say Ms. Greenberg's use of this material in this way is "unprofessional" and does the subject (John McCain) and the client (The Atlantic Monthly) a disservice is to vastly understate the case. Not only has Ms. Greenberg exposed The Atlantic to charges of bias it may well have not intended, it turns out she was engaged in dealing with Senator McCain falsely as well. She has, indeed, bragged about it to PDNPulse, a professional photographers' journal. Here, in her own words, are what she did:

When The Atlantic called Jill Greenberg, a committed Democrat, to shoot a portrait of John McCain for its October cover, she rubbed her hands with glee.....

After getting that shot, Greenberg asked McCain to “please come over here” for one more set-up before the 15-minute shoot was over. There, she had a beauty dish with a modeling light set up. “That’s what he thought he was being lit by,” Greenberg says. “But that wasn’t firing.”

What was firing was a strobe positioned below him, which cast the horror movie shadows across his face and on the wall right behind him. “He had no idea he was being lit from below,” Greenberg says. And his handlers didn’t seem to notice it either. “I guess they’re not very sophisticated,” she adds - PDNPulse: How Jill Greenberg Really Feels About John McCain

So what we see here is a candidate for President showing up at a photo-session for a cover shot for a magazine he knows is not going to give him an Obama-pass, but still making time for it. Waiting for him is the contracted representative of that magazine, Jill Greenberg, who has literally set a trap for him and then lures him into it. She mocks the McCain staff for not being "very sophisticated" about lighting when, in truth, the lighting used for a professional photo session is very complicated. There are umbrella lights, fill spots, and a raft of others being used at any given time.

I imagine that Ms. Greenberg was in full charm mode with Senator McCain at the same time she was executing her little partisan plot. Indeed, I am certain she was nothing other than sweetness and light to him. What she was doing was quite another thing, a vile thing. Simply put, it was betrayal for a cheap political frisson for her.

That's an understatement.


The Atlantic also discovered this controversial photo of John McCain taken during the Vietnam War
Vanderleun concludes with sound counsel: You see, I no longer write to editors about these frauds and outrages, I write to the advertisers. You should too.

Advertisers include: Philip Morris, P&G, Kraft Foods, Target, Microsoft, RCA, Epson, Polaroid, Dow Jones, Paramount Pictures, MGM, Sony Pictures, HBO, Showtime, Disney, Miller Beer, Anheuser Busch, Pepsi, Coca Cola, and others.

Update: Ace and Newsbusters have more on our modern-day Leni Riefenstahl.

Update II: Like Vanderleun, I did some screen-caps on Leni's website (no link provided, you can type in the URL urlself). Remember, this is what passes for reasonable commentary in the "progressive" community.




Always keep this in mind: they're liberals because they care.

Hat tip: Larwyn.

Line o' the day: Podhoretz suggests a McCain retort on change

Via Powerline, John Podhoretz suggests a response to Sen. Obama's question where have you been for 26 years?:

Here’s where I have been. I changed campaign-finance law. I changed telecommunications law. I took on the tobacco companies when other Republicans wouldn’t. I took on the cable companies when they wouldn’t let people choose what channels they might want to watch. I saw a standoff in the Senate on confirming judges and I changed a standoff into a bipartisan agreement. I took on the earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere and the breaks for oil companies you, Obama, voted for in 2005. And I helped change the war in Iraq from a defeat into what appears to be a victory. Where have you been for 26 years?

Errr... community organizing?

McCain collateral, version 2.0

Via: McCain Store.

The threat represented by Gov. Palin: actual change in Washington

The Senate, October 20, 2005

Powerful senators gather on the floor including Ted Stevens, Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), Delaware Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).

Tom Coburn adds a Senate Appropriations amendment that would remove funds for Stevens' $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere." Coburn wants to send the money to New Orleans, in order to rebuild the Interstate 10 bridge, which was badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

An angry Stevens threatens to resign if he doesn't get his way.

Senator John McCain, an opponent of Stevens and the Bridge to Nowhere, is not in the Senate the day Coburn raises his amendment. But McCain is on record as opposing the construction of the Alaskan bridge. McCain wants to help the victims of Katrina by rebuilding the I-10 bridge.

And his relationship with Stevens on the subject of earmarks has also been fiery.

Most of the Senate is intimidated by the power of Stevens, who is the Appropriations Chairman, and the body votes 82-15 to proceed with Stevens' $223 earmark.

Senators Obama and Biden both vote with Stevens -- both vote for the Bridge to Nowhere.

* * *
Alaska, 2006

Stevens ally, former Senate colleague and current Republican Governor Frank Murkowski is challenged in his re-election bid by a young Alaska mother, former mayor of a small town and ex-chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

That mother, Sarah Palin, had resigned as chair over a "lack of ethics" by another commission member and state GOP chairman. She filed formal complaints against both the GOP chair and the state's attorney general. Both men are forced to resign.

Disgusted over the endemic corruption, Palin challenges Stevens' friend Murkowski and wins the governorship.

* * *
Consider these two stories.

And then ask yourself: Who represents change? Who represents a high standard of ethics and cleaning up government? And who represents the status quo?

Based upon: The Palin Threat: Real Change, by Jeffrey Lord. Via: Jerry.

Here's a real "Change we can believe in" poster

Click on it to zoom.


Idea first seen at: Gateway Pundit and Jawa Report.

Yes, let's compare the record of Obama with that of Palin!

Who is the real reformer? Who brings real change? Review their respective careers and you quickly arrive at a single irrefutable answer.

In 2003, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski appointed her to the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Bear in mind that Mr. Murkowski had already served as junior U.S. Senator from Alaska for 22 years. Mr. Murkowski was junior senator for so long because Senator Ted Stevens (who was recently indicted for corruption) had lifetime tenure in the senior post.

Shortly [thereafter], Mrs. Palin commenced an ethics probe of the state's Republican party chairman, Randy Ruedrich, involving conflicts of interest with oil companies. The probe resulted in a $12,000 fine for the party chair.

She crossed party lines in 2004 to join a Democratic representative's ethics complaint over an international trade deal against the Republican Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who had ties to the Murkowski machine. Mr. Renkes resigned.

In late 2005, Mrs. Palin announced her run for Governor before then-Governor Murkowski had announced his intention to stand for re-election. In a three-way primary, Mrs. Palin got 51% to Mr. Murkowski's 19%. At the center of this campaign was a debate over competing proposals to build a natural gas pipeline across Alaska.

These columns wrote about Gov. Murkowski's smashing defeat by Mrs. Palin, noting that his pipeline proposal had been tainted by reports of sweetheart deals with energy companies. The editorial ended: "If Republicans are run out of Congress in November, one big reason will be that, like Mr. Murkowski, they have become far more comfortable running the government than reforming it." That is what happened, as disgusted GOP voters turned away from their own party and ceded control of Congress to the Democrats.

Against the odds, Mrs. Palin won that 2006 election against the state's former Democratic governor Tony Knowles. Most recently, she promoted the effort of her GOP lieutenant governor to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young, who with Senator Stevens created the earmark that sank the GOP, the notorious "bridge to nowhere."

Experience?

...Governor Palin's credentials as an agent of reform exceed Barack Obama's. Mr. Obama rose through the Chicago Democratic machine without a peep of push-back. Alaska's politics are deeply inbred and backed by energy-industry money. Mr. Obama slid past the kind of forces that Mrs. Palin took head on. This is one reason her selection -- despite its campaign risks -- seems to have been so well received by Republicans yesterday. They are looking for a new generation of leaders.

Looking for a "tale of the tape"? Red State lines 'em up for easy comparison purposes.

Update: Not Ready '08 has the must-see video board.