New York Times Disgrace, "Obamanomics"

New York Times: Disgraceful Behavior

Michael Schuyler, who administers McCain Victory 08, which, if you're a blogger, you should join today, wrote the following letter to the New York Times regarding its smear-campaign against Senator John McCain.

Well, it's painfully obvious Jayson Blair [the reporter who made up many stories and whose activities resulted in the firing of the Times’ executive editor and the managing editor} is still working for the New York Times, a venerable name in American newspaper history that has fallen to the depths of the National Enquirer with unsubstantiated, sensationalistic stories such as the one today on John McCain. As they say: "You got nothin'!" and the fact that they ran such a story shows to what depths of journalistic malfeasance the Times has fallen.

It's no secret that newspapers have fallen on hard times as the Internet sucks advertising revenue and readership away from printed paper. Not only is Craig's List cheaper, it's more effective. The number of laid off news and support staff from newspapers around the country is nothing short of alarming. Unfortunately, newspaper management resorts to sensationalism to gain back readers by making every two-sentence tidbit in Police Blotter into a 'front page' story. Newspapers have done it to themselves by reacting this way, and by making up stories as the Times has done today.

The New York Times has become an institution without honor, without integrity. It's sad to see this happen, but the Times is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. It is no longer the case that any thinking person looks to the Times as a source of unbiased information. The Times, it seems, can no longer be trusted.

Read The Economist Instead of the Times

Michael, an excellent letter. I may be one of the few people in the nation (even the liberals are holding their noses) that isn't "disappointed" by the Times. But that's because my expectations for the paper are extremely low. It’s little more than a propaganda sheet.

A year ago, I started subscribing to The (London) Economist, which is far superior to anything I see in the U.S. Oh, in 2000, The Economist endorsed John McCain for President, and in 2008 they're getting ready to do so again. They see him as an honorable man who doesn't share the foreign policy fantasies of, say, Barack Obama. I keep quoting The Economist in my blog, hoping to influence a few other people to shell out $99 a year for it.

The Economist recently had a story discussing the fact that many things 40-45 years ago were a lot better than they are now. For example, we had one-third the rate of teen suicides. The divorce rate was much, much lower. The population in the penitentiaries was about 40% of today’s number of inhabitants in the lock-up. The rates of murders and violent crimes generally were a fraction of what they are today.

Someone like Barack Obama can't handle such facts, which they are of course. i doesn't lead to audience chanting, Hare Krishna style, "Yes, we can." An Obama can't -- while a McCain can -- say, you know, we used to do a lot of things better than we do them now -- or will perhaps do them in the future.

I hear the commercial with the far-left Harvard Law professor, Lawrence Tribe, talking about Obama's "brilliance." I don't see it. I see a person demanding that we redistribute more income and concentrate less on securing this nation from people who hate us.

Stephen Moore has an article in Friday's Wall Street Journal about Obama’s disastrous economic policies. Last night on the Glenn Beck show, More said that "Yes, we can" means, among other things, yes we can raise the effective tax rate for people in NJ, NY, and CA to 60%. See, the government gets sixty cents, and the people working their butts off get 40 cents. "Yes, we can?" But "No, we absolutely should not.” Call it "Obamanomics."

Those of us who strongly support John McCain have a lot of work to do. And it's critically important that we begin today!

ME LIVE ON POLITICAL PISTACHIO

On Monday, February 25, I'll be on blog talk radio with Adam Brickley, who has engineered the highly successful Draft Sarah Palin (Alaska Governor) for VP movement. We'll be on Douglas Gibbs's Political Pistachio program at 7 p.m. Eastern time, and I hope you'll tune in. Also, call in if you'd like. Here's the link: http://blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio.

Doug has a great show, and one of his guests next week will be Kathleen Willey, who claims (credibly) that President Bill Clinton molested her in the Oval Office. Ms. Willey joins a long list of women (Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and many who remain namelss) whose relationships with former President Clinton have not been fruitful, to say the least.

On Monday, Adam and I will be discussing possible vice-presidential choices for Senator McCain. If you'd like to see Adam's site, something of a shrine to Gov. Palin (pronounced PALE-in), go to: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com.

Even if Sarah doesn't get the nomination, she is a GOP political superstar-in-the-making. She reminds me a lot of my Washington County, PA friend Diana Lynn Irey, who ran a heroic campaign in 2006 against the evil John Murtha.

This weekend I'll be writing about the Washington County, PA GOP and its web site.

Please see below about how you can contribute the campaign of an American hero, Senator John McCain.

POLITICS ISN'T BRAIN SURGERY: MCCAIN

One important thing all admirers of John McCain can do is to contribute to his campaign. If you can donate $250, please do so. Or, if you can contribute $25, please do it. The Democrat's presumptive nominee, Obama, has been raising huge amounts of money from Moveon.org types, and it's essential that we help put John McCain on a more level financial footing. You can contribute by clicking on the Contribute to John McCain link to your right (at the top) or by going to the McCain web site and clicking on the "contribute" button. Thanks for your generous help.

Note: If you're from Pennsylvania, please go here to see my blog dedicated to the Keystone State. If you're from Ohio or New Jersey, please click on those links to find blogs dedicated to the McCain effort in those states. If you're from Oklahoma or New Mexico, click on those sites. In time, there will be blogs from each of the 50 states (listed as http://[statename]forjohnmccain.blogspot.com.

There's a need for volunteers to manage state blogs that are "waiting" for someone to take over. If you do assume that responsibility, you will receive all the help you need.

As a rough guess, there are about 35 million voters out there who are (or soon will be) strongly for John McCain. If each one who solidly backs McCain "teaches one," McCain would get 70 million votes, which would make him a winner. Frankly, everyone has a family member, or friend, or neighbor who can be brought into the McCain camp. It's that simple.

If people know you strongly support the Senator, then other people are more likely to follow your lead.

(More to come Thursday afternoon. Please read the columns below about John McCain and this probable opponent, Barack Obama, in the general election.)

On The NYT's Smear Campaign Against McCain

From: [Political Analyst] Aaron Rizzio, Subject: Gloves off at NYT

[Reporter] Jim Rutenberg had been shopping this story around furiously to the New Republic and Drudge Report since late last year after the NYT initially refused to run with it. Drudge, apparently on the Romney payroll at the time, ran a teaser item on it on 12-20. What precisely has been developed since [NYT Editor] Keller spiked the apparent dead-end story last year is a question he should be prepared to answer. What we have are 2 apparently disgruntled anonymous former McCain staffers (who are they? were they terminated? who are they working for now?). This could end up being a good thing for several reasons 1.) if it ultimately goes nowhere and Keller takes institutional flak for running such a smarmy and sloppy hit piece on McCain he is effectively immunized against such weakly sourced rumor and innuendo going forward. 2.) It wakes team McCain up to the reality that indeed the NYT is not their friend and they cannot rely on the institutional "msm" to carry water for them here on out for the duration of the campaign. 3.) The NYT has really, really, lowered the bar for future hit pieces on Obama in this campaign cycle (from what promises to be a cornucopia of potential source material); although I wouldn't count on the NYT running any anonymously sourced hearsay accusations of Barack Obama smoking crack behind garbage dumpsters anytime soon. I like this line "even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee". You mean like Tom Daschle former Senate Maj Leader (and Obama backer) who's wife lobbyed against secured airline cockpit bulkheads prior to 9/11? That kind of thing?http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0201.mencimer.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS "LIVE BIRTH" ABORTION

I wrote the following to a Yahoo Group of Black Conservatives (I desegregated the group) today regarding Mark McKinnon, who said he would leave his position as an advertising consultant in the McCain Campaign if Obama is the nominee:

I have heard (on MSNBC) that Mark McKinnon is basically a hired gun -- and a Democrat. If he disagrees with Obama on "several fundamental issues," as he says, then he would seem to have a moral obligation as an American to oppose Obama. That's what the political process is (supposedly) about. Thus, McKinnon seems to be cultivating his 15-minutes-of-fame.

I've been accused of launching attacks on Barack Obama. Let me be clear on that point.I have attackedObama on my blog and elsewhere on what are basically character issues. I agree with John McCain that there are many signs that Barack -- a words-man -- is not a man of his word. McCain was talking about Obama's on-again, off-again pledge to accept public financing in the general election.

In January, 2006, Obama said the following to Tim Russert on Meet the Press: "I will serve out my full fix-year term [in the Senate]." That was his commitment to the people of Illinois. When Russert asked him again if he would run for President or Vice-President, he said, "I will not."

Earlier, however, in December, 2006, he had made a visit to New Hampshire, where he told a crowd he "would participate in the process," by which he meant the presidential election process. (You can find this information on p. 542 of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics. For his New Hampshire remarks, google Obama + New Hampshire + December, 2006, as I did.)

I've attacked Michelle Obama for words she said (about never being proud of her country until very recently). On MSNBC at this moment (4 p.m. ET), Michelle Obama is supposedly "clarifying her remarks." She is not clarifying anything. She says, "We've overcome diversities that we should all be proud of." Whatever that means. I thought we were in favor of diversity. We'd better be!

She's not suffering from gratuitous attacks. They're not based on thin air. They're reflective of positions Obama and his wife have taken. They need to be less careless with words, which are supposed to be their strong points.

Be clear on this: I will never intentionally say anything about them that's untrue. But if they want to assume the nation's highest positions, they shouldn't spew out nonsense.

One area where we won't hear any ringing words from Obama is on the subject of abortion.Barack Obama has voted against providing medical care in the case of so-called "live birth abortions." That happens (rarely) when an abortion is botched and the embryo is born alive, thus becoming a child (and an American citizen). This is the same Obama who is for "universal health care" -- except, of course, in the case of a child gasping for life.

(Barone's words on this follow: "He voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who surived abortions . . . ). That's not exactly a position which is going to "bring the nation together," as Obama claims is his goal. When he and Michelle talk about their concern for America's children, we need to press them on exactly which children get excluded.

They preach unity, but they practice the worst forms of division. Yes, Obama, the political preacher man, has a 'dream." But with many of his extreme views, the question is how he can sleep at night.

Obama and the Political Smoke Machine

It's absolutey critical to "introduce" the American people to Barack Obama, and John McCain and Cindy McCain were doing just that yesterday. Among other things, McCain said something quite fascinating, that Obama is advocating "a holiday from history." I don't advocate that as a campaign slogan, but it demonstrates that McCain has Obama's number. He's saying that Obama's "soaring rhetoric' has left the stratosphere and totally detached itself from reality. Unfortunately, some people will remain forever bamboozled, including the college freshman types minlessly chanting "Yes, we can!" No, you can't, as most two-year-olds learn when they turn 3.

Obama is talking about our society's supposed failures in regard to children. This from the guy who voted to deny medical assistance to children born alive in botched abortions. I guess "universal health care" has its limitations.

In terms of education, Obama's "plan," like Bill Clinton's is to do nothing other than pay of the Teacher's Union. Parental choice? He doesn't have that "dream." Merit pay for excellent teachers? Not during his watch.

Health care? That means more patients, the same number of providers, and somehow lots of imaginary "savings."

As for the War on Terror, his goal seems to be to leave Iraq to al Qaeda and, at the same time, invade Pakistan.

He quotes JFK, but very selectively, missing the famous line about: "We will pay any price, bear any burden to ensure the survival of liberty." Perhaps Caroline Kennedy can remind her new hero about that one. It is vitally important to defeat this snake-oil-salesman, the man-of-words who turns out (as with campaign finance) not to be a man-of-HIS-word.

AMERICA'S OBAMA PROBLEM, BARACK, MICHELLE

"America is not deceived by an eloquent -- but empty -- call for change." (John McCain, Tuesday night in Columbus, Ohio)

Pennsylvania's (and America's) Obama Problem is that the candidate -- and his wife -- don't think very highly of America. Apparently, Obama believes the country is seriously deficient and must undergo radical change to become acceptable to the Moveon.org types who back him.

What does his wife, Michelle Obama, think about her country? She recently said, "[F]or the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction."

That from a Black woman who received her undergraduate education at Princeton -- and then got a law degree from Harvard University. Many years ago a conservative writer produced a book entitled Why Harvard Hates America. He didn't use Michelle and Barack Obama as examples of the university's distaste for the U.S., but he could have.

It's improbable to think that the country is ready for a "First Lady" who doesn't like America very much -- except when her husband happens to be a serious candidate for President. This isn't Mrs. Obama's first gaffe -- nor will it be her last. Every once in awhile, she will tell us what she really thinks, and those will not be pleasant experiences for her fellow citizens, most of whom didn't get basically "free rides" through Princeton and Harvard.

In my case, I went to the University of Rochester in my home town. I lived at home to save money. I worked during the day and attended the University's night school, because it was cheaper to do so. Finally, I ended up with a Ph.d. and a good-sized obligation in the form of student loans.

I don't believe there has been a day -- or an hour -- when I didn't love my country. Everything that is good in my life derives mainly from my being an American citizen infused with this nation's values and opportunities. To me, America means "not less than everything." I'm very uncomfortable with Americans who don't feel that way.

Obama has based much of his campaign on his belief that the U.S. erred by invading Iraq and overthrowing the genocidal Saddam Hussein. However, lest we think Obama is a pacifist, he has said that we should invade Pakistan (of all places!) without that country's permission, a bizarre and even childish statement.

In the second Democratic debate, Obam said, in essence, that if terrorists hit two American cities, his response would be to have a commission determine why the intelligence system failed. In other words, he'd go looking for scapegoats, rather than respond decisively to the attack. He and his fellow Democrats, who have worked so hard to hamstring our intelligence effort, would accept no responsibility for the CIA's and FBI's limitations. His view of "change" when it comes to the intelligence community is to weaken it -- and then blame it for failings whenever that's politically expedient.

John McCain said last night, "America will not be deceived by eloquent but empty calls for change." I hope he's right. Obama will continue blowing smoke and some people will inhale it as if it's nectar from the gods.

In his rhetoric -- his words -- Obama often echoes his wife's comments about not liking much about the U.S. However, there's no evidence that a country run by an Obama-type would in any substantive way be superior to one where people basically run their own lives. He's asking us to change a free society into one dominated by statists like Barack and Michelle Obama.

John and Cindy McCain understand what's really at stake in this election. Unfortunately, Barack (and Michelle) Obama don't.

OBAMA WILL BE THE OPPONENT

"It's time for Hillary Clinton to replace her speechwriter." Donna Brazille (Democratic Super-Delegate) on CNN speaking about how Mrs. Clinton had recently fired her campaign manager and her deputy campaign manager

"She [Mrs. Clinton] hasn't found her voice. She hasn't found her message. The Clinton Campaign should be fined for malpractice. . . This has become Barack Obama's race to lose." David Gergen on CNN

Imagine that, all those years we spent hoping and praying Hillary Clinton would be the nominee and now we have been deprived of the "honor" of running against her. Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, will be John McCain's opponent in November.

Of course, John McCain is one of the more conservative members of the Senate, an important fact lost on dimwits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter ("the crocodilian one"). At this moment in history, it's time we conservatives grow up and face political reality.

Talk show simplisms about "amnesty" and "the Gang of 14" are little more than forms of malevolence. Choose ye this day, my friend: McCain or the Other Guy (Obama)?

Right now, Barack Obama is the Pied Piper leading all those multitudes chanting "Yes we can!" (do something or other all the way to the voting booth in November. Frankly, Obama is looking a lot like a winner, something I'm prepared to do my best to prevent.

I hope you'll join me. Will you? He will be extremely difficult to defeat -- and that's an understatement.

CAN MCCAIN WIN "BATTLEGROUND STATES?"

On CNN (3:40 ET on Tuesday) Carl Berstein just said that the Clinton Campaign is portraying Obama as "an empty suit with great lungs." In this regard, John McCain can learn from Hillary -- and vice versa. Obama's "message of Hope" is a bumper sticker, not a vision for the country. Mrs. Clinton's strategy is to establish Obama not as a JFK-style visionary but rather as a windbag.

The example of New Jersey . . .

On the state blogs for McCain front, I'm managing the Pennsylvania site -- and I'd very much like so co-managers. It's not a lot of work, but it is a great deal of fun -- and it's for a very good cause, ensuring the election of John McCain.

I'm TEMPORARILY managing the Ohio and New Jersey sites until we can find full-time managers for those sites. If you'd like to volunteer or recommend someone, please do so either in the comments section or by e-mailing me at: TalkTop65@aol.com.

On the Garden State site today, I asked a fundamental question: Can McCain actually win a state like New Jersey? McCain has said he wants to pursue a 50-state strategy, competing in every one of them. I'm very much in favor of that approach.

New Jersey is a fascinating case. In 2000, George W. Bush got skunked there by Al Gore. The latter got 56% of the vote and GWB got 40%. In 2004, Kerry won the state, but only by 53% to 46%. In politics, 45% or more are the magic numbers, meaning that in a future race a state might just be winnable.The following are excerpts from what I told the New Jerseyites:

New Jersey for McCain? Here! (link to the entire piece)

Can John McCain actually win New Jersey? I sure hope so.

As some of you will remember from the 2004 election, George Bush started to get close to Kerry -- to the point that the Vice President paid a late visit to Jersey. To win in NJ, a candidate must draw many votes from Independents -- and some votes from Democrats.

The registration figures suggest that a strong Republican candidate with great appeal to Independents and Democrats -- that is, McCain -- can in fact prevail in New Jersey. Yes, there are 1,150,000 registered Democrats to just 890,000 Republicans (according to The Almanac of American Politics). However, there's an amazing 2.8 million "others," 56% of the total. (The registration percentages in New Hampshire are somewhat similar.)

If Senator McCain can win a good majority of those "others," he can carry the state. McCain is not going to be able to outspend his Democratic opponent (probably Barack Obama, but possibly Hillary Clinton). However, as his campaign so far shows, he will outwork them.

To win, he needs a massive number of voluteers around the country. You can be one of those volunteers by taking over this blog. As the old saying goes, "If you not, who? If not now, when?"

If you're interested in volunteering [for NJ or another state] or would like to suggest a name, please e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com -- or leave a message in the comments section. Thanks for visiting!Note: I hope you'll visit the operating state blogs, including Oklahoma and New Mexico. Please leave comments. John McCain will win because of efforts of people who are just like you.

Note: If you live in Wisconsin or Washington State, please vote today for John McCain! (We need blog volunteers from both states.)