Barack Obama Doesn't Love the United States

Yesterday and today has seen a flurry of political posts, not long after I said I have not posted a lot on the election. Well, that is the fickle nature of how my head works.

I have been thinking a lot about an Obama presidency and I while I am certain I will not like many, or probably all, of the Obama Administration policies (or for the matter a McCain Administration), I will say that there is one troubling aspect that truly bothers me about Obama. For the longest time, I really couldn't put my finger on it, until, unfortunately, last night and here it is:

I don't think Obama believes that the United States of America is the greatest nation ever on the Earth.

That is a big problem. I can honestly say, that every man who has been President in my lifetime and in the histories I have read of other Presidents, that each one of them, to a man, believed that this is the greatest country ever--full stop. There was no equivocation, no doubts--not even Bill Clinton. I truly believe that each of those men, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter even, really believed in the specialness (?) and uniqueness of the United States and her place in the world and world history.

I don't believe that about Obama. Call it the Reverend Wright influence or the pandering to the world population (See Berlin) or his general elitism, I just don't think or believe that Obama believes in the fact that the United States is the greatest nation ever.

That is what bothers me the most. I can forgive a President for espousing policies I consider abhorrent because I have trust in that President's belief that he was doing what he felt best for this nation. I can agree to disagree with a man who truly believes that what he is doing is right because he loves this country with all his heart and soul. But without that foundational belief that our new President believes fully in the greatness of our country, I am not sure I can forgive a President whose policies are, in my mind, wrong.

I hope I am wrong about Obama on this score, I really do. But am I?

Biden: “I never make any big, big gaffes”

OOOKKKAAAYYY!!!

The Ad McCain Should Have Run

Here. Thanks to Mary Katherine Ham

Jim Geraghty points out that Obama statements should come with an expiration date.

This was perfect fodder for McCain, yet I never saw anything like it.

If McCain Wins....

Some of my more conservative friends (that is more conservative than me) are worried that even if McCain wins, the GOP loses and America loses.

Let me be clear about one thing, I don't think Obama will be a good President. I firmly believe that he will be a flop in terms of protecting American interests abroad since he is more interested in American looking good in the eyes of the world than in being consistent in his positions. I believe that Obama's domestic, economic policies will mean it will take longer for the economy to rebound in full. I worry about individual freedom and collective freedoms, i.e freedom of speech and press.

But those are long term concerns.

If Obama wins, I worry about the somewhat uniquely american tradition of rioting in celebration.

If McCain wins, I worry about chuckleheads like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson getting on TV and crying about racisim and voter disenfranchisement, setting back race relations in this country even more. I worry about riots because Obama lost.

Exit Polling, Reliability and Predicting a Winner

As american head to the polls to pick a new president, a though occurred to me today regarding the reliability of exit polling in this race in particuar, particularly as it applies to Democrats.

The fundamental concept of exit polling is that it is reliable since pollsters are asking voters to answer the questions immediately after exiting the polling place, with the notion that a) people will remember what they just did and b) there is little concern now about the impression one makes with one's voting choices.

But is that really the case now.

Consider this scenario: Voter A, a registered Democrat with strong views in support of the military goes to the polls and crosses party lines to vote for McCain. Now this person is stopped by the exit poll taker. One of the first questions asked is the voter's party affiliation. Next comes the question of who they voted for. Does this voter say "Obama" or "McCain?" If they say McCain, do they worry about the line-crossing issue or the race issue?

See for the past three weeks, the constant drum beat we have heard among the media elite is about the "historic election" where a black man could become president. Also for the past couple of weeks, the tracking polls have shown Obama to hold a lead between 6 and 11 points depending on the poll you consult. My problem is that I think that 6-11 points is probably closer to 3-7 points because of this racial fuzziness. Contrary to what you may think, many people are still "race conscious" and will want to respond favorably to Obama, even if they have no intention of actually voting for Obama, even if their vote against Obama has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's ethnicity.

Which leads us back to the fundamental question. Exit polls have, to a certain extent been somewhat unreliable in the past couple of election cycles, whether through methodology or the over-reliance on exit polls by the mainstream media. So given the racial factor, will exit polling be even more unreliable this time around?

We shall see.

Update 11/4/08 10:29 AM: James Joyner makes a couple of really good points as well, without the conspiracy overtones my thoughts have:

Bill McInturff, McCain’s pollster and my wife’s employer, makes the same point and adds additional points:

1. Historically, exit polls have tended to overstate the Democratic vote.

2. The exit polls are likely to overstate the Obama vote because Obama voters are more likely to participate in the exit poll.

3. The exit polls have tended to skew most Democratic in years where there is high turnout and high vote interest like in 1992 and 2004.

4. It is not just the national exit poll that skews Democratic, but each of the state exit polls also suffers from the same Democratic leanings.

5. The results of the exit polls are also influenced by the demographics of the voters who conduct the exit polls.

So, the results will skew Democratic and give very wrong impressions. In 2000 and 2004, they incorrectly pointed to Democratic wins. In 2008, they will likely incorrectly point to an Obama landslide — or at least exaggerate the margin of victory in states that barely swing Democrat.

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations

Haven't seen an awful lot about this story. To a certain extent it is inside baseball, a process matter that for the most part only applies to political junkies, campaign finance guys and, right now, conservatives.

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

And of course, the Obama campaign is right. Obama's campaign finance lawyer is one of the best, Bob Bauer. He knows the law.

Under the law, if a campaign receives a contribution is thinks might be illegal or otherwise suspect, it is supposed to segregate it in a separate accounting, make a good faith determination if it is indeed illegal or suspect, and refund it if necessary or if they can't make a determination. The problem, of course, as noted in the article is that it is almost impossible to keep up with the flood of contributions coming in via the internet, and it is impossible to tell if the card being used is a prepaid gift card, debit card or standard credit card.

Therein lies the problem. With the flood of money, and the advances in technology, it is not really Obama's fault. Yes, they could take some security steps that apparently the McCain campaign has taken. But teh fact of the matter is, that the FEC regulations regarding fundraising are a creation of the the 1970's with an update to account for credit card contributions. But they were never designed to deal with the age of internet contributions. And when FEC reports, even on a monthly basis, are tens of thousands of lines long in teh electronic filing format (i.e. one contributions per line), it is impossible to check everything from the viewpoint of suspicion.

On a slightly different note, even my mother, no campaign junkie to say the least, was wondering where Obama is getting all this money and whether it was legal or not. So it is creeping out there in the dialogue and certainly making people wonder.

Obama Redistributionist Ideas

Would this video have made a difference if aired two weeks ago? Maybe.

Will it make a difference now? Maybe.

Here is the thing, most of Americans know the economy is in the toilet. Most Americans could use a little help and would probably take that help from the government if from no-one else.

However, I do believe that most Americans don't really subscribe to a total "Robin Hood-style, steal from the rich to give to the poor" mentality. I do believe that most Americans want to at least have the promise of a better time ahead and a certain segment of the population is willing to suffer the bad times for the short term in order to see better times in the long term.

But the larger issue is whether enough people will understand what this means and how it informs how Obama thinks and feels about the role of government in our lives.

Obama looks at the Constitution as a document of negative rights, i.e. it lists the things government can't do to you. Fine, in so far as it goes, but Obama says the document doesn't say what government may do for you. Well, that is also true, to a certain extent.

What Obama is forgetting is that the Constitution, and the state constitutions as well, were written from a viewpoint of limited government, i.e. these are not only the things government can't do to you, but this is the list of the things government is permitted to do.

What has happened through the mechanism of the spending power and the commerce clause, is that the federal government has taken what was supposed to be a very limited scope of power and expanded it to encompass just about anything it wants. How did that happen, oh, yeah, the Courts. Including, I might add, the Warren Court.

Interesting listening though.

Young Voters, Get Mad

Robert J. Samuelson: Young voters get mad!

You're being played for chumps. Barack Obama and John McCain want your votes, but they're ignoring your interests. You face a heavily mortgaged future. You'll pay Social Security and Medicare for aging baby boomers. The needed federal tax increase might total 50 percent over the next 25 years. Pension and health costs for state and local workers have doubtlessly been underestimated. There's the expense of decaying infrastructure -- roads, bridges, water pipes. All this will squeeze other crucial government services: education, defense, police.

The Obvious that Hasn't Been Mentioned Enough

From Instapundit: "I note two insider-Senators spending most of their time running against 'Washington.'"

And that is why this campaign sucks. Can I write Sarah Palin in as my candidate for President?

Use RICO on ACORN

Cries the DC Examiner:

It’s getting steadily more difficult to detect differences between an organized nationwide criminal conspiracy to commit voter fraud and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Thus far in the 2008 campaign, state election officials representing both major political parties in 15 states, including such key battlegrounds as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, have accused ACORN of various schemes involving widespread voter fraud. The pattern is so pervasive - and the danger to our electoral system so dire – that it demands federal intervention.

The Justice Department’s indictment in 2005 of the Milberg Weiss class-action securities law firm under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) did not involve charges of mob involvement. Ultimately, the firm plea bargained and several of its senior partners now reside in federal prisons. Likewise, ACORN’s repeated abuses don’t include mafia links, but the pattern matches the organized criminal conduct RICO was passed to combat.

Yeah, if Obama is elected it probably will get quashed even though it shouldn't.

Can McCain Exploit "Joe the Plumber" Mindset

Who knows, but the McCain camp is running out of time.

The Company Obama Keeps

Perhaps I am just too stuck on the whole Bill Ayers thing. But I just think it is important to note that Obama's association with a former(?) domestic terrorist is not just bad form, but indicative of a potential president who has little concern for the rule of law.

But, as I said, I am willing to give Bill Ayers the benefit of the doubt of reforming from his old violent ways. But I am not willing to give him a pass on his efforts to turn our public schools into dens of socialist/communist/anarchist learning:

But Ayers' distant past isn't the only reason to distrust him. He has a present, as well - and Obama is a part of it.

The two of them have worked hard to radicalize Chicago's public schools.

Ayers' work funding radical "education" groups in Chicago came just in the last 12 years. And he teamed up directly with Obama on that.

As The Wall Street Journal has reported, Ayers and Obama worked for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. "CAC translated Mr. Ayers' radicalism into practice," notes the Journal. "It required schools to affiliate with 'external partners' " for their funding.

"Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead, CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers," such as ACORN.

Ayers seemed to envision schools as "sites of resistance" and for teaching kids to oppose "oppression," with a focus on America's evil and racist past - and an eye toward "social transformation."

This is the swamp in which Obama operated: The Journal notes that Obama was chairman of the CAC board, which handled fiscal matters.

All told, Ayers and Obama won more than $150 million to ladle out.

McCain, to be sure, has never accused Obama of sharing Ayers' terrorist views.

He's merely questioned the Democrat's judgment in having worked with Ayers - and having launched his political career from the ex-terrorist's living room.

It's a fair point. (Emphasis added)

Yes, the highlighted section is a little squishy ("seemed to") but to be honest, it is not far off the mark.

Will Ayers be the Secretary of Education under Obama? Well, to be honest probably not since even the Democratic Senate under Harry Reid would have a pretty hard time choking down the nomination of a man with Ayers' past. But I wouldn't be too surprised to see an Ayers educational diciple in the role and it would seem that given the closeness of the relationship that Ayers would have a role in federal education policy.

I have pretty strong opinions about how public schools are operated, but while I have generally griped, groaned and belittled teh notion of turning our schools into social service centers, I will tell you this, if anything like Ayers' espouses becomes federal policy (which is enforced by the taking of Title I money) you can be assured that I will work three jobs if I have to in order to send my girls to a quality private school. I want my children to be educated, not indoctrinated.

Economists Opposed to Obama

TaxProf Blog has the link.

In general, Obama's plans will not bring us out of any financial mess we may actually face, in fact, my reasoned and basic economic opinion is that his tax and fiscal plans are likely to make the problem worse, not better.

Liberal Thugocracy

Michael Braone on the Obama truth squads:

Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

They said when George Bush was re-elected, we would see censorship of politically unfavorable views.

My, my, there were right.

McCain: Obama Link to William Ayers Is Honesty Issue

Rightfully so. But Obama's pattern when attached to people like Ayers and Pastor Wright is to deny, deny, deny. It is not going to change and people need to expect that it won't change.

ACORN Getting Raided

Nevada state authorities raided the offices of ACORN, the Barack Obama loving, campaign dirty tricks operating, voter fraud allegation collecting organization, that has seen more than its share of attention for being fast and loose with campaign and ethics rules. The worst part about this raid in Nevada is teh sheer stupidity of it:

The secretary of state's office launched an investigation after noticing that names did not match addresses and that most members of the Dallas Cowboys appeared to be registering in Nevada to vote in November's general election.

"Some of these (forms) were facially fraudulent; we basically had the starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys," Secretary of State Ross Miller said. "Tony Romo is not registered to vote in Nevada. Anyone trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot."

Agents with the secretary of state and state attorney general offices served a search warrant on the headquarters of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, at 953 E. Sahara Ave. shortly after 9 a.m. They seized voter registration forms and computer databases to determine how many fake forms were submitted and identify employees who were responsible.

They also sought information regarding current and past employees and managers.

Meanwhile, the Kansas City, Missouri branch of ACORN is also suspected for submitting possibly hundreds of fake registrations:

Charlene Davis, co-director of the election board in Jackson County, where Kansas City is, said the fraudulent registration forms came from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. She said they were bogging down work Wednesday, the final day Missourians could register to vote.

"I don't even know the entire scope of it because registrations are coming in so heavy," Davis said. "We have identified about 100 duplicates, and probably 280 addresses that don't exist, people who have driver's license numbers that won't verify or Social Security numbers that won't verify. Some have no address at all."

The nonpartisan group works to recruit low-income voters, who tend to lean Democratic. Most polls show Republican presidential candidate John McCain with an edge in bellwether Missouri, but Democrat Barack Obama continues to put up a strong fight.

Jess Ordower, Midwest director of ACORN, said his group hasn't done any registrations in Kansas City since late August. He said he was told three weeks ago by election officials that there were only about 135 questionable cards — 85 of them duplicates.

so let's see, the elections board in Kansas City gets innundated with registrations in the last couple of days before the registration deadline; ACRON claims it hasn't done any registration activities in Kansas City since August and a high number of registrations don't appear to be legitimate.

Given ACORN's track record, I wonder what the date is on those registrations?

This story about ACORN's tactics in Ohio is worth noting as well:

Two Ohio voters, including Domino's pizza worker Christopher Barkley , claimed yesterday that they were hounded by the community-activist group ACORN to register to vote several times, even though they made it clear they'd already signed up.

Barkley estimated he'd registered to vote "10 to 15" times after canvassers for ACORN, whose political wing has endorsed Barack Obama, relentlessly pursued him and others.

Claims such as his have sparked election officials to probe ACORN.

"I kept getting approached by folks who asked me to register," Barkley said. "They'd ask me if I was registered. I'd say yes, and they'd ask me to do it [register] again.


"Some of them were getting paid to collect names. That was their sob story, and I bought it," he said.

Barkley is one of at least three people who have been subpoenaed by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections as part of a wider inquiry into possible voter fraud by ACORN. The group seeks to register low-income voters, who skew overwhelmingly Democratic.

All stories via Drudge.

Update: Wall Street Journal has a story on ACORN in New Mexico being investigated by teh FBI for voter fraud in Albuquerque.

NBC Goes Over the Line

I love good political satire and the whole Tina Fey as Sarah Palin bit was hilarious. But last week's bit about Todd Palin and incest was neither funny nor appropriate.

I don't watch Saturday Night Live a lot, and I probably won't be for a while.

Charlie Cook: Are We Due For Another Momentum Shift?

It certainly looks that way, doesn't it?

Palin's Email Account Hacked

Michelle Malkin has the details on the hacking of Sarah Palin's personal email account.

Look, her Alaska Government account is fair game, but her private email account is just that, private. Hacking it is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison and a pretty hefty fine.

Publication of private photos and the private email accounts of her family members is invasion of privacy. Sarah Palin is a public figure. Todd Palin could be described as a public figure (but I haven't seen him make any public appearances since the convention) and certainly the minor children of Sarah and Todd Palin are entitled to their privacy (despite what people may think otherwise).

That hackers did their crime is one thing, that people at Gawker Media think it is then fair game for the media cesspool is another. Sure, right now we don't know if Gawker did the hacking (and I, unlike Gawker, am willing to give them the benefit of hte doubt), but they knowingly published information gather in an illegal manner and there should be consequences.

Sarah Palin and Feminism

Seriously, go read this essay by Harvard's Harvey Mansfield.

Sarah Palin was appealing and accomplished, with the force of a man and the grace of a woman. But while reaching another, higher first for women, she expressed no gratitude to the women's movement. She has had good words for women politicians like Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton, but she showed none of the features that betray the feminist in action. On the contrary: She spoke proudly of "my guy," grateful to the man who was hers--implying that she needed him, and that any woman needs a guy of her own. She introduced her children, especially little Trig, the one with Down's syndrome. She was displaying a mother's unconditional love, as opposed to the conditional love that insists on a "wanted" child. She did these things unapologetically, quite unafraid of seeming to be a normal, healthy sexist female: one who knows what it is to be a woman and enjoys it.

All Sarah Palin did was to claim her equal opportunity to a job once held exclusively by men. This sort of equality--the opportunity to take on public careers outside the home--is something liberals and conservatives agree on. That conservatives accept it is proven by the rapturous reception she received from Republicans, who greeted her as a political savior.

This she may or may not be, but she seems to have had the effect of enthusing the base, in part because of her sex.

Now, why could the women's movement not have taken advantage of this bipartisan agreement from the beginning? What impelled it to adopt a radical feminism hostile to both liberals and conservatives? Was this feminism necessary to attack male domination and to stir up the status quo?

An obvious difference between the women's movement and the civil rights movement is the ease with which the former triumphed. Of course there was male chauvinism at the start, but it was complacent, passive and ineffective. No man could look a woman in the eye and say "you are not equal to me" once the issue was put. There was nothing like the "massive resistance" to racial desegregation in the South; instead, there was a massive movement of women into jobs and careers.

Here is the interesting thing, while Palin may have benefited from the women's movement of the 50's and 60's I see her rise as simply the latest step in a society in which women are both the social and political equals of men. No Palin does not thank the women's movement, but she is a result of their efforts, their bipartisan efforts, rather than a result of the radical brand of feminism we as a society think of when we hear the term "feminist."

Sarah Palin is a woman, of that there is no doubt. She is a smart, successful, attractive woman. Thirty years ago that was an acceptable description of someone who most likely would never have risen to the heights Palin now has achieved.

Feminists want very much to be considered the equal of men in all things (as if there were possible). But the radical feminist movement has corrupted that notion. The women's movement of the 50's and 60's would have embraced the success of Sarah Palin--a woman who had succeeded on her own terms, in her own way, indeed in a manner that suggests feminity while at the same time displaying a strenght that is to be admired, not pilloried.

But Radical Feminism is more about rejecting the femine in favor of something more masculine. Radical feminism reminds of the seen in Working Girl, where at a bar, Harrison Ford's charachter remarks to Melanie Girffiths's femme appearence, "you are the first woman I have seen at these things that actually dresses like a woman rather than like a woman things a man would dress if he were a woman" or something to that effect.

Feminist success has been built upon the notion that women can do anything a man can do, a notion which is not only ludicrous for its biological impossibility (right now a woman cannot get another woman pregnant, for example) but also for the ludirous belief that there are no differences between men and women (and what a boring world that would be).

Yes, in terms of intellectual and business pursuits there are no differences. Any dolt who thinks so is a relic of the past. However, just because a woman deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of employers or the law does not mean that there are not differences between the two sexes.

Interestingly, radical feminism is premised on the notion as well, that a woman can be as tough as a man, a truism in every sense of the word and probably more so. But oddly enough, when Sarah Palin acts tough and feminine, that is somehow an affront to feminism.

So far in our history only two women have been nominated to be Vice President. Democrat Geraldine Ferraro and Republican Sarah Palin. Ferraro had the misfortune to be paired with Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan, a match up doomed to failure for the Democrats. Now in a open seat, the woman with the possibility of being the first woman elected to the executive branch is a woman who is every bit the result of the women's movement, but not the heir to feminism.