Archive for November 2nd, 2008

November 2, 2008

Grim forecast for Tuesday

Allahpundit breaks down the electoral battlegrounds and observes:

If McCain wins Indiana and Virginia, he survives and advances to the next round against Ohio and North Carolina. If he wins both of those, he moves on to the eastern regional championship in Pennsylvania and Florida. And if he wins both of those, he heads west for the Final Six [CO, NM, AZ, ND, NV, MT].

This is part of why I said it was over when Team Maverick pulled the plug in Michigan. With the Kwame Kilpatrick scandal in Detroit and an unpopular Democratic governor, there were “secular” reasons why Michigan could have been in play for the Republican. This was especially true in terms of Palin’s “drill, baby, drill” energy push — high gas prices have killed the U.S. auto industry’s SUV/truck sales.

Once McCain pulled out of that “blue” battleground, it freed up Obama’s campaign to pour resources into other states. People who don’t live in the battleground states simply don’t realize how Team Obama has buried McCain in TV ads. Here are the totals for Oct. 21-28 with ratios for each state:

VIRGINIA (3.8 to 1)
Obama $2,450,000, McCain $637,000

INDIANA (3.7 to 1)
Obama $1,248,000, McCain $336,000

COLORADO (3.6 to 1)
Obama $858,000, McCain $237,000

FLORIDA (3.3 t0 1)
Obama $4,615,000, McCain $1,441,000

OHIO (2.6 to 1)
Obama $1,984,000, McCain $753,000

MISSOURI (2.5 to 1)
Obama $1,105,000, McCain $437,000

NEVADA (2.4 to 1)
Obama $850,000, McCain $357,000

Obama $1,094,000, McCain $537,000

Obama $2,742,000, McCain $1,388,000

Ask anybody in politics what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a 2-to-1 ad ratio. You’re getting busted in the balls every day. And 3-to-1? Fuggedaboutit. Even if McCain could match Obama dollar-for-dollar in Colorado, it would have been a nail-biter, but when he’s getting buried 3.6-to-1 on TV ads? There is zero hope McCain will win there. Zero. And once you put Colorado in the Democratic column (along with Iowa), the Electoral College math just doesn’t work for the Republican. You can sit and conjure up hypothetical miracle scenarios, but without Colorado, you can’t realistically figure how McCain gets to 270.

November 2, 2008

Obama attacks Pennsylvania!

If you attack coal, you’re attacking Pennsylvania, and guess what Obama told his rich friends in San Francisco?

So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Guess Obama can kiss West Virginia good-bye, too.

November 2, 2008

Palin heads west Monday

Sarah Palin begins Monday in Ohio before making a westward campaign swing:

These are door-opening times. If you’re planning to go, you should plan to arrive early, as lines for these events can be very long.

November 2, 2008

Byron York on Palin

Last week in Shippensburg, Pa., I ran into National Review‘s Byron York, who has a nice feature today about the enthusiasm Sarah Palin generates among rank-and-file Republicans.

I covered two McCain events (in Wilkes-Barre and York, Pa.) before he picked Palin, and I’ve covered three events (Lebanon, Ohio, Hershey, Pa., and Shippensburg) since he picked Palin, and the difference is night and day in terms of the grassroots energy. “People have been coming out of the woodwork ever since Sarah Palin’s name was announced. … She’s a person that has brought the Republican Party together in a huge way,” as Don Prince, GOP chairman in Warren County, Ohio, told me.

November 2, 2008

Questions for Obama

Pete Parisi of The Washington Times notes that Barack Obama is protected by “a defensive cordon provided by a news media so unabashedly in the tank for Mr. Obama that they need scuba gear.” And since they’re not asking questions, Pete does. For example:

You and your vice-presidential running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have vowed repeatedly to “end” the war in Iraq. Why is the verb always “end” and never “win”? . . .
In your acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, you said we should be our “brother’s keeper.” Yet, what have you done in that regard to help your own half-brother, George Hussein Obama, who lives in a hut in the slums of Nairobi, Kenya, on $1 a month?

Read the whole thing — it’s very good.

UPDATED: Jammie Wearing Fool:

We’ve gone through virtually two years of this guy campaigning, countless Democrat debates, three presidential debates and yet somehow Barack Obama has not been properly vetted and asked basic questions

JWF observes that reporters are functioning as de facto press secretaries for Obama, performing fellatiostenography rather than journalism.

November 2, 2008

Steyn nails it

The Left has tried to turn the story about Barack Obama’s illegal-alien aunt into a Republican scandal:

The Undocumented Auntie isn’t even one of the 12, 15, 30, whatever million run-of-the-mill Undocumented-Americans who just wander into the country and decide to stay. She’s one of the far more select number – half a million or so – who’ve been served a deportation order. She is, in law, not merely an illegal immigrant but what ICE call a “fugitive alien”.
So when John Conyers gets huffy about “leaks”, is it even possible to “leak” that someone’s a “fugitive”? When regular boring US citizens are fugitives, they get pasted up on Post Office walls and written up in the papers. And, in the event that someone discovers that the guy on the lam is holed up at 27b Elm Street, there’s not usually a wave of outrage on the appalling breach of the fugitive’s privacy rights.

That she is not an American, and that she is a criminal fugitive in violation of U.S. law — pay no attention to that, say the Democrats. The fact that her illegal status has been discovered, however — that’s a scandal!

November 2, 2008

Greenwald: Constitution ‘Orwellian’

Notorious sock-puppeteer Glenn Greenwald:

[I]f I could be granted one small political wish, it would be the permanent elimination of this widespread, execrable Orwellian fetish of reverently referring to the President as “our commander in chief.” And Biden’s formulation here is a particularly creepy rendition, since he’s taunting opponents of Obama that, come Tuesday, they will be forced to refer to him as “our commander in chief Barack Obama” . . .
This is much more than a semantic irritant. It’s a perversion of the Constitution, under which American civilians simply do not have a “commander in chief”; only those in the military — when it’s called into service — have one (Art. II, Sec. 2).

Greenwald’s semantic quibbling is over this:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States . . .

The president is Commander in Chief of the regular forces at all times. The “called into service” clause applies only to state militias. If Greenwald wants to be an originalist and eliminate the National Guard on states’ rights grounds, let him so argue.

There is nothing objectionable or improper in Americans referring to the president as our Commander in Chief, any more than there is a problem with University of Alabama fans referring to Nick Saban as our coach. ‘Bama fans understand that Saban is not coaching us, he is coaching our football team. Thus, the “our” in both constructions is an expression of identification. If you identify with the Crimson Tide, Saban is your coach; if you identify with the U.S. military, the president is your Commander in Chief.

What Greenwald is saying is that there is something bad — something Orwellian and perverse — in Americans identifying with the armed forces. To say that they are our Army, our Navy, our Marines — our troops! — that first-person plural possessive grates on Greenwald’s nerves. He does not identify with the military, and doesn’t want you to, either.

The fact that the Framers made the Commander in Chief role high on the list of the president’s duties — right after the clause describing the office’s basic qualifications — is no accident, of course, since they had in mind George Washington for the job. And if the federal government were limited to its proper constitutional duties, the maintenance of the nation’s military establishment would actually occupy a larger share of the president’s time, since the government wouldn’t be meddling in health care, education, etc.

Notice, however, that Greenwald brings up the “Commander in Chief” objection right before the election, since referring to the president in that manner calls to the voter’s attention the fact that Barack Obama has never served a day in uniform. Once upon a time, Democrats scoffed when Sarah Palin spoke of her job as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard, but that makes her a veritable Clausewitz next to Obama.

UPDATE: A commenter suggests Glenn Greenwald is a “libertarian,” a suggestion that is freaking nuts. Greenwald is a gay radical who (like kindred spirit Andrew Sullivan) seized upon the Bush administration’s war policies as a pretext, more than a reason, to denounce Bush.

“Any stick will do to hit a mad dog,” folks say down home, and the Gay Left has been the most vehement enemies of the Bush administration from Day One. With the USA-PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Iraq, Bush gave the Gay Left issues that they’ve skillfully exploited, but you will search in vain to find where Greenwald denounced the Clinton administration’s meddling in the Balkans.

Greenwald’s hyperventilating Fourth Amendment screeds may employ superficially libertarian arguments, but he does not really care about privacy, he cares about getting the Republicans out of office so as to advance the gay agenda. Some of these “Obamacons” and useful idiots like Doug Kmiec will be shocked at how suddenly and emphatically President Obama pushes the radical gay-rights stance. Greenwald and Sullivan will not. Nor will I, since I actually attended the Democrats’ LGBT Caucus in Denver, and still have the letter to the caucus in which Obama called them “crucial” to his success.

November 2, 2008

Britney’s ‘Circus’

Her new album:

November 2, 2008

Incredible. Just … incredible.

Fairly unbalanced:

“He’s been a good father, a good citizen, he’s paid attention to his country,” Chris Matthews, the MSNBC host, said Wednesday night in addressing those who might be leaning against Mr. Obama based on race. “Give the guy a break and think about voting for him.”

That’s setting the bar kind of low, isn’t it? I mean, has John McCain been a bad father, a bad citizen, ignored his country? As Pete says, these guys are so far into the tank they need scuba gear.

November 2, 2008


Andrew Sullivan’s “Trig trutherism” (to borrow Ace’s phrase) continues to send him tilting at windmills, demanding Sarah Palin’s medical records.