For Those Who Didn't Vote for John McCain

As Michael Medved noted on his radio show today, I'd like to point out that had John McCain been elected president, the two Supreme Court picks Obama has made would have solidified the conservative Supreme Court.

Elections have consequences.

Game Change

Political reporters John Heilemann and Mark Halperin have a new book out about the 2008 campaign season. DRJ at Patterico's Pontifications lists some of the major bombshells in the book, then notes,

Imagine how many Washington campaign insiders and political reporters knew about these scandals but managed to keep them bottled up before the election. Except for the Sarah Palin stories, of course. The Palin reports were widely discussed by journalists, but stories that would damage the top Democratic candidates went largely unreported.

But there was no media bias covering Barack Obama. Naaah.

Can't Say American Voters Weren't Warned

60 Minutes Ask’s Obama - “Are You Punch Drunk?”

We tried to tell them that Obama was woefully inexperienced and unprepared for the presidency, but they were all caught up in HopeNChange.

Here is a Hot Air post about Obama getting lost in his teleprompter.

Repeat a Lie Long Enough and People Think It Is the Truth

Remember this?



Obama supporters thought Tina Fey was Sarah Palin.



And a lot of morons still believe it. Examples:

Heaven forbid we should have “standards”, and rightfully judge a candidate as unprepared when she can’t name a single newspaper she reads, and tries to claim she understands foreign policy because she “can see Russia from my house”.

Sarah lost and the World now knows Alaska has a true idiot for a Govenor let’s move on. Sarah should try raising her kids so they wont keep having babies as their only children themselves. We know she only reads the news from a Starbucks cup, we know she sees Russia from her window and we know she uses sex to get what she wants.

It doesn't matter what Palin said, or the fact that she was grilled in interviews whereas Obama was lobbed softballs. It only matters that they hate her.

About that Zogby Poll

Liberals have been up in arms about the how Obama got elected poll, which showed Obama supporters to be woefully ignorant on a variety of issues of the 2008 presidential campaign. They've cried. They've whined. They've accused Zogby of push-polling (this poll was not, in fact, a push-poll, regardless of whether you agree with the results). They've had a field day because John Ziegler finally got pissed off at jerks who don't know what the definition of "is" is.

But now, we have the same poll run for McCain voters who doubled the number of correct answers compared to Obama voters.

35 % of McCain voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

18% of Obama voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.

Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.

Those that got "congressional control" correct voted 56-43 for McCain.

Those that got "congressional control" wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.

As RIGHTWINGSPARKLE notes, McCain voters were simply better informed than Obama voters.

Another Campaign Promise Bites the Dust

Obama shelves oil company tax after price fall: Aide (By Jeff Mason and Tom Doggett, Reuters)

President-elect Barack Obama is not planning to implement a windfall profit tax on oil companies because prices have dropped below $80 a barrel, an aide said on Tuesday...

Obama, who signaled early in his campaign for the White House that he would take an active approach to oil markets as president, had planned to use the revenue from a windfall profits tax to fund a tax rebate for low- and middle-income families struggling with high energy prices.

But...but...what about my pony?!

Some Good Election News

Chambliss wins in Georgia by a big enough margin that even Al Franken couldn't try to steal it.

The McCain Campain Ads that Didn't Run

I haven't spent much time in Coulda Shoulda Woulda Land since the election because there's not much point. In a year with everything against him, John McCain did incredibly well (and had a real chance to win until the financial meltdown). But, as most conservatives were well aware, there were plenty of ads that should have been run but were not because everything (skinny, community organizer, Jeremiah Wright, celebrity) was racism.

What if the McCain campaign had run ads using footage of Barack Obama dancing with Ellen DeGeneres to show his coziness with celebrity? Or followed up on its Paris Hilton ad with others featuring Donald Trump and Jessica Simpson? All of that was on the drawing board of Fred Davis III, the advertising whiz that John McCain has used for almost all of his campaign media and one of the most talented conservative political operatives in America...

"My favorite ad of the campaign was as simple as it could be," Davis said. "And it started out something like, 'Long before the world knew of John McCain or Barack Obama, one of them spent five years in a hellhole because he refused early release to honor his fellow prisoners, while the other one wouldn't walk out of a church after 20 years of the guy spewing hatred towards America.' And the last line was, 'Character matters, especially when no one is listening.' " The ad never ran, however, because McCain ruled the topic of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the preacher of Obama's Chicago church, out of bounds shortly after he locked up the Republican nomination.

McCain's campaign was called racist from the get-go and don't think Obama didn't use fears of racism throughout his campaign, both against Hillary Clinton and John McCain. In fact, if times get tough, we'll be hearing that criticism of Obama as president is racism.

Davis says that concern about race played a major role in the entire aesthetic of McCain's ads. The photographs of Obama that the ads used, for instance, which often showed Obama elongated and smiling, were carefully selected, he recalls. "We chose them with only one thing in mind, and that is to not make them bad pictures because bad pictures would be seen as racist," Davis says. "How many shots in their ads did they use a John McCain [photo] looking decent and smiling?" He says the campaign also agonized over the music in the ads, paying special care not to play drum-heavy tracks that could be seen as an African tribal reference. "We were held to a totally different standard," he says.

The Affirmative Action candidate was held to a different standard. Will the Affirmative Action president be held to a different standard, as well?

How Obama Got Elected

You gotta visit this site and watch the video to understand Obama voters.



See what's important?

The site adds results from the Zogby poll, which shows how uninformed Obama voters in general were. These are the people telling us we have to give Barack Obama a chance. Why? Because they were too stupid or busy to actually pay attention to the election but just decided to vote for Obama anyway?

Ed Morrissey says,

It’s not that the voters couldn’t absorb data provided to them by the Tanning Bed Media; these voters quite obviously learned plenty about Sarah Palin. In the video, the subjects demonstrate that by assigning every stupid thing said on the campaign trail to Palin whether she said it or not. Meanwhile, no one can figure out what Barack Obama said, how he conducted his campaign, or his political history.
As for the video, without the Zogby poll, it would be hilarious but without context. Anyone can find fools for “man on the street” interviews; Jay Leno does it as a regular staple for the Tonight Show. Zogby’s poll shows that Ziegler’s video is no anomaly. Wait for the end, where the ignorant endorse their favorite media outlets, which is the real highlight of this project.

Norm Coleman Wins Minnesota Senate Seat

This is good news. The bad news is that the closeness of the race (Coleman wins by 215 votes) triggers an automatic recount. Can Dems cheat their way into another seat?

Yes, they can!

Democratic Civility and Tolerance

Weren't we told that Obama supporters were civil and tolerant and McCain supporters were violent? I'm sure that was the meme we were told before the election.

Well, Catherine Vogt wasn't greeted with tolerance at her junior high when she decided to conduct a tolerance test.

Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.

She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching "inclusion," and she decided to see how included she could be.

Vogt created two T-shirts. One said "Obama Girl" and the other said "McCain Girl."

A funny thing happened on the way to inclusion. When Vogt wore the "McCain Girl" shirt she was called "very stupid" by classmates and told by a teacher that she was "very surprised" Vogt would back McCain. She even received death threats.

When Vogt wore the "Obama Girl" shirt, she received nothing but compliments.

So much for inclusion, eh?

Feminism's Palin Problem

I've written before about the double standard so prevalent among feminists when it comes to the treatment of women they like and women they don't like.

Hillary Clinton treated in a sexist manner? Up in arms!

Sarah Palin treated in a sexist manner? Well, she deserves it!

It's amusing, and a bit sad, watching women eating their own this way, particularly since it plays into some of the worst stereotypes about women (think: catfight), which is why Echidne's defense of Palin was rather refreshing.

The question has zero to do with Sarah Palin as a person. The question has everything to do with Sarah Palin as a spoonful of that amorphous mass called womanhood. When sexist commentary is acceptably used with Palin it allows sexist commentary to be used on all other uppity women, then on all women who are not-so uppity, then on the women who have been made into doormats.

The comments get particularly amusing, especially when one man tries to defend the use of "Caribou Barbie" as a "rhetorical flourish," as opposed to a sexist stereotype that demeans all women.

Way too much of the criticism of Sarah Palin has centered on things other than her qualifications for the vice presidency, which were as good as Barack Obama's. No one criticized Obama for not being home to take care of his kids. We haven't been treated to numerous pictures of him conducting interviews while making cheesedogs for his children. And no one asked Obama to explain his foreign policy experience, his understanding of the Bush doctrine, intricacies of abortion law (although, as an attorney, he should have a built in advantage here), which newspapers he reads, etc., etc. No, we weren't treated to Obama getting hoist on his own petard because the MSM didn't want Obama to be shown as an empty suit. But portraying Sarah Palin as a bobbleheaded slut best suited for porn movies was just political mischief-making.

I'm glad to see Echidne point out that it hurts all women when these stereotypes are used. I wish more of her commenters could bring themselves to acknowledge that.

Why Do They Only Find Democrat Votes in Recounts?

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of cheating, but it is curious that in most recounts of recent memory, Democrats seem to be the only beneficiaries.

In 2006, there was the disgraceful Washington governor's race, in which votes were "discovered" that favored the Democrat candidate.

Now, we have the Democrat leading the Republican in Alaska, where early ballots seem to be the reason. And we have the Minnesota Secretary of State--a Democrat, of course--doing everything possible to throw the election to Al Franken, including the inclusion of tainted ballots.

Now, I know Democrats will scream and howl about "selected not elected," but everybody with any common sense realized that Democrats were determined to find enough votes to declare Al Gore the winner no matter how far they had to stretch a chad to do so. But surely someone else should notice how missing or uncounted ballots always seem to favor Democrats.

UPDATE: Allahpundit notices the same curious phenomenon.

Where Was the Joke?

I've read all the stories about Michael Barone's supposed joke that the media wanted Sarah Palin to abort Baby Trig. I see a lot of truth in the statement, but no joke at all.

A roomful of academics erupted in angry boos Tuesday morning after political analyst Michael Barone said journalists trashed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republicans' vice presidential nominee, because "she did not abort her Down syndrome baby."

Did any of the booers actually read posts and comments from the moonbatosphere following Sarah Palin's selection for V.P.? I did, (also see here and here for other posts on the subject) and support for Sarah Palin not killing an inconvenient child was virtually non-existent.

Obviously, Barone said bluntly what academics and others don't want to hear, but that doesn't make it any less the truth. Democrats in general and the luny Left in particular were disgusted at the sight of Baby Trig, and they didn't mind saying that it made one "question Palin's judgment" that she gave birth to a Downs Syndrome baby when she didn't have to. That's no laughing matter.

48 to 52

Certainly not PC (in that we're all supposed to be oh, so happy that Teh One is gonna be president), but funny as hell.

Imagine That!

Number of black voters who view society fair and decent nearly doubles after election.

I wonder if they asked women if they felt the same.

Answer to the Question: Dems Are Sore Losers

Yesterday, I asked this question at Common Sense Political Thought:

I’ll admit that I’m lazy and don’t want to take a lot of time to research this, so I’ll just ask it of our resident Dems and liberals: can you cite me any examples of liberal blogs saying that George Bush was a good man and that we needed to give him a chance before crucifying him? I’m looking for links for 2000 and 2004.

I’ve seen multiple examples of conservatives making this argument (Patterico has gone to a lot of effort to cite examples of Barack Obama’s decency, only to be castigated by other conservatives), but I truly don’t remember liberal bloggers of any stripe making this argument in either 2000 and 2004. Any examples?

The question was not a trick; I was genuinely interested to see if liberals knew of any examples of leftwing bloggers who had been willing to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt in either 2000 or 2004. I figured it was better to ask the question and discover there were no examples than to write a post and have a barrage of "You moron! X said Y!" comments.

Well, guess what? My unscientific survey of popular liberal blogs hasn't turned up any examples. Instead, there are:

-- comparisons with the Taliban

-- calls for secession

-- the ever-present name-calling,such as "homo haters"

-- More name-calling; this time liars and bigots

-- Even more name-calling! This time, those who voted for George Bush become Timothy McVeigh

-- Most bluntly, the American voters are dumb as posts.

I wonder how these liberal bloggers feel about American voters now. Do they still think they are dumb as posts? Homophobes? Liars? Bigots? Candidates for admission to the Taliban?

I suspect that, even though voter turnout was essentially the same as 2004 (sorry, Pho, but you were wrong, yet again), liberals would claim that the voters were more enlightened, smarter...or something.

But meantime, as Orrin Judd notes,

and, no, it isn't fair that it is only Republicans who are expected to be--and will be--magnanimous in defeat. But, the fact of the matter is that the American political system and to some degree the society generally has been infected since Florida 2000 and if the election of a Democrat can just drain some of the pus out it's all to the good.

Well said.

Transitions of Power

I was fascinated by this story about the transition from the Bush administration to the new Obama administration.

(T)he days since Tuesday's election have shown a striking level of comity following the rancor of the campaign, enhanced by President Bush's months-long efforts to pave the way for a smooth transition and President-elect Barack Obama's preelection determination to move quickly.

"Ensuring that this transition is seamless is a top priority for the rest of my time in office," Bush said in his weekly radio address yesterday. "My administration will work hard to ensure that the next president and his team can hit the ground running."

Bush has created a transition coordinating council, populated by experts from inside and outside the administration, and has streamlined the process for obtaining security clearances for key transition officials. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell flew to Chicago on Thursday to deliver Obama his first daily intelligence briefing.

The Obama team has begun submitting names to the FBI for expedited security clearances, which is allowed under an intelligence reform law passed in 2004. Officials said that more than 100 positions, down to the level of undersecretary, are eligible under the statute.

Bush's chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, said the White House is even preparing a "tabletop" exercise to simulate how Obama's national security officials should respond in the event of a terrorist attack.

"If a crisis hits on Jan. 21, they're the ones that are going to have to deal with it," Bolten said in an interview taped for broadcast today on C-SPAN. "We need to make sure they're as well-prepared as possible."

Likewise, the administration is laying the groundwork for an unusual level of access to the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in attempts to stabilize the foundering economy. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Friday that Treasury is preparing office space that will allow Obama aides to sit alongside current administration officials.

Fratto said such efforts are intended to send a signal that Treasury's approach will not change too abruptly when Obama takes office. "They don't want to surprise markets; they want to try to make sure that they have predictable information for markets," he said.

Hmm, no signs of BusHitler dictator for life there. But you know, Dick Cheney is so sneaky, they just want us to think George Bush is trying to help Barack Obama.

Well, ok, no, I don't think that. In fact, I think it shows, yet again, what a good and decent man Bush is--not to mention careful and thoughtful--that he has been planning the transition of power for months.

One thing I wondered was if Bush's behavior was an anomaly in a city filled with partisan bickering and long knives. Happily, it was not.

One day after the divisive election's official end, the president-elect attended a prayer service in Austin, Texas...

Each man (President Bush and Al Gore) addressed the nation Wednesday night. Gore said he was disappointed but not bitter, and Bush promised to earn the respect of all Americans "whether you voted for me or not."

In a conciliatory gesture, the president-elect made calls to Democratic leaders in the House and Senate -- Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Missouri, and Sen. Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota -- and took a call from the Rev. Jesse Jackson -- who, during the Florida election dispute questioned the legitimacy of a Bush presidency.

Bush also received his daily national security briefing from the CIA and was slated to meet with his senior advisers to continue planning his transition from Texas governor to the nation's 43rd president.

The president-elect will travel Sunday to Washington to begin a series of meetings that will include his former rival, Gore, as well as President Clinton and a bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers. Bush and Gore are slated to meet Tuesday.

Bush and Gore are slated to meet Tuesday, and Cheney said the meeting was one of "great symbolic significance..."

White House Chief of Staff John Podesta plans to meet Monday with his replacement-to-be, Andy Card, a former transportation secretary in the Bush administration, to lay the groundwork for the Clinton-Bush meeting and to discuss other transition arrangements, including a proposed memo of understanding to allow access by Bush aides to information protected by privacy privileges or national security concerns.

Gosh, sounds so cozy. Too bad Dems didn't really mean it.

Why Don't They Just Start Erecting the Statues?

Plans Underway for Obama Holiday.

Plans are being made to promote a national holiday for Barack Obama, who will become the nation's 44th president when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20.

"Yes We Can" planning rallies will be at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. every Tuesday at the downtown McDonald's restaurant, 1100 Kansas Ave., until Jan. 13. The goals are to secure a national holiday in Obama's honor, to organize celebrations around his inauguration and to celebrate the 200th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln, who was born on Feb. 12 1809.

At 7:30 a.m. on Inauguration Day, Obama Cake will be served at the downtown McDonald's, and a celebration is scheduled for 8 p.m. to midnight Jan. 20 at the Ramada Hotel and Convention Center, 420 S.E. 6th.

I expect legislation requiring every house to have an Obama picture in a prominent place any day now.

Now That the Election Is Over, We Can Admit We Were Biased

Dana has a post leading back to this Hot Air entry by Ed Morrissey concerning the admission that the Washington Post's campaign coverage was undeniably tilted to favor Barack Obama.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors — like most of the national news media — found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics...

When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

As Ed says,

The hell with Joe Biden. Howell never answers the real issue here — why did the Post, and the rest of the national media, go on the attack with Sarah Palin and not with Barack Obama? The two candidates had a similar amount of time in politics, and Palin had more executive experience than Obama. Obama ran for the top job, while Palin ran for VP. And yet the national media parachuted dozens of reporters into Wasilla and Juneau looking for dirt and scandal, coming up with a tanning bed in the governor’s mansion (which Palin bought herself) and the Troopergate story that turned out to be a nothingburger and was already known prior to her nomination.
Where were the Post reporters doing the same thing in Chicago? Why didn’t the Post want to look at the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama’s only executive experience prior to his run for the presidency? The media never bothered to make a hundredth of the effort on Obama that they did with Palin, and they had two years to do it.

This was the outrageousness of this campaign; not that Joe Biden wasn't scrutinized the way Sarah Palin was, but that Barack Obama was never scrutinized the way Palin was. As I said in this post, Sarah Palin was given far more substantive questioning than Barack Obama ever did. Both McCain and Palin were subjected to questioning that was designed to trip them up. And then there's the moonbatosphere which constantly stretched the most innocuous statements by Sarah Palin into huge faux pas.

In short, there was a media conspiracy to elect Barack Obama, regardless of his experience (or lack thereof) and politics. And far too many Americans bought the dream.