It seems appropriate to take a look at what happened one year ago. Based on all previous trends in elections, McCain should have won in a landslide 310 to 228 electoral votes. Obviously, that is not happened and the question is why? From a distance of one year after the fact, the answer is now clear. Historically minorities and the under 30 age groups have a very poor record of turning out to vote assuming they are even registered to vote in the first place. It was clear that black voters were going to turn out in record numbers to vote for a black candidate. There was no reason to assume that Hispanics would do that or that young people would bother to vote. However they did do just that and that made a crucial difference in the battleground states. Thus the Democrat turnout (always heavily supported by minorities) reached record proportions.
Still that might have not made the difference in states like North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana if it were not for the Republicans turning out lower than normal. Likewise, many Republicans actually voted for Obama in the interests of proving that America's abysmal racial record was a thing of the past. In this they were disappointed because the matter of race is now more of an issue than it has been since the days of Martin Luther King. Finally a lot of Republicans stayed home because McCain was too liberal or too conservative depending upon the state the voter resided in.
At this point, this is all ancient history so why care? The question is whether the 2008 election was a total upheaval or merely a one time anomaly. The elections on Tuesday provide us with an answer to this crucial question. It was a one time anomaly since the partisan turnout on Tuesday returned to historical norms. The minorities and the young folks went back to not caring much any more about who wins elections. The result was not only Virginia voted Republican but even New Jersey did which it seldom does. This was caused by the independents switching from going 2 to 1 for Obama to going 2 to 1 for Republicans.
What does this mean for 2010? In Virginia, the Republicans carried 9 out of 11 congressional districts on Tuesday. Right now there are six Democrat congressman from Virginia and only five Republicans. Unless things change, there will be 9 Republican congressman and only 2 Democrats from Virginia after the 2010 election. It seems safe to predict that the Democrats will lose virtually all of the seats they gained in the 2006 and 2008 elections. If that happens, the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representatives. See Charles Krauthammer's article, Myth of '08, Demolished, coming to the same conclusion.
2008 and 2009 Elections Compared
South Park Obama - Chaaange, Chaaange
After 2 years of election campaign and already talk about 2012 I think it is sometimes necessary to take a break and have a good laugh.
I cracked up big time when I watched the South Park episode 1212 "About last night", because it shows so much about how phony politics and partisan ship really are. I usually don't like this show, but this one is pretty hilarious
You can watch the first part here (by far the best part)
For the rest you would have to go to http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/
The Economist's: foolish Endorsement of Barack Obama
If you are looking for great entertainment you need the editorial of the Economist titled "It's Time"
The subtitle is already pretty good:
"America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world."
Hey risk it, it's only going to be 8 years. You didn't like the last eight years, well replace them with something unknown. What a wise outlook on life.
"For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead."
Sounds very encouraging.
" ...the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was."
Not as much I can tell. Europe has a history of not liking the US - even under Clinton. The terrorists don't seem to be any better of than 8 years ago - we haven't had a terror attack on US soil for 7 years (but I guess this is not an achievement)
Then the writer tells us about McCain's shortcomings:
"Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?)."
It's funny because I see many of these as a plus. Being instinctive is not wrong per se, quick to judge can help in decisions of national security and age can be equaled as experience (if I remember Reagan correctly).
And it goes from there to:
"Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies."
So first I said: What's the beef? Well the experience and the record are obviously not important to the Economist.
"If only the real John McCain had been running"
The Econimist believes that McCain subscribes to Conservatism on social issues, he was right on the Georgia issue, wrong on the Economy and wrong on the Palin pick.
I think without Palin McCain would not where he is right now.
And what about this one:
"Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them."
Another reason to not vote for JohnMcCain, right?
But not the true entertaining part starts: I call it the magic wand of Barack Obama
"Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein;"
Great line. SNL could have not put any better.
"So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left."
So he doesn't have the qualities, but he is still better?
And the climax of the article:
"But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right."
like the old proverb: "He who campaigns the best, will be the best president."
Is this really from on of the leading economy magazines. I just can't believe it.
"He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."
To summarize the Economist's outlook on life in the US:
Hey America, risky speculation has cost you Billions of Dollars in the stock market, you just smashed your face a month ago, so let's go out and vote based on our speculation, because risk is what America is all about. Just close your eyes and hope the best!
Bravo Economist. a 5th grader couldn't have said it any better!
The Alien Patriot
The Wurzelbacher Effect
As appeared on Politics and Critical Thinking.
CT
To say the polls and the economy have been anything less than bipolar is an understatement. Fear and concern about the future are driving this election more than in anytime since the 70's, the reasons for all this trepidation is obvious though. What is not, is why the American population’s perception of Obama and McCain is so erratic? Obama’s lead continues to ebb and flow like the tide.
If you believe the lesser than reputable polling sources or the MSM, Obama has the election in the bag. However, what I don’t trust about their information is the margin of victory they are declaring. Here are some numbers from IBD and Rasmussen from the last eighteen days. I chose these two because of their reputation for accurate polling results, techniques, and continuity.
On Rasmussen, from the 17th-26th, Obama did not have much to worry about, IBD has a similar situation from the 17th-21st. Then, things started changing with people’s acuity of the election, what was it? On or around the 15th of this month was when we met Joe Wurzelbacher. The gentleman who, so unexpectedly but graciously, accepted the mission of confronting Obama on his policies. This encounter revealed Obama's true nature concerning; taxes, wealth, and redistribution.
The effect was not immediate as you can see by the polls. But Joe opened the door for the GOP to be able to hammer Obama with vids, ads, and even on some MSM outlets about his platform on taxation and wealth redistribution. This is the only factor I can see that has some legitimacy where the erosion of Obama's lead is concerned.
While the Ayers controversy is important with the Conservative base and purists, it has not been a concern to most Moderates and Independents. Thus, it has been a somewhat ineffective campaign tactic. However, Obama’s proven wealth redistribution philosophy is the common denominator between the above mentioned groups. You might even be able to include some Blue Dog Democrats in that number also.
There is also a fear that Obama and his Progressive cronies are going to increase government spending and raise taxes. This is a legitimate apprehension, with the bail out and the upcoming proposal of ANOTHER stimulus package, the question arises, “Who is going to pay for all of this?” The average American is not ignorant; they may not understand complex macroeconomic derivatives or know what the GCI (Global Competitiveness Index) is. But, they do know that raising taxes and raucous spending during a recession, or otherwise, is tantamount to economic suicide.
Rasmussen now has some interesting poll results out, it seems that the American voter is changing their mind about McCain v. Obama on taxes, “After several weeks of John McCain’s campaign attacks on Barack Obama’s tax plan and idea of “spreading the wealth around”, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds voters trust McCain more than Obama on taxes, 47% to 45%.”
There is also a slight shift in opinion concerning who they trust more on economic issues, “McCain also has gained ground as the candidate to trust on economic issues. Forty-eight percent (48%) now trust the Republican hopeful more than the Democrat while 47% hold the opposite view.”
This has to be the explanation of why the polls are shifting, further closing the gap between McCain and Obama. Keep in mind, these are national polls, they represent voters on a national level, not regional. Internal state polling still has McCain at a severe disadvantage in key areas. Though, as a rule of thumb, when national polls tend to shift, in time the state polls usually follow. The question is, does enough time remain for McCain to recover the ground needed to be victorious?
Either way, win or lose, I am giving Joe Wurzelbacher credit for shedding some light on this issue. We have been so lost in the torrent of economic flooding I think people have forgotten how much taxation and spending actually effects the economy. This is why I am calling this phenomena “The Wurzelbacher Effect.”
-CT
"Happy Hunting!"
Palin: Political Rogue or Opportunist?
CT
Slate's John Dickerson, just put out an excellent article, Palin's Campaign vs. McCain's. He raises an interesting question, “Has Sarah Palin "gone rogue"? The way I see it the answer is a definitive and resounding, yes! There is no arguing about, she is totally off message with John McCain as noted in the Slate article, she disagrees with him publicly on leaving Michigan, the marriage amendment, she thinks they should have slammed Obama on Wright, and on removing North Korea from the terror list. These are just the issues listed in Slate. I am sure there are more and they run deeper.
One reason could be because their political theories are almost bipolar; McCain is a Moderate while Palin is an ardent Conservative. There are bound to be huge philosophical differences concerning policies as well as campaign style. Also, Palin suffers from Alaskan Independence Syndrome, meaning she does what she thinks is right. The lady went after corrupt leaders in her own party and knocked them off one-by-one. What makes McCain and company think that they can keep her on the short leash for very long?
Another possibility is that she can read the writing on the wall. With the McCain campaign desperately trying to defibrillate itself back from the dead and not being very successful, the round up for the firing squad is starting to form. I guarantee her name is the first one on the list, as pointed out in the Politico. "These people are going to try and shred her after the campaign to divert blame from themselves," a McCain insider said. This attitude may have forced her into a corner, one in which she sees her own political future at stake. To maintain viability on the national scene she is attempting to go “rogue” and keep her support from the base solidified for future political operations.
Then there is likelihood of disillusionment on her part, by the way she was being “handled" by McCain aides throughout the campaign. "Her strategy was to be trustworthy and a team player during the convention and thereafter, but she felt completely mismanaged and mishandled and ill advised," the person said. "Recently, she's gone from relying on McCain advisers who were assigned to her to relying on her own instincts."
There is some anecdotal evidence supporting this claim, “Palin's "instincts," on display in recent days, have had her opening up to the media, including a round of interviews on talk radio, cable and broadcast outlets, as well as chats with her traveling press and local reporters.”
In the Slate article there was mention of a prospect that I might have bought about a month ago. But there is so much obvious fracturing in the McCain camp that I find it hard to believe. Here is the theory from Slate, “The only exception is when campaign strategists carefully orchestrate a schism—and we know when these moments are coming because everyone in the press is invited to watch.”
Dickerson, does argue against it though and I am inclined to agree with some of his appraisal. “But Palin's disagreements don't appear to be a part of a larger strategy. So, political insiders have started asking whether Palin is simply undisciplined or is intentionally ignoring the playbook. And if it's intentional, the question becomes: Is she putting her own political self-interest ahead of her running mate's?”
Finally, this explanation of why she went Weather Underground on the McCain camp is the most plausible. "She was completely mishandled in the beginning. No one took the time to look at what her personal strengths and weaknesses are and developed a plan that made sense based on who she is as a candidate," the aide said. "But the aide said that Palin's inexperience led her to her own mistakes: "How she was handled allowed her weaknesses to hang out in full display."This takes into account her political inexperience on the national scene as well as highlights the McCain advisers not doing their jobs properly.
-CT
The P.U.M.A. Factor
The results of the polls for President are all over the map. If the polls are supposed to be correct to a 95% degree of certainly give or take 2 or 3 percent, how can the polls be that much different for the same candidates when taken at the same time? The simple answer is that they should not be that far apart. If you take a look at the polls making up the average at www.realclearpolitics.com on October 23rd, you will see a range from Senator Obama being up over McCain from 1 to 14 percent. Now there is such a thing called an outlier poll. That is where that other 5% comes into play and statistics says that the result could be outside of that normal sampling error of 2 to 3 percent. So let’s say that happened with both the 1% and 14% results and throw those away. That still leaves a range of 2 to 11% and that is way outside the margin of error on both polls. How come?
Take a look at the polling results for the 2004 election. Here you do not see the wild differences between the various polling firms. In the same time period in October of 2004, the range was from a 1 to 6 point lead for Bush. That is a five point spread and within the margin of error. That is a big difference between the current 13 point spread that is way outside the margin of error. To have this kind of spread indicates that something unusual is happening that is causing problems with the adjustments polling companies have to make to get the sample of voters to properly represent all of the voters. No random sample of voters perfectly represents all voters and polling firms have to weight their results to force them into being representative of all voters.
I actually supply polling samples for a polling company and hence I know for a fact that the sample has to be 10 times greater than the actual number of households that will be successfully polled. It is not that only one household in ten will actually take the poll but what if they do not answer the phone? Then because of the weighting required, you may need more of a particular subgroup than for others. The group that has come up short could be because of gender, party affiliation, age, urban versus rural, etc. The percentages of these demographic groups are quite well known and the polling sample must reflect the correct percentage of these various groups. Still polling firms are used to having to make all of these various adjustments and even know how to adjust for differences between people who will take the poll and those who will not by comparing poll results to actual election results. That being the case, what is the explanation for this huge variation of polling results in this election?
The only answer that seems to fit is that suddenly in this election, these adjustments are being made quite differently by the various polling firms. If their weighting algorithms are not correct, this would skew the results. Still, major national polling firms have a lot of experience and they have learned how to fine tune these algorithms pretty well. What is far more likely is that the sample simply does not accurately represent the voters in the area being polled as a whole due to some new factor. Obviously, when the polling companies look at the results from other polling firms and they see results different from their own outside the margin of error; they know something is amiss just like I do. This has caused them to try and tweak their weighting algorithms during the election season. Departing from tried and true weighting algorithms is a risky thing to do, but what choice do they have?
The fact of the matter is that instead of properly correcting for this unknown factor, they have only made things worse. I know of nothing else that could cause such wildly different results. This problem in turn has resulted in totally different headlines about what is happening in this election. Some say that the race is tightening considerably and others saying that the gap is widening to the point of being a landslide. The Drudge Report for October 22nd showed both of these claims. If you believe the Zogby results, then we are heading for a blowout. If you believe the Associated Press result, we are headed for another squeaker election. Obviously, they both cannot be right so which one is correct? That is precisely why the folks at www.realclearpolitics.com prefer to average all the polls hoping that the various sampling errors will balance each other out.
If you look at the graph of the RCP averages, you will clearly see that Obama is slowly but surely pulling away. At first glance, it would appear the Zogby poll has it right and the Associated Press poll has it wrong. If you look at the previous Zogby poll taken two weeks earlier, you see Obama up by 5. You cannot blame Zogby for looking at this 7 point jump and predicting a landslide of Reagan proportions. Likewise Pew Research shows a jump from 7 to 14 points. Their weighting algorithms show a blowout in the making. The Associated Press poll shows a change from a 7 point lead to just 1 point. If the Associated Press was alone in showing this, we could say their weighting algorithm is just plain wrong, but they are not alone. The CNN poll shows a drop from 8 to 5 points. The Democracy Corps, a democratic polling firm, shows a drop from 9 to 4 points. Surely no one would accuse the polling firms doing the polls for these three outlets of being biased towards John McCain.
This makes even the RCP averages suspect because they are using all these contradictory results. If the tightening group is correct, then the averages are wrong to show a widening gap. The increasing gap in the RCP averages is caused by more polling firms using a weighting algorithm resulting in a widening gap than a narrowing one. The same thing is happening in the battleground states where the RCP averages show that McCain is in a world of hurt. He has to hold the red states and Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia are showing up as blue in the RCP electoral map and none of the blue states are even toss up states in this election. If that is true, there is no way McCain can possibly win in the Electoral College. But what if the firms using a narrowing gap weighting algorithm are correct? Then we have a whole new ballgame.
Meantime, back at the McCain camp, their strategy makes no sense. They have practically conceded Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico and are still pursuing some blue states. They are not overly worried about Ohio and Virginia either. Neither do they seem very worried about all of those toss up states. So what is going on here? Clearly, the McCain campaign thinks the narrowing algorithms are correct, but isn't that just wishful thinking? They pulled out of Michigan when the Democratic Rossman Group/MIRS poll had them down by only 5 points. Yet they persist in Pennsylvania when the RCP average has them down by 10.5 points. No one has them closer than 8 points right now and no one has had them closer than a tie in the last six months. They sent Palin to New Hampshire where they are behind from 8 to 13 points. Why would they do this? They cannot be that stupid unless they think they are on to something.
Remember that the McCain camp has their own polling firm and are running their own private polls. The only answer that makes sense is that the McCain folks are convinced that their own polling firm has figured out what factor is causing all those wildly differing results from the other polling firms. Whatever this factor is, it is something that the tried and true weighting algorithms are not handling properly. In a previous article, I speculated that it could be that the Bradley Factor is alive and well in this election. Since this is the first presidential election with a black candidate, the weighting algorithms are just not equipped to handle the race factor. The fact that the race card has been repeatedly played in this election could be causing the Bradley Factor to be much more prominent than it ordinarily would be.
Yet Gallup Polling claims that the Bradley Factor is a wash at best and could actually be adding an extra 3 points to Obama's total in a kind of reverse Bradley Effect. Looking at where the McCain folks are competing when they would seem to have no chance, they all have one thing in common. They were carried by Hillary Clinton and in some cases even after it was obvious that Obama had it locked up. McCain was bound to pick up some of Hillary's supporters anyway after the way Hillary was treated by the Obama campaign. These are the so-called PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) folks. Clearly the McCain folks think that there is a P.U.M.A. Factor in play which is a variation of the Bradley Factor. The results that Hillary got simply cannot be explained by race alone. It was the positions that she took that were different than Obama's that resonated with these voters. Because Obama has such an extremely liberal voting record, there were some issues where even Hillary agreed with McCain more than she did with Obama.
This effect was heightened by the selection of Sarah Palin which gave these folks an even better reason to vote for McCain and Palin. These supporters are primarily female and given the political differences between Sarah and Hillary, one would think that the PUMA people would be few and far between. What is missing in all of this is the males who voted for Hillary over Obama. They are far less inclined to be upset about how Hillary was treated. On the other hand, Sarah Palin is more their kind of woman than even Hillary is. They are blue collar Democrats who are into hunting and fishing just like Sarah is. They were not buying what Obama was offering then and they still feel the same way.
The key point here is that these people are actually Democrats who plan on voting for McCain. Because such people are being called racists for this by people like John Murtha of Pennsylvania, they are not telling the pollsters that they are planning to vote for McCain. Most of the pollsters are weighting their samples based on the usual voting splits between Democrats and Republicans. If the P.U.M.A. Factor is upsetting this voting pattern, the pollsters are giving too much weight to the Democrats in their samples. If the polling firm for the McCain campaign has figured out how to adjust for the P.U.M.A. Factor, then they are getting radically different results and that is especially so in some blue states that Hillary carried by wide margins. This same adjustment has caused them to realize which red states are not good bets any more and which blue states are up for grabs in spite of what other pollsters are showing.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the McCain folks are not alone in thinking that Pennsylvania is not a lost cause for McCain. This list includes Ed Rendell, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania. Todd Beeton at MyDD has an article making his very point. The difference is that while an Obama internal poll may show him only ahead by two points, it might be even closer if the McCain polling firm has correctly identified how to adjust their weighting algorithm for the P.U.M.A. Factor. The bottom line is that we haven't heard the fat lady (oops, pleasingly plump lady) sing yet. Perhaps Senator Obama is wee bit premature in planning his victory celebration and putting his transition team together.
Does McCain Really Need to be Funny?
Chris Wallace said to John McCain in an interview on FoxNews Sunday today something to the effect that people think that he is kind of "bottled up" during campaign events, even though he showed at the Al Smith event that he could be quite funny.
I didn't quite understand what Chris Wallace tried to achieve, but it seems that some people think that we are voting for Bozo the Clown on November 4th.
The Alien Patriot
The American Gestapo
The old saying is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. But the opposite is also true. If you see a duck, you expect it to behave like a duck in that it will waddle and quack like a duck does. If a gestapo should set up shop in America, we would recognize it by what gestapos do, namely shout down anyone who disagrees with their point of view. Of course, they could not get away with secret police methods right out in the open in America. They could not just kill such dissenters or throw them in jail without filing charges, at least not at first anyway. But they could get away with suppressing dissent through the time tested method of intimidation. They let everyone opposing the gestapo know what will happen to them if they refuse to agree by making an example of anyone who questions what the gestapo has decided is best for everyone.
If you ever had any doubt that we have a budding gestapo in our midst, the case of Joe Wurzelbacher, known popularly as Joe the Plumber, should have removed that doubt. So how is that Joe got squashed like a bug? Did he organize some protest movement? Did he attend a McCain-Palin rally? No, it turns out that Joe was minding his own business, playing football with his son in his own front yard. That was when he had the misfortune to be approached by Senator Obama, who while he is the one who has been chosen for us by our supposed masters, he has not been anointed quite yet. Poor Joe had the temerity to question the four year economic plan of Senator Obama. He wanted to know why Senator Obama planned to raise taxes on small business owners so that they would have no incentive to expand their businesses and hire more employees. Joe did not put it exactly that way, but that was the gist of the question.
That was when the "chosen one" made a slip of the tongue and explained that it would be better for everyone if the wealth was spread around more evenly. Joe may not have known that this is a socialist idea, but he knew a bad idea when he heard it and he said so. Other people, who heard this answer were quick to point out that this idea is just plain out and out socialism. Now socialism has a negative connotation in America if for no other reason than Communists invariably call their countries socialist republics. The most powerful of these countries, the USSR, as Russia was formerly called, crashed and burned because socialism is an inherently unworkable system. That is because there is no reward for incentive and hence growth is strangled. To adopt a policy of increasing taxes on business owners and investors when there is a recession in progress is a disaster. Since Senator Obama is also proposing to do away with free trade agreements under the guise of protecting American jobs, combining increased taxes with increased tariffs on imported goods is a sure fire way to turn a recession into a depression.
This sudden unmasking of the true motives of the "chosen one" was a disaster. Up to that point, all those who supported Senator McCain had been dismissed as a bunch of losers who were just plain stupid and racists to boot. The message had been sent loud and clear to all those disagreeing with the "chosen one" that they would be called racists because Senator Obama happens to have a skin color different from the majority of the people in America. It was hard to characterize a question on tax policy as racist so another time honored tactic was called for. The only solution was to discredit Joe and make him the object of derision so as to cover up the answer Senator Obama had inadvertently given. Thus the gestapo immediately began digging into Joe's background. What was desperately needed was all the dirt that they could find.
They were delighted when they found some. It turns out that Joe is behind on his taxes and that he could not really be a plumber because he is not licensed as one. Better yet was the possibility that he might be related to a relative of a disgraced banker from the savings and loan debacle, Charles H. Keating, Jr.. Best of all, John McCain, the leader of the opposition to the "chosen one", had been linked to that same banker. Now Joe has been thrown to the wolves and the American people have been shown what happens to anyone who dares question Senator Obama and refuses to rubber stamp his being officially anointed as our leader. The gestapo can now rest easy knowing that their "chosen one" is once again assured of becoming the leader.
Any argument that John McCain makes in favor of Joe and the question he asked is being ridiculed by pointing out what a fraud poor Joe is. Lost in all of this is that it is not a matter of who asked the question, but rather the answer that was important. If a felon just released from prison had asked the question, what difference would that make? It was the answer that gave away the deep dark secret. Of course, the point of all of this was to make the story all about the questioner so as to distract attention from the answer given. One only has to look at the blogs to see how well the gestapo's fellow travelers have implemented this strategy. It is now all about Joe, and no longer about socialism.
How is it that one of the guardians protecting our freedoms and democracy has been subverted and turned into a gestapo? That is a very good question. Once upon a time, the mainstream news media reported the news. Slowly they turned into an organ for propaganda instead of news. The people who actually own the media in America would be the very last people to allow their companies to be taken over by the government as the Communists have always done in their countries. Somehow they do not have a problem with hiring people who are perfectly willing to be propagandists for a politician clearly opposed to their owner's best interests. No doubt because these news media are owned by huge conglomerates, they only worry about profits and not about what their employees are up to. Now that the mainstream media has moved on to becoming the thought police and enforcers of lock step conformity to the leader chosen for us, one might think that alarm bells would be ringing in these huge conglomerates, but apparently not.
How has this come to pass? That is easily explained because the first American institutions that were subverted into becoming gestapos were the colleges and universities. In the now distant past, these institutions were bastions of free inquiry and forums for dissent as a necessary part of learning to think for one's self. They are now nothing but dispensers of political correctness and the administrators and professors are the ones who decide what is correct and what is not. You need a degree in journalism these days to get a job in the mainstream media. If you resist the brainwashing in journalism school, your grade point average goes into the toilet. A student wanting a well paying career in journalism soon learns to parrot the current group think according to their journalism professors. Since everyone in their class who dares question that thinking is ridiculed and dumped on, it is not too surprising that these so-called journalists soon become nothing but foot soldiers in the war against politically incorrect thinking. They become part of the movement to suppress all thought that does not measure up to what our self appointed elites consider to be the only possible truth.
The mainstream media behaves just like a gestapo would at the very beginning of when a country turns away from democracy. "By their fruits, ye shall know them." The mainstream media not only stifles dissent by labeling any protesters as racists, but also by viciously turning on those who dare disagree with them. Once this was limited to just the Sarah Palin's of this country. The media's defense is that these people are politicians so it is always open season on them. How then can they explain what they did to an ordinary American working person just like most of the rest of us? The message is loud and clear that you oppose the "chosen one" at great risk to yourself. It is equally clear that the mainstream media has turned into a gestapo in all but name.
That leaves the rest of us with only one remaining option. So far, the ballot is still secret so there is one last place where we can make our dissent known without fear of retribution. Of course Senator Obama is already supporting doing away with the secret ballot in elections to determine if workers will be represented by a union. That will allow union organizers to thoroughly intimidate the workers into joining the union or else. How soon will that be extended to all elections? How many of us are willing to exercise this last option before it is too late? It would appear that we are about to find out.
Obama's Politics of Fear
I always thought that inciting fear is the politics of Republicans.
At least that is what the left wing is always trying to put forward.
Obama said on June 21, 2008 (Obama spokesman: His dollar bill comment wasn’t about race):
"They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name."
But the last few weeks sound like the fear is the main ingredient in Obama's campaign.
They always talk about Bush's third term, but what does that actually mean. That we would have another 7 years without a terrorist act on US soil? That American troops will be again able to bring democracy to this world?
Of course not? You should be afraid of Bush - he went into Iraq because he likes war, he ruined our economy and whatever he touches turns bad.
Supposedly he is the worst president ever - and McCain will be even worse.
At least according to Obama's campaign.
But why are they doing it? Why don't they just spread hope and change?
Because Obama knows that he can only win, if people fear McCain more than him. People are suspicious of him, his record, inexperience and first and foremost his associations. So because people have some fear about him, he has to make people even more scared of his opponent.
The more we will find out about Obama's past, his associations and ideologies, the more he will have to play the fear card. And with the MSM having no problem to bash Bush, McCain and Palin, he's got some great support.
So if you are not afraid of bigger government, socialist ideologies, inexperience, limits to your freedom and the end of a free market society, keep bashing Bush and vote for Obama.
The Alien Patriot
