DEMOCRATS

Spew alert!

COMMENTARY: CONTRARIAN DISSENT

Now that the intitial weeping and gnashing of teeth following the election has diminished a bit, the conservative blogosphere has a task ahead, that of contrarian dissent. In my view, that dissent shouldn't descend into the lowest of the tactics shown by many of the lefties in the blogosphere and the media. On the other hand, being too refined and too dignified won't likely yield results, with either the electorate or the rebuilding of the Republican Party. Certainly, remaining quiet and sulking will have no outcome.

On January 20, Barack Hussein Obama will take the oath of office and become President of the United States. Like it or not, he will become our President. Certainly, based on what we know about him and his political philosophy, he may lead our nation in a leftist direction, as he attempts to keep even some of his pie-in-the-sky campaign promises. And he will have the partnership of a leftist Congress to help him accomplish his goals. Still, we should also remember that often Presidents govern in a more centrist manner than in the manner in which they campaigned. We'll be finding out soon enough in precisely what direction our new President will lead our nation.

Today's electorate apparently responds to and needs a leader who offers "shock and awe." These same voters also seem to respond more to contrarian dissent and derangement syndrome than to the analysis of political philosophies. Say what you will about the importance of political ideology and integrity, the Democratic Party's campaign was successful. Voters may well suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder and respond to sound bites around which to rally!

In my view, the Right needs to begin anew by offering contrarian dissent — patriotic dissent with just a tinge of Leftist Derangement Syndrome. Appeal to the people may be a logic fallacy, but we've just seen that such an appeal is indeed effective, much like the teachable moment in the classroom. The Right needs to learn and to employ some of the same tactics which the Left used to win the election.

Consider the following video, not only from the perspective of observing the apparent idiocy of those interviewed but also from the perspective of how such an electorate can be moved in a different direction:



YouTube link

Perhaps we truly have entered a new era of voters, ones who need a different kind of appeal from the Right. Based on the above video, we may not have the option of or the time for educating the electorate.

THE AGE OF O-PPRESSION?

Excerpt from this essay at Get Liberty:

...[T]he Founding Fathers would undoubtedly be outraged over the great lengths to which the Obama campaign and his advocates in the government went in destroying an average American citizen who simply questioned a political candidate....

All in all, the 2008 campaign has been woefully defined by these insidious acts of citizen intimidation, dissent suppression, and privacy invasions.

And although Mr. Obama has not personally carried out these heinous acts, he has the responsibility to rein in his supporters—and his defenders—who, in his name, seek to exert wrath upon “rude” thought criminals like Jessica Hughes and Joe the Plumber.

If Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge and condemn this anti-American and unconstitutional behavior, one should expect the culture of intimidation to not only carry into his first presidential term, but to thrive as well. If Mr. Obama by his silence sanctions this kind of behavior as a presidential candidate, imagine the role it will play when he is President....

Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of thought - use 'em or lose 'em. It's not paranoia to sound the alarm if the danger is a real and present one.

Just say no to vote fraud!

Imagine a campaign website that intentionally turns off all credit-card security, an unprecedented step that allows bogus names and addresses for donations.

Imagine a campaign that accepts made-up credit-card numbers, which are tried one after another until valid card numbers are found.

Or a campaign that retains forged computer addresses for its donations instead of the real donors' addresses.

Or a campaign that accepts untraceable prepaid cash cards that can be used to evade contribution limits or mask contributor identities.

Or a campaign that secretly shares its donor lists with ACORN, a group reportedly under a RICO investigation for multi-state vote fraud involving hundreds of thousands of fraudulent registrations.

Now imagine hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed, suspect donations orchestrated by foreign nationals and other persons unknown.

Roughly two-thirds of Barack Obama’s record haul derives from a website that intentionally disables all security checks that prevent basic fraud. In other words, that facilitates crooked donations complete with fake names, phony addresses, no donation limits and untraceable cards.

Now imagine that the same campaign, through its corrupt practices, wins control of law enforcement and prosecution in the United States.

Regardless of your political affiliation, do you think there could ever be a fair election again?

Just say no to Barack Obama and vote fraud. Vote John McCain.

NOT MY USUAL TASTE IN MUSIC

But I like the message!

BERG'S LAW SUIT DISMISSED

From this source:

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

I don't know that I quibble with Berg's lacking standing. That may indeed be so.

But Obama's Constitutional qualifications don't matter? Is that what the judge is saying? If so, then this also follows:



When I posted the above over at Infidel Bloggers Alliance, an anonymous commenter left this link. Excerpt:

In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.

A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom.

At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.

From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case....

Go HERE to read the rest and view the graphics.

Now, sometimes the blogosphere is filled with rumor and unsubstantiated data presented as fact. Then again, sometimes the blogosphere does report the truth. Wasn't it the blogosphere which broke the story of all the PhotoShopped material used by the mainstream press during the Israel-Lebanon War of 2006?

As I said earlier in this post, my primary concern about the dismissal of the law suit is that the judge — a Clinton appointee, if I'm not mistaken — appears to have ruled that Constitutional requirements for the office of President of the United States can be ignored. Another manifestation of Obama-mania? You decide.

(Crossposted from Always On Watch)

When Carter "spread the wealth"

Check out the tax rates when Jimmy Earl Carter served as "president" in '78.



That's right. Carter's tax rates "spread the wealth" by confiscating 70% of any earnings over $203K. Seventy percent! That motivates a lot of folks to demand cash, hide income, cheat, operate in the black-market and/or not bother to work any harder. Even if you earned only $47K, Carter wanted half. Half!.

As for the results? In 1980 Time magazine put it this way.

...inflation is not only a frightening economic problem but is rapidly becoming Carter's most dangerous political liability as well... In the past few weeks, however, a new side of inflationary psychology has begun to show itself among businessmen and investors: plain, old-fashioned fear. Executives talk of inflation rates going to 20% or more in the next few months, creating an environment in which reasonable planning is impossible. The jitters have unhinged the investment markets. As recently as mid-February, stocks were widely considered a hedge against inflation and thought to be grossly undervalued. The Dow Jones industrial average hit a high of 904 on Feb. 13. But since then it has tumbled 92 points, to 812; nine points of the decline came last week. The average is now lower than it was 16 years ago.

Sound familiar? Maybe there's validity to the contention that the recent stock market turmoil can be termed an "Obama Panic". That is, investors anticipate a disastrous set of Carter-esque policies that send the economy into a tailspin and respond accordingly.

What were the results of Carter's "wealth-spreading" policies?

Inflation rose dramatically, nearly touching 15% by 1980.

Unemployment rose to 11% shortly thereafter. The economy didn't return to health until President Reagan spearheaded lower tax rates.

The history is clear: oppressive tax rates for the "rich" (really, just businesspeople small and large) is disastrous for employment and wounds the economy.

Starting to get the picture? Really feel like experiencing an eighties-style economic disaster? Then I urge you to vote for Barack Obama.

VIDEO: "THE OBAMA STRATEGY"

Even if you've seen this video before, watch it again. About 10 minutes in length, the video provides a possible answer as to Obama's "coming out of nowhere":



More information HERE.

HAVE WE EVER HAD, IN RECENT MEMORY, SUCH TURMOIL BEFORE A NATIONAL ELECTION?

From this source:

Republican HQ Manager's Home Shot Up Over McCain Signs: 'Democrats Far More Aggressive in Seminole County,' Victim Says

LONGWOOD, Fla. -- The home of a Central Florida Republican headquarters manager was shot up and damaged over his support of Sen. John McCain, the man told police.

Rog Coverely said several pellets pierced his Longwood home. Coverely showed several spiderwebbed-holes in the front windows of his home....

Surreal. Reminiscent of some Third World country.

I've known of signs being stolen or vandalized, particularly those for Republican candidates. But shooting holes in windows?

The Manifesto of the Silenced Majority

• We believe that Barack Obama is a brilliant orator and a man possessed of more charisma than any politician since JFK.

• But we also believe that his philosophy of "spreading the wealth around" is an ill-disguised form of socialism that undermines everything America holds dear.

• We believe that a "tax cut on 95% of working Americans" when only 63% of Americans pay taxes is nonsensical.

• We believe that the Obama campaign's obfuscated funding for ACORN (originally described as "event planning") undermines the integrity of our elections and calls into question the legality of his tactics.

• We believe that Barack Obama's plan to form a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military is ill-considered at best.

• We believe that the Obama campaign's efforts to intimidate WGN (on two separate occasions) when it interviewed his political foes endangers free speech.

• We believe that Obama's choice of Joe Biden as VP runs counter to his twin aspirations of "hope" and "change".

• We believe that a man who could not otherwise receive a security clearance should not serve as Commander-in-Chief.

• We believe that Obama's 20-year relationship with his pastor, who he once described as his "spiritual adviser", displays a basic affinity for a racist ideology that runs counter to everything his candidacy should stand for.

• We believe that most of Obama's senate experience has been spent running for office; from the time he was sworn in as a U.S. senator to the time he formed a presidential exploratory committee, he logged only 143 days in the senate.

• We believe that Obama does voters a disservice by hiding his chairmanship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (a $165 million dollar effort to improve Chicago's schools) when he used that service as his central experience in 2000 during his first run for Congress.

• We believe that Obama made a series of very poor choices by serving on boards and sharing an office with Bill Ayers (for three years); Ayers' organization killed three police officers, bombed numerous government facilities and nearly detonated a nail bomb at a Fort Dix Officer's Dance.

• We believe that, no matter Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, his evasive and ever-morphing answers about their work together smack of a coverup.

• We believe that anyone -- no matter their position on abortion -- who supports killing an infant that survived a botched abortion is on the wrong side of any moral code.

• We believe that Obama's advisers and contributors -- from Tony Rezko to Valerie Jarrett to Allison Davis -- cost taxpayers millions in development fees for failed (and often uninhabitable) apartment complexes.

• We believe that Obama's Illinois state senate experience was insubstantial: it was, by his own description, a "part-time position" and he maintained two offices (one at the state senate and one at his law firm).

• We believe that Obama's state senatorial experience was further diluted by his 129 "present" votes, which, as NPR observes , "There's a saying in Springfield that there's a reason why the present button is yellow... [but] I don't think that Barack Obama was necessarily a coward for voting present on those bills..."

• We also believe that Obama's experience as a community organizer and as a trainer for ACORN are not qualifications for the presidency.

• We believe that the candidate has not been forthcoming with his background and the key influencing forces during his formative years.

We therefore believe that Barack Obama is ill-prepared and ill-suited for the Presidency.


Hat tip: Zombie for the brilliant essay that mentions the term "silenced majority".

OBAMA'S LIES ABOUT MEDICARE

Perhaps, you've seen or heard the ad, with the approval message in Obama's own voice:

Announcer: John McCain’s health care plan … first we learned he’s going to tax health care benefits to pay for part of it.

Now the Wall Street Journal reports John McCain would pay for the rest of his health care plan “with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid.”

Eight hundred and eighty-two billion from Medicare alone. “Requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both.”

John McCain … Taxing Health Benefits … Cutting Medicare. We Can’t Afford John McCain.

Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.

From this article at FactCheck.org (Annenberg):

● In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits.

● A TV spot says McCain's plan requires "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both."
Obama said in a speech that McCain plans "cuts" that would force seniors to "pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."

● Update, Oct. 21: A second Obama ad claims that McCain’s plan would bring about a 22 percent cut in benefits, “higher premiums and co-pays," and more expensive prescription drugs.

These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain's policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. McCain does propose substantial "savings" through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We're skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that's no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts....

From the "Analysis" section of the article at FactCheck.org:

[T]o state as a matter of fact that McCain will be forced to cut benefits, or that he is proposing any such thing, is simply a falsehood designed to frighten elderly voters.

Read the entire article HERE, including the links at the end.

THE DEMS ARE PULLING OUT ALL THE STOPS THE NEXT FEW WEEKS

Stirring the pot, from Al-Jazeera in Ohio:



From the news alert I received in a forwarded email (emphases mine):

ANP is working on a series between now and Nov. 4 analyzing the phenomenon of rage among McCain-Palin supporters which has surfaced in the past few weeks. Our first piece in the series will debut next week as we look at the rising tension at rallies we've attended, the effect of negative ads on the GOP base and John McCain's and the RNC's responsibility in fanning the flames.

For the other stories in this series, we need your help. Between now and Nov. 4, we want to document this rising rage nationwide at GOP rallies or anywhere else. If you have any evidence of rage, bigotry or deliberate misinformation among McCain supporters, whether at an official rally or elsewhere (local GOP groups, etc.), we need your help to video these events.

ANP producers have witnessed intimidation of Obama supporters, hate speech, racial epithets at these rallies. Our own reporters have been restricted by Republican operatives from speaking to supporters of John McCain or Sarah Palin.
Here's what we're looking for. Please look at this revealing report shot by Al Jazeera English:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0

We like this report for two reasons:

1) The reporter asks journalistic questions but also insistently probes people about the motivations behind their opinions but does so without the intent to provoke.

2) The approach is unbiased.

Many observers, including ANP, are worried that this agitation and rage may lead to more pointed hate speech and perhaps even incitment to violence in the campaign's last three weeks. And we would like you to help us document it.

If there is a McCain-Palin rally in your immediate area (go to http://www.johnmccain.com/Calendar/ to find out), we'd like to hear about it. You should edit the best rushes (about five minutes worth) and e-mail it to dhutchins@newsproject.org using software at www.pando.com or www.yousendit.com. Make sure "McCain Palin Rage" is in the subject line.

If we use your footage in our series, whether it is 5 seconds or 5 minutes, we will pay a fee of $500 and give you producers credit.

[...]

Davin Hutchins
Managing Producer, ANP

ANP's site is HERE.

Obama supporters are being intimidated? Funny thing, but I've been seeing the opposite happen on the web.

Obama's Tax-Cuts Scam

The following graphic says it all:



From this article in the Wall Street Journal:

Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:...

Read the rest. The Obama tax-cuts plan is a tool for wealth redistribution.

Stogie points out the following:

What Obama's plan would do is to write a check to the millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes at all. For those of us who work for a living, we will pay higher taxes to support this massive transfer of wealth.

Another item in Obama's tax cuts are the tax credits he will provide. All but one of these tax credits are refundable -- the others only work if you have a tax liability. The liability is reduced by the credit, but you don't get it as a refund.

Pity that the Obamamaniacs believe their candidate's promises. Those promises are full of hot air.

(Crossposted from Always On Watch)

VIDEO: HOCKEY MOMS FOR McCAIN-PALIN

I personally know one of the participants in the following video:



More information at this web site. Excerpt:

Hard work. Dedication. Sacrifice. These are just three things that John McCain has in common with the hockey moms of America. And Sarah Palin shares our early-rising, butt-freezing, glass-pounding commitment to our children and communities too!

I have just one question for Barack Obama

Here's my question:

Senator Obama, when you first ran for Congress in 2000 you claimed your central experience was the Chairmanship of the $165 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Yet now that central qualification is missing from your resume. Is that because it was an utter failure... or because you worked closely with terrorist Bill Ayers for a half-dozen years?

In 2000 Barack Obama addressed the experience issue during his unsuccessful run for Congress.

Question: "One of the criticisms that arises in connection with your candidacy is you simply haven't been in the Senate very long, the State Senate. You have a limited track record in terms of time, what is your argument based on the one term that you've served so far? What makes you prepared for the Congress?"

Obama: "Well, I'm in my second term, but it's true that certainly both Senator Trotter and Congressman Rush have been in elected office longer than I have. I can't deny that. I would argue, though, that my experience previous to elected office equips me for the job. I have a background as an attorney, I've represented affordable housing organizations to build affordable housing, something that's a major issue in the district. I've chaired major philanthropic efforts in the city like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that gave fifty million dollars to prompt school reform efforts throughout the city."

Possible answer #1: The CAC's $165 million boondoggle was -- by its own admission -- an utter and complete failure.

Possible answer #2: In 1995 Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn -- who advocate the overthrow of the U.S government to this very day -- launched Barack Obama's career by hosting a "Meet the Candidate" event in their home. Ayers, who founded the CAC, then hired Obama as Chairman of the Board and administrator of $165 million, even though he had no experience other than as a "community organizer."

Either answer explains why Obama tossed his CAC experience (arguably his only "executive" experience) down the memory hole.

It's two... two... two... screw-ups in one! Not exactly the judgment we're looking for in a commander-in-chief. And doesn't that phrase ("Commander-in-Chief Obama") send a shiver down your spine?

Update: Obama's website has engineered several delightful evasions. His biography somehow omits his vaunted experience with the CAC and its ill-named "Fact Check" ostensibly explains the Obama/Ayers relationship without mentioning the Chicago Annenberg Challenge or the Woods Fund boards they served on for years.

MORE ELECTION FRAUD?

Because of my work schedule, I don't get to watch a lot of news programs right now. And with the computer problems I've been having, I don't get to spend much time on the web either.

Thanks to blogger The Educated Shoprat, I found and viewed the following news video this morning:



Is the Democratic Party desperate to win, or what?

(Note: Apologies if this video has already been posted here at TAB)

I'm begging the RNC to run this ad: "Can your family afford two more years of a Democratic Congress?"

Congressional Democrats swept to power two years ago.

Since that time gas prices have soared.

They've continued to block oil exploration in our own country.

And instead want Americans to send money overseas to pay for our fuel.

Housing prices have collapsed thanks to Democratic policies.

People who were unqualified for a home loan were subsidized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And for eight years, Republicans have warned that these entities were melting down.

Democrats who took million from Fannie and Freddie blocked every effort at reform.

Unless you want the next two years to look like the last two...

...Give Democrats the Pink Slip.

We can't afford two more years of a Democratic Congress.

PADDING THE VOTER ROLLS

In Virginia:

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has granted voting rights to nearly 1,500 felons this year, bumping up the voter rolls ahead of next month's presidential election and putting himself on pace to exceed the record-setting pattern of his predecessor.

During his four years as governor, Mark Warner, a Democrat now running for the U.S. Senate, restored voting rights to 3,414 ex-convicts in Virginia. That exceeded the combined total for all Virginia governors during the previous 20 years, according to the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based advocacy group.

Mr. Kaine, a Democrat in the third year of his term, had restored voting rights to 2,633 people with felony convictions as of Monday, including 1,445 this year.

"It's not something that was just handed to him," Kaine spokesman Gordon Hickey said. "He believes in it."...

Stuffing the ballot box - a tradition in the Democratic Party.

The Peculiar Case of the AP's Missing Paragraphs

When an article by Beth Fouhy of the AP actually made it to the funny papers, it was curiously missing several paragraphs critical of Barack (name redacted) Obama. Compare and contrast the original with the version that hit the streets.

Key: I've colored the paragraphs that went missing in purple for the slower-witted liberals progressives out there. And I've bolded Fouhy's advertorializing for the Obama camp.

McCain says Fed should stop government bailouts By BETH FOUHY

GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) — Republican John McCain said Friday the Federal Reserve needs to stop bailing out failed financial institutions. The Republican presidential hopeful said the Fed should get back to "its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation" and he laid out several recommendations for stabilizing markets in the financial crisis that has rocked Wall Street and commanded the dialogue in the presidential campaign.

McCain made little mention of the massive proposal being crafted by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that could amount to a $1 trillion taxpayer bailout of the mortgage industry. McCain said simply that leaders should put aside partisan differences and "any action should be designed to keep people in their homes and safeguard the life savings of all Americans."

The Fed engineered an $85 billion takeover of insurance giant AIG this week after seizing control of housing giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. McCain said that to help return the U.S. to fiscal solvency, the powerful central bank should instead focus on shoring up the dollar and keeping inflation low.

"A strong dollar will reduce energy and food prices," McCain said to applause from the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce. "It will stimulate sustainable economic growth and get this economy moving again."

In the speech and later at a boisterous rally in Minnesota, McCain sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for ties to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and for advocating tax increases McCain said would "turn a recession into a depression."

Obama has said he would raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year and would cut taxes on the middle class. McCain restated his claim that Obama had voted to raise taxes on people who make just $42,000 a year — a claim that has been widely debunked by nonpartisan fact check organizations.

McCain noted the Illinois senator had taken large campaign contributions from both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that the one-time head of Obama's vice presidential search team, Jim Johnson, had received a $21 million severance deal after stepping down as Fannie Mae CEO. McCain's campaign released a new television ad Friday hitting Obama for his connection to Johnson.

The Arizona senator neglected to say that some of his closest advisers had ties to or lobbied for the home loan giants.

McCain is correct when he says Obama is the No. 2 recipient of campaign money from employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama has collected $126,349 from those sources, according to a compilation by the Center for Responsive Politics, second only to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who has received $165,400. The ranking covers the period since 1989.

In Minnesota, the mention of Johnson's severance deal brought loud chants from thousands of McCain supporters who filled an airport hangar. "Give it back! Give it back!" they shouted.

Gee, I wonder why they cut out the stuff in purple?

As for the important ties between the Obama camp and the Fannie Mae debacle that threatens to melt our financial system down? How about the two disgraced Fannie Mae CEOs and Obama advisers (who, between 'em, ripped off taxpayers for around $111 million in compensation in six years) Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson?

• 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.“

Hat tips: Hot Air's Ed Morrissey, Fausta and Larwyn.

LOOK OUT, FANS OF CHRISTIAN MUSIC!

The left is looking for ways to appeal to you and get you to vote for the Democratic Party:

Fans of Christian music, listeners to Christian radio, watchers of Christian TV -- you're very attractive, did you know that?

After years of living in a quiet, monogamous relationship with the Republican Party, you are being courted by the Democrats. These leftie operatives say it's not enough to be the de facto political party of Hollywood, with its nudity and violence. Now Barack Obama's supporters have a new frontier in their sights: Nashville, ...the literal and metaphoric capital of the gospel and contemporary Christian music industries, as well as a hot spot for Christian radio and TV. This, industry folks say, is a land populated by GOP-voting listeners.

[...]

We're talking rallies against global warming and capital punishment, at Christian music concerts. Obama ads on Christian radio. Consumers of gospel music getting bombarded with campaign literature from Democratic candidates.

That means the good people of Ohio will be peacefully listening to a radio preaching out of the Book of Revelation when suddenly -- " Jesus said, inasmuch as you did unto the least of these, you have done it to me" . . . calming instrumental music in the background . . . "As a Christian," says pro-life Democrat and former Ohio congressman Tony Hall, "Barack believes God calls us to care for those in need . . . "

That's a new radio ad scheduled to air on Christian radio in Ohio next week.

"We have people calling every Christian radio station; we want to know about their newsroom, what news services they use, how can we communicate with them...," drawls Burns Strider, a Mississippi native who led faith outreach for Hillary Clinton....

Much more here.

The Democratic Party scorned the Christian right for decades. But the Democratic Party isn't above pandering for the Christian-right vote: "Be a good Christian. Vote for Barack." Disgusting.

And I've noticed that this tactic is making headway. Specifically, I know several evangelical Christians, and they are arguing in favor of voting for Barack Obama and sporting Obama bumper stickers on their vehicles. One of these evangelical Christians even said, "I can't vote for McCain because his wife is Budweiser Beer." So, she'd rather vote for Barack HUSSEIN Obama even though she says that she believes he is a Moslem at heart. And, of course, she hasn't even bothered to research his stand on the issues which are important for this election and this time in America's history.

I realize that how citizens base their votes on is a topic of some contention and always has been. For me, that basis has been somewhat of a mystery. A responsible citizen should base his or her vote on the candidates' stand on the issues, not on some trivial sound bite. We'll find out in November if American voters are up to the task of being an educated citizenry.