Rezko on SNL, remembering or exploiting, what’s wrong with MO?, myths mano a mano, election lessons learned, seniors still cool

1) It looks as if the Tony Rezko saga has finally arrived on the national radar? How do I know? Well, SNL did a skit that mentioned it. It runs a little long and takes shots at both candidates, but it’s nice to see Rezko get some attention!

Read the rest ->

The Chicago Sun-Times has a blurb mentioning this.

In a takeoff on Friday’s presidential debate, the John McCain character criticized Obama’s support for federal earmarks, including an $8.1 million earmark called the “Tony Rezko hush fund.”
Obama’s character shot back, “Sen. McCain, you know I withdrew that initiative after he began cooperating with federal authorities.”
——————-
In the skit, Obama’s character promised tax breaks for Chicago City Council members and boasted that his tax plan exempts “bribes, kickbacks, shakedowns, embezzlement of government funds or extortion.”

Newsbusters had a more complete description.

The Obama character later promised that he would “play the race card” against dictators like North Korean President Kim Jong Il if necessary to guilt-trip them into dismantling their nuclear programs, as he would accuse Kim of refusing to cooperate with him because “I’m not like the other guys on the $5 and $10 bills.”
———-

JOHN MCCAIN, PLAYED BY DARRELL HAMMOND: Jim, what the American people need to understand, and what Senator Obama does not understand, is that the real problem here is excessive government spending, especially congressional earmarks and pork barrel projects. … And how about this? $8.2 million for something called “Tony Rezko Hush Money.”

BARACK OBAMA, PLAYED BY FRED ARMISEN: John, I withdrew that earmark right after [UNCLEAR WHETHER ARMISEN SAYS "I" OR "he"] began cooperating with prosecutors, and I think you know that.

MCCAIN: Senator, the fact is, to fund all the other programs, your planning will require a massive tax increase.

OBAMA: John, once again, you’re not being truthful about my proposals. Under my tax plan, not only would every American making less than $250,000 per year get a tax cut, so would most members of the Chicago City Council, as well as city building inspectors. That’s because my plan would not tax income from bribes, kickbacks, shakedowns, embezzlement of government funds, or extortion.

…

JIM LEHRER CHARACTER: Now, let’s turn to the topic of nuclear proliferation. Senator Obama, you have frequently been critical of this administration’s efforts to stop Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.

OBAMA: I have.

LEHRER: What would you do differently.

OBAMA: First of all, Jim, I would use traditional diplomacy, something this administration has consistently refused to do. Should that fail, then and only then, would I try what I call “playing the race card.”

[LAUGHTER]

LEHRER: And how would that work?

OBAMA: Take North Korea. I would ask Kim Jong Il to shut down his country’s nuclear weapons program. If he declined, I would say to him, “All right, I get it. I know why you’re really refusing to stop the program.” And he would say, “No, what are you talking about?” And I would say, “It’s because I don’t look like all the other Presidents you’ve dealt with.” And then he would say, “Wait, that’s not fair. That has nothing to do with it.” And I would add, “That’s cool. I understand. I’m different. I’m not like the other guys on the $5 and $10 bills.” It’s a long, delicate process. But eventually, he’ll have to give in.

Oooooh. I can’t WAIT for the howls of outrage!!

2) Newsbusters has a short piece about that bracelet Obama wears to uh remember some soldier dude. Apparently the family isn’t too happy he is wearing it.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son’s name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.

During a radio interview, the father of Brian Jopek told the host his wife wanted the bracelet to be a silent reminder to Obama of her son and for it not to be a political thing.

Jopek: She has turned down any subsequent interviews with the media because she just didn’t want it to get turned into something that it wasn’t. She had told me in an email that she had asked, actually asked Mr. Obama to not wear the bracelet any more at any of his public appearances. Which I don’t think he’s…

Moberg: It has been a while since he’s brought it up.

Jopek: Right. But, the other night I was watching the news and he was on, uh, speaking somewhere and he was still wearing it on his right wrist. I could see it on his right wrist. So, that’s his own choice. I mean that’s something Barack Obama, that’s a choice that he continues to wear it despite Tracy asking him not to… Because she is a Barack Obama supporter and she didn’t want to do anything to sabotage his campaign, so, if he’s still wearing the bracelet then, uh, that of course is entirely up to him.
————————-

Even the snow job that the radio host tried to pull off to cover for Barack’s refusing the wishes of the family of the KIA soldier who’s bracelet he wears doesn’t pass the smell test. After all, now that Obama has made it a big point in the debates, I guess the silent observance of Sgt. Jopek is no longer so silent and Obama is back to exploiting the death of a soldier even when he was asked NOT to do so by that soldier’s parents.
To pile insult onto injury here, the Mother doesn’t even want to force the issue of telling Obama to stop exploiting her son because she wants to see him win the election. Obama is not only taking advantage of this brave soldier’s death, he is taking advantage of the good wishes of the man’s Mother who doesn’t want to hurt the campaign

3) Powerline has also picked up the troubling story of Obama’s Missouri minions trying to stifle free speech.

If Barack Obama becomes President and takes over command of the Justice Department, it is reasonable to expect an assault on the First Amendment the like of which we haven’t seen since the Jefferson administration. Here’s the latest: in Missouri, Obama has enlisted his allies in public office, including St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, to threaten criminal prosecution of any Missouri television station that runs ads about Obama that are untrue. Since every politician sincerely believes that all ads run by his opponents are untrue, the field of potential criminal exposure is broad indeed.

HotAir had this to add:

. . .Needless to say, no one actually has to be prosecuted for this to work. Prosecution will be impossible anyway in most cases thanks to the First Amendment. The point isn’t to jail critics but merely to price the cost of prospective litigation into their decision on whether to publicly criticize The One. Add this to the threatening letters his lawyers sent to station managers over the NRA ads, the flash-mob smearing of David Freddoso, and the appeal to the Justice Department to prosecute the American Issues Project for its perfectly factual yet devastating Ayers ad. Oh, the fun we’ll have with a deep blue Congress and an Obama-run DOJ and FCC. He promised you a “new type of politics,” didn’t he? Click the image to watch.

I think he’s got a point here. The THREAT of LITIGATION could do what any threat of prosecution cannot. I had not thought of that angle.

4) The LA Times has a piece today saying this election is a clash of American mythology as symbolized by its protagonists. Yeah, someone is going literary.

So that’s the clash. McCain, the known quantity, the maverick turned lawman, fiery when called on to fight, an icon of the old known American story of standing tall, holding firm, protecting God’s country against the stealthy foe. Obama is the new kid on the block, the immigrant’s child, the recruit, fervent but still preternaturally calm, embodying some complicated future that we haven’t yet mapped, let alone experienced. He is impure — the walking, talking melting pot in person. In his person, the next America is still taking shape.

The warrior turned lawman confronts the community organizer turned law professor. The sheriff (who married the heiress) wrestles with the outsider who rode into town and made a place for himself. No wonder this race is thrilling and tense. America is struggling to fasten a name on its soul.

If you want to read about American archetypes and think this would be interesting, go ahead. I’m lukewarm on it, myself.

5) More interesting is a piece at realclearpolitics. The author suggests we’ve already learned a few things from the election so far.

1. Attempts to change the nature of campaigning are futile.
The two things that everyone complains about – the costs of campaigns and their negativity – will be with us for the foreseeable future. I recommend embracing one and shrugging about the other.
—————–

2. In an irony for the ages, liberal bias in the media culture’s ivory towers grew to its shameful worst, and it didn’t even matter.
This is the year a Republican convention crowd mocked NBC with derisive chants because that proud network allowed its MSNBC brand to pass off the hateful spewage of Keith Olbermann and others as fair commentary.
———————
The “new media” – blogs, talk radio, podcasts – are a cauldron of loosely reined info-bits shot from a cannon that never stops firing. But even with their wildly divergent standards and often spotty reliability, these sources offer balance and insights their dinosaur brethren refuse to provide.
———————-
3. To end on an uplifting note, all the haranguing over gender and race has without a doubt moved us toward the goal of toppling both barriers.
No matter which ticket wins, the next candidate of color will have an easier time because of the trail Barack Obama has blazed. The next woman to reach for the White House will benefit from a nation somewhat more used to the prospect because of Ms. Palin’s candidacy.

I’d have to agree on all counts.

6) The Weekly Standard has an interesting piece contrasting the styles of McCain and Obama, calling them the “warrior and the priest.”

John McCain, restless and emotional, couldn’t resist the temptation to join the battle to rescue our financial markets and save the economy. It was the biggest and most important fight around, bigger and more important than his campaign scrap with Barack Obama. Being engaged in the action–in the arena–is where McCain always wants to be. So he cast his presidential campaign aside, temporarily, and headed back to Washington. The campaign could wait. It might even benefit.

Obama, placid and professorial, had a different reaction to the fight over the bailout. Even before McCain’s maneuver he’d rejected the idea of putting his campaign on hold and joining the legislative battle. He’d be available if needed. An abrupt change in plans, a sudden shift, is not his style. His campaign would go on. He returned to Washington reluctantly. If he hadn’t, his campaign might have suffered.

The contrast here is not only dramatic. It’s unusually revealing about the two candidates and how they might act as president. There’s an analogy that captures the difference: the warrior and the priest. McCain the warrior, Obama the priest. (If “priest” seems confusing, substitute “professor.”)

Interesting, but we’ve seen such comparisons before. Read if you have time.

7) The Philadelphia Inquirer has a piece about Obama and seniors. He doesn’t do as well with this age group and his recent pander ad to the group included what many media outlets have termed a lie.
Barack Obama should be thankful that the Wall Street crisis is dominating the news these days, because otherwise more people might notice that he has been uttering manifest falsehoods about John McCain’s Social Security plan – in a bid to woo the potentially pivotal senior voters who remain cool to Obama’s historic candidacy.

While on the stump in Florida last weekend, Obama contended that McCain’s talk of Social Security privatization could leave seniors destitute: “If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would have watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes.”

Obama lied. No such nest eggs would have disappeared, because the McCain plan exempts every American born before 1950. I could also detail the Obama TV ad on Social Security that has been aired in Florida, Pennsylvania and five other states – it falsely claims that McCain favors “cutting benefits in half” – but here’s the point:

The Obama camp has apparently decided that the candidate needs to scare senior Americans into voting for him, because he doesn’t appear to be connecting with enough of them any other way. Voters 65 and older are less charmed by Obama than any other age bracket; their resistance – particularly in battleground states such as Florida (the grayest state), Pennsylvania (second grayest), and Ohio (eighth) – is a potentially serious drag on his November prospects.

The author talks about polls showing McCain edging Obama with seniors and how the Obama campaign evidently expects a large youth vote to make up for a loss with seniors.

Obama has come this far by marketing hope, yet his current pitch to seniors is based on fear. It’s stark evidence that he has yet to close the sale with a crucial slice of the electorate – and that he is willing to dissemble rather than inspire, if that’s what it takes. The author just doesn’t see that happening.

Interesting the idea that Obama is trying to use the youth vote to make up for the senior vote. I’ve heard this before, and I understand it from a strategic point of view. But, when you decide to go after such a different demographic to make up for shortcomings in another rather than actually dealing with those shortcomings, it bothers me. Why? Well, it tends to mean you are going to sacrifice the interests of one for those of another. In this case, youth is all. And that does seem to be the vibe of the Obama campaign. The older you are, the less you’re wanted or listened to. And, of course, there’s that whole “old, bitter women” thing as well.

8 ) The Swamp has a short bit about politics in Ohio. The author thinks local politics there, in the form of scandal, will have a negative effect on Obama’s chances.

Democrats in Ohio, already rolling a stone uphill in trying to deliver the Buckeye state for Barack Obama, aren’t helping the cause with a series of self-inflicted wounds.
————-
Increasingly, it looks like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio could tell the tale in November and the Democrats’ legal, ethical and public relations woes don’t make an Obama sales job
any easier in Ohio.

I’m not keeping up with electoral politics like I should, but at the HuffyPot, there’s an author who thinks this election will turn into an Obama rout. Kind of hard to reconcile such different points of view. (Google it, I don’t link to the Pot).

I guess all we can do is keep working and hope for the best.