Who is actually buying this crapola? An admiral, and US Representative, is going to take an unpaid advisory job in lieu of running for US Senator? Yeah, right. Now about this oceanfront property in Nevada I want to sell you…

There are some who aren’t buying this either, and they are in a position to do something about it:

Um, it all depends on what your definition of “quid pro quo” is, right? Good grief.

But at long last, as Molly Hennenberg intimated, another story is making it into the big time. This is one a few folks from Colorado have been trying to get out there to little avail. Until now. It turns out that former Colorado State House Speaker, Andrew Romanoff, was also offered a job if he would not run against Senator Michael Bennett. Oh, wait – my bad, he had a job offer “dangled” to him. See, that is not at ALL the same thing as being offered a job. Got it? Yeah, I’m not buying that crapola, and neither is the AP:

AP Sources: Admin Talked Jobs With Romanoff

The Obama administration dangled the possibility of a government job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forgo a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, officials said Wednesday, just days after the White House admitted orchestrating a job offer in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

These officials declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations.

The new revelation of a possible political trade again called into question President Barack Obama’s repeated promises to run an open government that was above back room deals.

The Colorado episode follows a similar controversy in Pennsylvania. An embarrassed White House admitted last Friday that it turned to former President Bill Clinton last year to approach Rep. Joe Sestak about backing out of the primary in favor of an unpaid position on a federal advisory board.

Or more like no attention was paid to the Romanoff offer. And again, does the White House really expect us to believe it was an unpaid job? Please. Regardless, still wrong, and besides, Sestak wouldn’t bite:

Sestak declined the offer and defeated Sen. Arlen Specter late last month for the Democratic nomination after disclosing the job discussions and highlighting it as evidence of his anti-establishment political credentials. He said last week he rejected Clinton’s feeler in less than a minute.

In a two-page report on the Sestak case, the White House counsel said the administration did nothing illegal or unethical.

Unlike Sestak, Romanoff has ducked questions on the subject, and it was not clear how long his discussions with administration officials lasted.

Romanoff had sought appointment to the Senate seat that eventually went to Bennet, publicly griped he had been passed over and then discussed possible appointment possibilities inside the administration, one of the officials said.

Republicans have strongly criticized the offer to Sestak, and challenged Romanoff to answer questions about his own dealings with the White House.

Bennet has outpaced Romanoff in fundraising and support from Washington, although party activists attending the state party assembly last month favored the challenger by a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent. The primary is Aug. 10.

Bennet was appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to fill out the final two years of the term of Ken Salazar, who resigned to become interior secretary.

Romanoff’s campaign spokesman did not immediately respond to questions. (Associated Press Writer Kristen Wyatt in Denver contributed to this report.)

Oh dear – seems the White House has backed the wrong horse – again. Sestak beat Specter, and Romanoff is favored over Bennett. Then there was that Brown fella who beat Coakley, and I could go on, but you get the idea.

But wait – it gets even better. Apparently, Romanoff finally, in his own way, came to that realization, too, as this Politico article highlights, “Andrew Romanoff: W.H. Offered Three Jobs.” Oops:

Colorado U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff confirmed Wednesday that Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff, suggested three administration jobs that would be available to him last September if he dropped his plans to run against U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, who had the support of the White House.

Romanoff said he informed the White House that he would stay in the race. The revelation comes days after the White House confirmed that Rep. Joe Sestak was approached about an unpaid position in the administration if he dropped his campaign against Sen. Arlen Specter. But in this case, Romanoff was offered paid positions in the administration, a clear difference from the Sestak case.

In a statement to the media, Romanoff attached an email from Messina – dated Sept. 11, 2009 – listing the three jobs, two at USAID and one as director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, with a page-long set of job descriptions.

Earlier, the White House had confirmed that administration officials had “conversations” last year with Romanoff about possible positions inside the administration. But the White House didn’t confirm which jobs were involved, or that Messina was the emissary to Romanoff.

Um, yes – I would say “dangling” three different jobs in front of Romanoff’s face as “conversations.” No doubt, you can guess what is coming next:

Republicans have already seized on the Sestak job offer to call into question Obama’s claims to be a Washington reformer – seizing on the fact that it was chief of staff Rahm Emanuel who dispatched former President Bill Clinton to make the offer of an unpaid advisory position to Sestak in hopes of clearing him out of a primary against Specter, the five-term veteran who had Obama’s backing.

The Romanoff case seems likely to step up Republican calls for a full investigation of the White House political operation. Seven Republicans from the Senate Judiciary Committee have already asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into the Sestak matter.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) who has spearheaded the charge for an investigation into White House actions, said the revelation has “irrevocably shattered” the Obama brand.

“Clearly Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff aren’t isolated incidents and are indicative of a culture that embraces the politics-as-usual mentality that the American people are sick and tired of,” Issa said in a statement.

In his statement, Romanoff said that in September 2009, shortly after the news media first reported his plans to run for the Senate, he received a call from Messina. “Mr. Messina informed me that the White House would support Sen. Bennet. I informed Mr. Messina that I had made my decision to run,” the statement said..

“Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina’s assistance in obtaining one,” Romanoff said.

Later that day, Romanoff said he received an email from Mr. Messina containing descriptions of three positions. “I later left him a voicemail informing him that I would not change course,” Romanoff said. “I have not spoken with Mr. Messina, nor have I discussed this matter with anyone else in the White House, since then.”

Both the White House and Romanoff say no job offer was made to Romanoff, the former state House speaker, and the White House said it was Democrats in Colorado who promoted him for a position.

“Mr. Romanoff was recommended to the White House from Democrats in Colorado for a position in the administration. There were some initial conversations with him but no job was ever offered,” said White House spokesman Adam Abrams, before the Romanoff statement was released. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

I think that Abrams’ comment might now qualify as an “oopsie daisy” – I bet they just hate it when there are actually paper trails involved. Pretty hard to dismiss this one out of hand, don’t ya think?

Well, we suspected where there was smoke, there was fire. Sure enough, this is a fire. Republican, Independent, or Democrat, one has to acknowledge this is not good for Obama. Even more, this Chicago style of politics is not good for the country. And THAT is why this needs to be investigated fully, and not just by the White House. No time like the present, wouldn’t you say?

UPDATE: The White House has given this excuse for their job offers to Romanoff. They aren’t denying they offered them to him, and that is the issue. I don’t think this really changes anything, do you?

Well, good. They were arrested. Seemed to be the right thing to do.

Until the Department of Justice decided to drop the charges against them. Yes, that’s right. AG Holder decided to drop all charges against them. I am sure that was not the least bit politically motivated. Ahem.

Well, the plot thickens, as this editorial highlights, “ DOJ Voting Rights Attorney Resigns Over Black Panther Stonewalling.” Oh, dear – that doesn’t sound good:

A trial attorney with the Department of Justice’s Voting Rights Section has resigned, citing concerns about the government’s refusal to prosecute a case involving voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. A letter of resignation obtained by The Washington Examiner from a former Justice Department employee makes clear DOJ has refused to allow attorneys in the Voting Rights Section to testify before the congressionally-chartered bipartisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite subpoenas that could result in their being held in contempt.In his letter of resignation, J. Christian Adams said:

On the other hand, the events surrounding the dismissal of United States v. New Black Panther Party, et al., after the trial team sought and obtained an entry of default, has subjected me, Mr. Christopher Coates, and potentially at some point, all members of the team, to a subpoena from the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The subpoena is based on an explicit federal statute and seeks answers about why the case was dismissed.

I have incurred significant personal expense in retaining a number of separate attorneys and firms regarding this subpoena in order to protect my interests and advise me about my personal legal obligation to comply with the subpoena. Over the last few months, one of my attorneys has had multiple communications with Federal Programs regarding the subpoena. My attorney suggested to them that the Department should file a motion in district court to quash the subpoena and thereby resolve conclusively any question about my obligation to comply.

Months ago, my attorney advised the Department that a motion to quash would be welcome, and that I would assert no objection to the motion. Further, my attorney has explicitly sought to ascertain whether Executive Privilege has been invoked regarding the decisions of individuals not in the Voting Section to order the dismissal of the case. If Executive Privilege has been asserted, or will be, obviously I would not comply with the subpoena. These options would provide some conclusive legal certainly about the extent of my obligation to comply with a subpoena issued pursuant to a federal statute. Instead, we have been ordered not to comply with the subpoena, citing a federal regulation (emphasis mine).

I’m going to go out on a limb and say the attorney is just a bit upset at this turn of events, wouldn’t you? There’s more:

Adams also cites his knowledge of the criminal character and “violent tendencies of” members of the New Black Panther Party, saying:

As you also know, the defendants in the New Black Panther lawsuit have become increasingly belligerent in their rhetoric toward the attorneys who brought the case. (See eg., April 23, 2010 statement of Malik Zulu Shabazz,http://www.newblackpanther.com/usccrphony case statement.pdf, describing the “phony case” brought by “the modern day racist lynch mob seeking to hang what [we] think .are [our] modern slaves.”) Their grievances toward us generally echo the assertions that the facts and law did not support the lawsuit against them, ab initio. Knowing intimately the criminal character and violent tendencies of the members of New Black Panther Party, it is my profound hope that these assertions are tempered.

This follows the departure of another attorney, who before transferring to South Carolina, read a statement to a surprised “goodbye luncheon” about his opposition to the way the case is handled (see here). More updates to follow. The document is below:

J. Christian Adams resignation letter 051910

UPDATE: The New Black Panthers’ website appears to be down. You can read Malik Zulu Shabazz’s statement over at Main Justice.

Holy moley. Well, we all knew it was suspicious that these charges were dropped. Just more of the incredibly disturbing trends coming from Obama’s Department Of Justice:”Let’s bring KSM to New York for his trial!” “Let’s sue a state over a law we haven’t read! Who cares that there is a Memo that supports their law, along with the Federal Law??” “We’re the DOJ, and we operate on the Court of Public Opinion, the law be damned!”

I don’t even want to see what is coming next from these people, do you?

The latest to lose his seat is West Virginia representative Alan Mollohan, who has served for 28 years now. Anti-incumbent fever knocked him out, and may very well knock out Arlen Specter in about a week from now. Judging from the comments made by the winner in the WVA race, State Senator Mike Oliverio, Pelosi might watch her back, too:

On the campaign trail, Democratic nominee Mike Oliverio told voters that if they sent him to Washington he wouldn’t vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

And if this trend continues, Oliverio might not have to.

True that. And her losing the Speakers position could not happen to a more deserving person. She has been a disaster as Speaker, IMHO.

I tell you who else I would like to see get his pink slip is my representative James “The Clintons Are Racists” Clyburn. Not only did he stab the Clintons in the back repeatedly, but he just voted to give the House their pay raise, one of 14 to do so. I’m sorry, say, Whaaaa?? Our state is struggling mightily, as many are. Just today, our paper had an article discussing a possible property tax increase with decreased services because we have lost so much money in state funding. Our taxes went up last year, too, so we’re paying out more, getting less, and Clyburn wants a raise? Spare me.

And then there is this HUGE change that occurred Tuesday across the pond. PM Gordon Brown stepped down, and Conservative David Cameron stepped up. This ended 13 years of Labour as the ruling party in the UK.

Prime Minister Cameron had this to say about what type of government he would like to establish:

Well, that’s an intriguing start. Cameron has made the Opposition leader, Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. And this was Clegg’s response at the same press conference:

What is this concept of “working together”? I am unfamiliar with that whole idea not having seen it in action of late. This will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the UK. It would be refreshing if they are able to work as a coalition for the good of the country, and not just their respective parties. Time, as they say, will tell.

I think this says it all:

“We have repeatedly sought your departments’ cooperation,” they wrote. “Our efforts have been met with delay, the production of little that was not already public and shifting reasons for why the departments are withholding [information] that we have requested.”

Before he went on his terrorist rampage, Hasan was in regular e-mail contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born imam who ministered to at least three 9/11 hijackers as well as the would-be Christmas Day underwear bomber.

Indeed, FBI and Army investigators reportedly intercepted those e-mails, and also knew that he’d been heard making statements justifying suicide bombing.

“Given the warning signals about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist radicalism,” ask Lieberman and Collins, “why was he not stopped before he took 13 American lives?”

Why not, indeed?

That is the question – why WON’T Holder and Gates provide the information the Senate needs to fulfill its duty? I am sure this will be dragging out for a while.

Then I reported that Gov. Rendell claimed the Tea Party is not a legitimate movement, basically asserting that its “popularity” is simply the result of positive media coverage. After I picked my jaw up off the floor at such an incredibly ridiculous statement based on FACTS, I found numerous instances of the media covering the Tea Party, but it was far from positive.

I was not the only one to refute this ridiculous claim, though, A Tea Party member, who is also a DJ, had this to say about Gov. Rendell’s statement:

Uh, yeah. I might add, I was reminded by Karen For Hillary that Rendell had also tried to found an Anti-PUMA group during the election, one he termed, H.O.U.N.D. (thanks, Ani, for acronym). Get it? Ahem. Yeah, he needs some rehab from that Obama Kool Aide.

And while I am on the topic of the media, and the way it covers events, how about the coverage of the AZ protesters of the new Immigration law v. Tea Party coverage:

So Anti-Immigration protesters are heaving full water bottles at police officers, some are being arrested, and this is a PEACEFUL protest? Wow.

Finally, there is this call to violence by Slate’s David Plotz:

Plotz acknowledged that he was indeed calling for violence (isn’t that a crime? “Inciting a riot” is what it sounds like to me, though I’m no lawyer). Moreover, when asked if he wanted to burn people in effigy, he made it clear that “in effigy” was NOT his plan.

Can you imagine, can you JUST imagine, if ANYONE in the middle or the right issued such a call?? Ohmygosh, they would have the FBI at their door tout de suite.

I might add, Plotz is clearly uninformed – there IS a populist uprising in progress in this country right now. It’s the TEA PARTY. Whether you agree with it or not, that is exactly what it is – a populist uprising against wasteful spending, taxation, and government expansion. You’d think someone who was in the news business would be aware of that. Ahem.

Stay tuned – I am sure there will be more to add in the coming days!

Last week Republican Rep. Mike Pence posted on his Facebook site that famous Schoolhouse Rock video titled “How a Bill Becomes a Law.” It’s clearly time for a remake.

Never before has the average American been treated to such a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that pulled ObamaCare to this point, and yesterday the same machinations pushed it across the finish line.

You could see it all coming a week ago, when New York Rep. Louise Slaughter let leak a breathtaking strategy whereby the House would not actually vote on the unpopular Senate bill. The House would instead vote on a “reconciliation” fix to that bill, and in the process “deem” the underlying legislation—with its Cornhusker kickbacks and Louisiana purchases—passed.

The Slaughter Solution was both blunt admission and warning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not have 216 votes to pass the Senate bill, there never was going to be majority “support” for it, but they’d pass it anyway. The final days were a simple death watch, to see how the votes would be bought, bribed or bullied, and how many congressional rules gamed, to get the win.

President Obama flew to Pennsylvania (home to five wavering House Democrats), Missouri (three wavering), Ohio (eight), and Virginia (four) to hold rallies with small, supportive crowds. In four days, Mr. Obama held 64 meetings or calls with congressmen. The goal was to let undecideds know that the president had them in his crosshairs, that he still had pull with the base, and he’d use it against them. By Saturday the tactic had yielded yes votes from at least half the previously undecided members of those states.

Because, as I keep saying, this bill is ALL about Obama. And, what others can get out of him, apparently:

As for those who needed more persuasion: California Rep. Jim Costa bragged publicly that during his meeting in the Oval Office, he’d demanded the administration increase water to his Central Valley district. On Tuesday, Interior pushed up its announcement, giving the Central Valley farmers 25% of water supplies, rather than the expected 5% allocation. Mr. Costa, who denies there was a quid pro quo, on Saturday said he’d flip to a yes.

Florida Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (whose district is home to the Kennedy Space Center) admitted that in her own Thursday meeting with the president, she’d brought up the need for more NASA funding. On Friday she flipped to a yes. So watch the NASA budget.

Democrats inserted a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Retiring Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon flipped to a yes vote on Thursday.

Outside heavies were enlisted to warn potential no votes that unions and other Democrats would run them out of Congress. Al Lawson, a Tallahassee liberal challenging Blue Dog Florida Rep. Allen Boyd in a primary, made Mr. Boyd’s previous no vote the centerpiece of his criticism. The SEIU threatened to yank financial support for New York’s Michael McMahon. The liberal Working Families Party said it would deny him a ballot line. Obama deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand vowed to challenge South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin if she voted no. New York’s Scott Murphy was targeted as a part of a $1.3 million union-financed ad campaign to pressure him to flip. Moveon.Org spent another $36,000 on ads in his district and promised a primary. Messrs. Boyd and Murphy caved on Friday.

Ah, yes – one such union threatening representatives is the SEIU. I know, big surprise. They have formerly exposed their bullying tactics. Don’t forget, SEIU was created by the same man who created ACORN. Makes more sense now, right? Uh, yeah. But they aren’t the only ones coercing and threatening people:

All the while Mrs. Pelosi was desperately working to provide cover with a Congressional Budget Office score that would claim the bill “saved” money. To do it, Democrats threw in a further $66 billion in Medicare cuts and another $50 billion in taxes. Huzzah! In the day following the CBO score, about a half-dozen Democrats who had spent the past months complaining the bill already had too many taxes and Medicare cuts now said they were voting to reduce the deficit.

Even with all this, by Friday Mrs. Pelosi was dealing with a new problem: The rule changes and deals winning her votes were losing her votes, too. The public backlash against “deem and pass” gave several wary Democrats—such as Massachusetts’s Stephen Lynch and California’s Dennis Cardoza—a new excuse to vote no.

Mrs. Pelosi jettisoned deem and pass. Once-solid Democrat yes votes wanted their own concessions. Oregon’s Pete DeFazio threatened to lead a revolt unless changes were made to Medicare payments to benefit his state. On Saturday Mrs. Pelosi cut a deal to give 17 states additional Medicare money.

By the weekend, all the pressure and threats and bribes had left the speaker three to five votes short. Her remaining roadblock was those pro-life members who’d boxed themselves in on abortion, saying they would vote against the Senate bill unless it barred public funding of abortion. Mrs. Pelosi’s first instinct was to go around this bloc, getting the votes elsewhere. She couldn’t.

Into Saturday night, Michigan’s Bart Stupak and Mrs. Pelosi wrangled over options. The stalemate? Any change that gave Mr. Stupak what he wanted in law would lose votes from pro-choice members. The solution? Remove it from Congress altogether, having the president instead sign a meaningless executive order affirming that no public money should go to pay for abortions.

The order won’t change the Senate legal language—as pro-choice Democrats publicly crowed within minutes of the Stupak deal. Executive orders can be changed or eliminated on a whim. Pro-life groups condemned the order as the vote-getting ruse it was. Nevertheless, Mr. Stupak and several of his colleagues voted yes, paving the way to Mrs. Pelosi’s final vote tally of 219.

The worthless piece of paper promised by Obama was enough to sway Stupak, whom I have seen on tv more than just about anyone as he touted his “principles.” Right. One meaningless piece of paper with Obama’s signature was enough to sway this man – I think that speaks volumes about Stupak.

But the Democrats were not alone in creative interpretations of the rules:

Even in these waning minutes, Senate Democrats were playing their own games. Republicans announced they had found language in the House reconciliation bill that could doom this entire “fix” in the Senate. Since many House Democrats only agreed to vote for the Senate bill on promises that the sidecar reconciliation would pass, this was potentially a last-minute killer.

Senate Democrats handled it by deliberately refusing to meet with Republicans and the Senate parliamentarian to get a ruling, lest it be unfavorable and lose House votes. The dodge was a clear dereliction of duty, but Democrats figure the Senate parliamentarian won’t dare derail this process after ObamaCare passes. They are probably right.

So there you have it, folks: “How a Bill Becomes a Law,” at least in Obama-Pelosi land. Perhaps the most remarkable Democratic accomplishment this week was to make the process of passing ObamaCare as politically toxic as the bill itself.

President Obama was elected by millions of Americans attracted to his promise to change Washington politics. These were voters furious with earmarks, insider deals and a lack of transparency. They were the many Americans who, even before this week, held Congress in historic low esteem. They’ll remember this spectacle come November.
(Ms. Strassel writes the Journal’s weekly Potomac Watch column from Washington.)

Indeed. Not only are there plenty of earmarks, deals, etc., but Obama’s level of “transparency” is more of a joke than Bush’s. Obama’s White House has refused more FOIA requests than Bush did. Perhaps Obama is unclear on the definition of “transparency.” Sure.

Let’s return to the earmarks in the Health Care Bill. Given what we know about this bill (law?) and all of the payoffs, bribes, and threats used to get it passed, imagine my surprise when I heard Rep. Van Hollen’s claims below:

Can you believe this guy?? Clearly, he is one of the representatives who didn’t bother to read this bill. Now that’s some hubris there – get on national TeeVee and deny aspects of this bill that have been widely reported. Wow…

And in developing news, ACORN claims it will be closing its doors on April 1st this year. But not so fast – it may just be more smoke and mirrors where the local offices are concerned (big surprise). A name change might be all they are doing. Stay tuned…

“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”

– French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. Just how low we’ve sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration’s satisfaction when Russia’s president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable.”

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

I should add, I don’t have the same level of disdain for the French that some in this country have. In fact, I love France, and I love the people I have met there. I have not had the experience of French people looking down their noses at me because I’m American, even in Paris. In small villages in which I’ve traveled, even with my crappy French (I took Spanish in school), and the limited English the shop keepers had, we each worked hard to understand each other. One woman didn’t speak a word of English, but would engage in pantomime (I’m sure there’s a joke there about the French and mimes) to get her point across, AND she was funny, to boot. So, while I appreciate that some people have not had this experience, I won’t jump on the French bashing bandwagon. Honestly, I can’t wait until I get to go back there.

Back to the article,and Krauthammer’s point:

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Hmmm – WWHD? You know, What Would Hillary Do? Would she reveal this nugget of explosive information? My bet is ABSO-FREAKIN’-LUTELY. How about Obama? What would he do:

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama’s star turn as planetary visionary: “The administration told the French,” reports the Wall Street Journal, “that it didn’t want to ‘spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N.”

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world.”

He explained: “President Obama has even said, ‘I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite.”

Sarkozy’s unspoken words? “And yet, sacré bleu, he’s sitting on Qom!”

Uh, yeah. It seems like the perfect setting for exposing this information. Evidently, Sarkozy thought so, too. Others didn’t realize what had just happened:

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama’s fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, “No one nation can . . . dominate another nation.” That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” in fact “make no sense in an interconnected world.” NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: “There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.” Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)

Mon Dieu! Those are some pretty strong words there. Appropriate, though. Can you imagine if any other president, who had the opportunity to chair this very important committee for the FIRST time, sat on that kind of information? No doubt, it wouldn’t just be the French President who was upset about this. Thankfully, those who are less invested in the “aura” of Obama actually paid attention to this “oversight” on Obama’s part at this critical juncture.

Once again, Obama has demonstrated how woefully prepared he is for the REAL World Stage.

(And C, if you’re reading this far, I hope you appreciate the French phrases!)

Last May, my cartoon (reposted below) was about “David” (Joe Sestak) thinking of running against “Goliath” (Arlen Specter) for United States Senator from Pennsylvania. When long-time Republican Specter dumped the GOP because polls showed that he would not win a 6th term in 2010, he decided to run again anyway—as a Democrat.

Along comes Joe Sestak, a retired Navy Admiral, who currently represents Pennsylvania’s 7th district as a Democrat in the House. After weeks of reflection and traveling the state, Joe Sestak will take on the grisly, high-profile, Senator Specter. Either man would likely prevail over the right-wing conservative Republican contender.

Here is a run-down of Joe and what he faces.

In favor of Sestak:
1. Joe has paid his dues to the Democratic Party and should have a chance to be the Democratic candidate for the Senate.
2. The people of Pennsylvania should be able to choose who they want, not what the Washington Democratic Establishment dictates.
3. Joe has guts to stand up to the Establishment that is trying to dissuade him, and we need more people of courage in government.
4. Specter is self-serving. All polls show that he could not have won as a Republican this next time around. His primary concern is keeping his career going.
5. Is Specter really a Democrat? How can Democrats know for sure? Will he really compromise on issues important to Democrats?
6. Specter should retire (80 next birthday) and has health issues.

What Sestak has to worry about:

1. Back before Sestak decided to run, Specter received instant high level support from the President and later the Vice President and Governor of Pennsylvania.
2. Everyone in Pennsylvania knows who Specter is. Sestak will have to work extra hard to make up for his lower profile.

I am delighted, personally. I always liked Joe Sestak. I like his courage. Even if I don’t agree with all of his votes, I know he was true to himself and those who he represents. I’m tired of these big money politicians. Sestak strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton very early on, which also made him a favorite of mine. But, I have admired Specter’s sometimes moderate views, and I don’t think age should be an issue if someone can do the job.

I do hope that a mud slinging battle in the primaries will be avoided. Both men have had impressive careers. And if the two men could agree to stick to the issues and not get into the cannibalistic duel-to-the-death that we saw in California in 2006 when Phil Angelides and Steve Westly decided to blow each other up, it will be a very exciting and educational race for the whole country to watch. Otherwise the Democratic party could suffer more damage than it needs. (In California, Arnold Schwarzenegger retained the Governor’s mansion without breaking a sweat. He only had to replay the Democratic primary loser’s [Angelides’] TV ads!)

If you want to help Joe–and he is looking for any level of assistance–make your secure donation here.

In the 2010 Senate primaries, should the dashing retired Navy Admiral who currently represents Pennsylvania’s 7th district as a Democrat in Congress take on the grisly, high-profile, five-term Republican Senator who only recently dumped the GOP to declare himself a Democrat? Either man would likely prevail over the right-wing conservative Republican contender.

Rep. Joe Sestak says that he “intends” to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter . Sestak has apparently set a date of June 30th (an FEC quarterly deadline) to be more forthcoming about his plans, although he recently stated on CNN that he also needs to discuss the matter fully with his family.

I have heard arguments about Joe Sesrak taking on Arlen Specter going both ways.

In favor of Sestak entering the race and making it interesting, at the very least:

1. Joe has paid his dues to the Democratic Party and should have a chance to be the Democratic candidate for the Senate.
2. The people of Pennsylvania should be able to choose who they want, not what the Washington Democratic Establishment dictates.
3. Joe has guts to stand up to the Establishment that is trying to dissuade him, and we need more people of courage in government.
4. Specter is self-serving. All polls show that he could not have won as a Republican this next time around. His primary concern is keeping his career going.
5. Is Specter really a Democrat? How can Democrats know for sure? Will he really compromise on issues important to Democrats?
6. Specter is too old (80 next birthday) and has health issues.

In favor of Sestak staying put in the House:

1. The House is a good place for Sestak to be. He is valuable there.
2. Specter received instant high level support from the President and later the Vice President and Governor of Pennsylvania.
3. Everyone in Pennsylvania knows who Specter is. Sestak is not yet well enough recognized throughout the state and does not show competitively in the current polls.
4. It is best for the Democratic Party to avoid a mud slinging battle in the primaries. Specter has already declared, so first come first served.

Both men have had impressive careers. And right now it is kind of a David v. Goliath situation. But early polls can change, as Hillary Clinton discovered the hard way.

I personally like Sestak best. I’m tired of these big money politicians. Sestak strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton very early on, which made him a favorite of mine. But, I have admired Specter’s sometimes moderate views, and I don’t think age should be an issue if someone can do the job. And if the two men could agree to stick to the issues and not get into the cannibalistic duel-to-the-death that we saw in California in 2006 when Phil Angelides and Steve Westly decided to blow each other up, it might be an exciting and educational race. Otherwise the party could suffer more damage than it needs. (In California, Arnold Schwarzenegger retained the Governor’s mansion without breaking a sweat. He only had to recite the primary loser’s [Angelides] TV ads!)

So, what do you think? Should Joe run?

I saw the following story this morning on the news, and was pretty surprised by it: One-Fourth of Overseas Votes Go Uncounted, Study Finds. Some of you may recall that John McCain asked for an extension to count votes in VA for absentee ballots requested by military personnel that were delayed in being set out. That was back in November.

Well, a new study has just come out from the US Senate, and you are not going to believe this. This is certainly timely given our conversations regarding our votes being counted, continuing tonight at 9:00pm (EST). Get this:

One out of every four ballots requested by military personnel and other Americans living overseas for the 2008 election may have gone uncounted, according to findings being released at a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said the study, while providing only a snapshot of voting patterns, “is enough to show that the balloting process for service members is clearly in need of an overhaul.”

Uh, ya THINK, Chuck?? No freakin’ kidding! These people put their lives on the line, and then one of their most basic right as Americans, the right to have vote and have it counted is treated so cavalierly? Yeah, I think that warrants an “overhaul.” SO astute.

There’s more:

The committee, working with the Congressional Research Service, surveyed election offices in seven states with high numbers of military personnel: California, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.

It said that of 441,000 absentee ballots requested by eligible voters living abroad — mainly active-duty and reserve troops — (emphasis mine)more than 98,000 were “lost” ballots that were mailed out but never received by election officials. Taking into account 13,500 ballots that were rejected for such reasons as a missing signature or failure to notarize, one-quarter of those requesting a ballot were disenfranchised.

The study found that an additional 11,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable.

Holy smokes. Twenty-five percent of the votes cast were not counted. I’m still trying to get my head around that, especially in light of the clear intention TO vote as expressed here:

Schumer’s office said that because a person living abroad must request the absentee ballot and show a clear intention to vote, voter negligence is not thought to be a major factor.

Rather, the New York Democrat said in a statement, there is a chronic problem of military voters being sent a ballot without sufficient time to complete it and send it back. He cited estimates that a ballot can take up to 13 days to reach an overseas voter.

Among the states surveyed, California had 30,000 “lost” votes out of 103,000 ballots mailed out. An additional 3,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable and 4,000 were rejected.

And that is exactly the issue McCain was trying to address in VA, where it was CLEAR that the fault lay with those responsible for mailing out the ballots. They failed to do so in a timely manner, especially considering the length of time it takes for the ballots to be received overseas.

So, what is the plan to correct this unacceptable situation? Well, this:

The hearing was to take up possible problems in the Federal Voting Assistance Program, a Pentagon program that handles the election process for military personnel and other overseas voters.

Oh, whew. I feel better now. That should take care of it, right? Ahem.

This just boggles my mind. Come to think of it, this isn’t just unacceptable, it is a breach of trust with those who are serving in our military abroad. They should be able to know that if they ask for an absentee ballot, they will receive it in a timely fashion. And, they should be able to know that their vote cast is a vote counted. We all should be able to trust that. Clearly, not only can those serving and living abroad not be able to trust in that, even when they do all that is required of them to cast that vote, but we cannot either. Not now, not with electronic voting machines, and not with rampant voter fraud. Something has to change, and it has to change now. At the very, very least, we all, every American, should be able to know with CERTAINTY that the vote we cast is counted, first of all, but counted correctly, second of all. And those who put their lives on the line for us deserve that at the very least.

Twenty five percent. 25%. One-fourth, 1/4th, of the votes not counted. Simply unacceptable.

Hanging on like a dog with a rag in its mouth, even unto teeth falling out, the completely inflexible Republican Party continues to screw itself.

The ever-homophobic FOX, choosing the title Arlen Specter Comes Out of the Closet to cover the story, simply could not resist bashing two birds with one endearing title stone.

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary. I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans

Well, despite his protestations to the contrary, when Gov. Rendell decided to endorse CHRIS MATTHEWS in his run for the 2010 US Senate run in PA, he pretty much sealed his own place in the Sexist Hall of Fame. I mean, REALLY – how can he go from supporting Hillary Clinton to supporting one of the most sexist, misogynistic men in the MSM, who ROUTINELY demeaned and belittled Clinton??

Unbelievable.

And along those lines, did you catch Rahm Emmanuel complaining the other day that he couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time? Oh, no – that’s not right. No, he said he couldn’t be a father and answer a reporter’s questions all at the same time. I am not kidding. It was in the Chicago Sun Times, regarding the whole Blagojevich debacle:

President-elect Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, refused to take questions from reporters this morning about whether he was the Obama “advisor” named in the criminal complaint against Gov. Rod Blagojevich…

Emanuel was uncharacteristically absent from Obama’s news conference this morning. He was spotted two hours later in the lobby of Chicago’s City Hall. He was there to listen to his two children performing in a concert with their school, Anshe Emet.

A Sun-Times reporter pressed him to comment about whether he was the emissary named in the criminal complaint.

“You’re wasting your time,” Emanuel said. “I’m not going to say a word to you. I’m going to do this with my children. Don’t do that. I’m a father. I have two kids. I’m not going to do it.”

Asked, “Can’t you do both?” Emanuel replied, “I’m not as capable as you. I’m going to be a father. I’m allowed to be a father,” and he pushed the reporter’s digital recorder away.

Holy cow. Can you IMAGINE what would have happened if, say, PALIN had said that? Oh, here’s a little example of the crapola said about HER being a parent:

Where the hell was Ed Schultz when Rahm Emmanuel couldn’t even answer a SIMPLE question because he’s a FATHER??? He’s something – besides being a father. Let your imaginations go wild…But hey – I didn’t hear any hew and cry from the Brotherhood of Sexist Men about THAT response, oh no.

Oh, but Schultz isn’t the only one. Remember this little gem by Campbell Brown questioning Palin’s fitness as a mother?

How about when Obama got all pissy with reporters for following him around when he took his two girls trick or treating? Oh, wow – can you IMAGINE if Hillary or Sarah or ANY WOMAN in public life got all cranky with the national media if they were out and about with their kids?? Whooey – the airwaves would be filled with the videos of them, over and over, with the predictable question of, “if they can’t handle a little thing like this, how are the going to deal with National Security” or whatever the issue of the day is. Yeah. But Obama can tell these folks to get back on the bus, Gus, and with a very few exceptions, we don’t hear a lot more about it. Just like the little Rahm fit.

Gwen “I Want to Help Obama Get Elected So My Book Is Relevant And Sells” Ifill asked Rep. Heather Wilson the wrong question. Rep. Wilson pretty much says it all about the vast discrepancies between the sexes, with some bonus discussion on how much more Palin was vetted than the other candidates:

It really is remarkable. Somehow, Governor Palin is capable of being governor of an entire state while having five children, and HER abilities are questioned all of the time. How DARE she not be there full time for her children!! Rahm Emmanuel has a hard time answering a question when he is at his kids’ school to just LISTEN to a concert, and gets whiney about how he cannot do two things at once. Please. Don’t use your kids as a damn excuse, Rahm. Funny – it seems you were capable of multi-tasking before, you know, talking to your good buddy, Rod, and being Obama’s right hand man.

My advice, if you can’t handle being a parent and a Representative/Obama tool, maybe you should give one of them up. I vote for giving up the Representative/Obama tool part. That would make one less Chicago politician in Washington, which would be just peachy with me. Just go home with your kids, Rahm. You can teach them all about Politics, the Chicago way! Make sure you tell them ALL about Uncle Hot Rod, Uncle Billy (Ayers), Uncle Tony (Rezko) while you’re at it. Or maybe you could call Hillary and ask her how to do more than one thing at a time. I’m sure she could teach you how to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Oh, yes, Campbell Brown calls Gov. Rendell to task for his sexist comments about Gov. Napolitano. No doubt about it, what he said was sexist. Honestly, and sadly, it was one of the milder examples we have seen this year. Here is Campbell Brown, and Gov. Rendell:

During the election, she calls out Senator McCain for HIS sexist behavior toward Gov. Sarah Palin for not “allowing” her to answer questions:

Funny – she had no qualms making derogatory statements about Palin herself. Listen to what she says as she describes Palin’s press conference, as well as other comments throughout the video:

And how about THIS little rant during the election (not the best video, but the first part is important. Feel free to skip the Bill O’Reily piece – I kinda tuned him out myself):

Isn’t this EXACTLY what she is complaining about with Gov. Rendell, that he is holding women to a different standard than MEN? And here she does EXACTLY that. How DARE Gov. Palin have five kids, one of whom is pregnant, and now in the spotlight???

But then, she comes back with this, allegedly in support of Palin:

What a convenient way for Brown to rehash the lies spread by those Republican aides. Turns out NONE of those “facts” (e.g., didn’t know Africa was a continent, etc.) was actually true. But, hey, Campbell, don’t let that stop you! Oh, wait – it hasn’t. Nice little knife in the back there under the guise of standing up for her. Wow.

Now, this is JUST Palin. I haven’t even gotten to how she acted toward Hillary Clinton during the entire primary period, especially the debates! There just is not enough time in the day to find them all, but this one is at least funny. Maybe because it was on SNL and was supposed to be a parody:

Funny, right? What isn’t is Campbell Brown’s hypocrisy on the issue of sexism, which, as many of us have noted, has been pervasive throughout this entire election season. I guess it’s okay for Campbell Brown to be sexist since she’s a woman and all. Cough, choke. But, you just keep calling out everyone else under the guise of exposing their sexism while making sexist comments yourself, Campbell. Some of us actually do see through you and your veiled attacks on powerful women.

Really, you have no place to talk. You are as bad as Gov. Rendell, and actually, worse. So spare us your hypocritical “Bull Sessions,” Campbell. Now that both powerful women have been drummed out, with your help, I might add, I suppose it is “safe” for you speak out about Gov. Napolitano without the underlying digs like you did to Palin and Clinton. Oh, and because, of course, it supports The One and His choices. How very transparent.

But thanks for playing, Campbell. Actually, no thanks. Just save it already.

Paul’s video reminds me of this anxious-making scene in West Wing:

That West Wing scene is described thusly:

The beginning (a.k.a. cold open) of The West Wing, season 4, episode 7, titled “Election Night”

The video comes from absherman13′s YouTube channel.

Paul’s description of the first video is simple and direct:

(Nov 4, 2008) — Self-reported voter fraud in PA.

I’m sure we must suppose that this was a rare occurrence, right?

It was probably just a prank, like the one that Toby pulled off on Josh, right?

::::::::::::

Special thanks to CJAnimate for sending me the first video.

::::::::::::

P.S. One of the highlights of the 2000 election was going to a rally “starring” Martin Sheen and Dule Hill from West Wing. They were not actors that day. They were patriotic Americans, and both spoke so very eloquently for Al Gore. As I said, that was one of the highlights of the 2000 election, which made me all the more angry and sad in the lowest of the low, agonizing days that followed in November 2000.

Barack Obama has a coal problem. Responding to yesterday’s revelation that Barack Obama intends to bankrupt all plants that operate on energy generated from coal, Chris Hamilton, the Senior Vice President of the West Virginia Coal Association, called Obama’s comments in San Francisco “unbelievable.” I quote the West Virginia Record:

The senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association called Obama’s comments “unbelievable.”

“His comments are unfortunate,” Chris Hamilton said Sunday, “and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally.”

Hamilton noted other times Obama and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden have made seemingly anti-coal statements.

“In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said ‘not here’ about building coal-fired power plants — this is exactly what will happen,” Hamilton said. “Financing won’t be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

“If we’re going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here.”

In other words, the workers of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana and all the other states in which coal is mined, processed and converted to electricity should be prepared to have their jobs outsourced under an Obama Presidency. That is not the change the economically battered Ohio River Valley needs. It is also not the change those of us who consume electricity need. Just imagine the cost of our energy bills if coal plants, which generates 49% of our electricity, are bankrupted and eliminated.

American Girl in Italy asks No Quarter readers to disseminate the following recording of Barack Obama’s statement on bankrupting coal plants far and wide.

And I offer more information on who will be affected by Obama’s reckless energy policy in an essay I published yesterday.

Clearly Obama’s statements will have electoral effects in West Virginia, where he has already garnered opposition from leaders of the industry that is that state’s main economic engine. But we must ensure voters in Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania are armed with these facts before they cast votes tomorrow.

Sarah Palin is doing everything within her power to ensure voters in the Ohio River Valley understand the implications and ramifications of Obama’s desire to bankrupt plants relying on energy produced from coal. I quote CBS News:

(MARIETTA, OHIO) – Seizing on a newly released audio tape picked up by the Drudge Report, Sarah Palin took the opportunity here in coal country to accuse Barack Obama of “talking about bankrupting the coal industry.”

“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he’s comfortable letting that happen,” Palin said. “And you got to listen to the tape.”

The audiotape Palin was referring to was recorded by the San Francisco Chronicle in a Jan. 17 interview.

“Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?” Palin asked, leading someone in the crowd to shout, “Liberal media!”

“This interview was given to San Francisco folks many, many months ago,” Palin said. “You should have known about this, so that you would have better decision-making information as you go into the voting booth.”

Marietta, Ohio, is located on the Ohio River on the border between Ohio and West Virginia. This is the perfect place to discuss Obama’s desire to bankrupt the coal industry, for many of the workers in that city and its environs earn their wages in mines and in factories reliant on coal.

And Sarah and the audience in Marietta, Ohio, are correct: we only learned about this now as a result of the venal and obsequious media’s suppression of any and all information that is unfavorable to Barack Obama. Just witness CNN’s attempt to minimize the importance of this story:

Contrary to her attempts to portray a media cover-up, audio and video recordings of Obama’s January 17 sit-down with the Chronicle editorial board have been freely available online for more than nine months.

In the interview, Obama said that his “aggressive” cap-and-trade plan would charge polluters for every unit of carbon or greenhouse gas they emit, a plan that would render polluting coal plants financially unviable.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” he said. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

In the interview, Obama also made the case for alternative energy sources, adding that he does not believe coal production will be eliminated, and that he supports carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

John McCain also supports a market-based cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions.

Regardless, Palin sought to use Obama’s words against him in a part of the country where coal has long been king.

“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he’s comfortable letting that happen.”

The media, it seems, will not inform working class voters of Obama’s attempts to eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs and raise our electricity bills. But Sarah Palin and those who care about the economy of West Virginia and other states in the Ohio River Valley will. And so will we, for we understand that the elimination of jobs in a region of a country Obama already insulted with his comments in San Francisco about those bitter small town voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio who cling to guns and religion will not solve America’s economic woes. Indeed, it will only exacerbate the current recession.

Let us stand with West Virginia and the Ohio River Valley and defend those who rely on coal for their economic livelihood. This is certainly what Hillary would do. I quote the Sun-Times article I cite above:

After the quotes [about "bitter clingers"] surfaced on a political blog Friday, Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP hopeful John McCain immediately decried them as evidence that Obama is “elitist” or “out of touch.”

“My opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience,” Clinton told a crowd in Philadelphia. “As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves … Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them.”

And yes, Barack Obama is an elitist politician who “looks down on” voters in the Ohio River Valley and in other areas of the country that rely on coal. Hillary Clinton does not, and neither does John McCain. Here is John McCain yesterday campaigning in Pennsylvania:

SCRANTON, Pa. — Campaigning in coal-rich Pennsylvania, GOP presidential nominee John McCain pledged this afternoon that if elected president, he would ensure that the U.S. exports coal overseas — something that U.S. policy already permits.

At the same time, the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee reportedly launched robocalls in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other coal states attacking Sen. Barack Obama’s position on coal.

Mocking Obama for a comment he made in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January — “The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster,” Obama had said — McCain promised the audience at the University of Scranton that he’s been a proud coal cheerleader in the past, and plans to be one in the future.

“My friends, you know what Senator Obama said about a year ago, he said he had not been a, quote, coal booster,” he said, as the crowd booed. “My friends, I’ve been a coal booster and it’s going to create jobs, and we’re going to export coal to other countries and we are going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s going to help restore the economy of the great state of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

The robocalls have been placed, but we must ensure the voters understand that Obama desires to bankrupt the coal industry and increase the prices of our energy bills. We have one day, and this must be done. Circulate the video I cite above.

———————————————-

[UPDATE]: Ohio Coal Association issues a scathing statement on Barack Obama’s statement. I quote:

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov 03, 2008 /PRNewswire–USNewswire via COMTEX/ — Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association (OCA), today issued the following statement in response to just-released remarks from Senator Barack Obama about the nation’s coal industry.

“Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America’s coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

“These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like ‘I haven’t been some coal booster’ and ‘if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them’ are extraordinarily misguided.
“It’s evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state’s voters.

“Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation’s coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to ‘bankrupt’ our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

“In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation’s long-term energy security – a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

“Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability.”

The Ohio Coal Association (OCA) is a non-profit trade association representing the interests of Ohio’s underground and surface coal mining producers. The OCA represents nearly 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 Associate Members, which include suppliers and consultants to the mining industry, coal sales agents and brokers and allied industries. The Ohio Coal Association is committed to advancing the development and utilization of Ohio coal as an abundant, economic and environmentally sound energy source.

Representing 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 associate members in related industries, the OCA will deliver many Ohio votes to John McCain.

Words do matter, I guess.

First, I want to address those supposed internal poll numbers that have McCain ahead in PA, MI, NJ and closing in on CA. I have not been able to verify those numbers. They could be true, they might not be. I said back during the primaries that a Pampers nomination would put PA, MI, and NJ in play. Since we know that the pollsters have not been releasing accurate numbers, as their models are weighted heavily to Pampers, with interviewees being mostly Democrats, I think it is safe to say that this race is tied, and will be decided by the undecided voters, which have been breaking for McCain, and will continue to do so. Why? Because if you haven’t made the commitment to Pampers by now you are nervous enough about his fraudulent fascist ass that you are going to hold your nose and vote for McCain; at least he is a known quantity. Internals cannot always be trusted either.

In NC internal numbers had Clinton within 5 points and shaving a point each day off Pampers lead; she lost by 15, but we know now that was due to double counted ballots, and other methods of fraud. Numbers can be given to motivate workers, volunteers, and voters. I think the best strategy is to not put faith in numbers and work your asses off in the next 24 hours to defeat Pampers. Keep making calls. Keep canvassing, get out the vote, and go vote yourselves. The Pampers fraud machine is in full force so we need every vote for McCain to count (we can deal with the “what should have been” with Hillary later). DO NOT ALLOW ANY POLL NUMBERS MAKE YOU FEEL THIS IS OVER.

And lay off the conscientious abstainers. They have made their decision based on their ethics. Respect it. If, in the privacy of the voting booth they have a change of heart, they will do that without being cajoled by us (my entire immediate family is voting for Pampers, guess how that feels?). Now, on to Pennsylvania.

I believe that John McCain is going to win the 21 electoral votes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Tuesday. In 2004 Bush lost the state by 144,248 votes (see the above map of the 2004 result). The cities of Philadelphia, Allentown, Pittsburgh, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, and Erie went to Kerry, while the entire rest of the state voted for the Shrub. Pampers will no doubt take Philadelphia. But McCain doesn’t need Philadelphia to win. He needs, and he’s going to get, Allegheny County.

In 2004 Kerry won Allegheny, and outlying counties, by slim margins:
Allegheny: 96,987

Beaver: 2,230
Washington: 552
Fayette: 4,075
That’s 103,844 votes. Leaving a margin of 40,044 votes in the 2004 totals.

There is one reason and one reason only that Kerry took these counties: Tereza Heinz-Kerry. Knowing this, Obama tried to trot her out in the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary. Her lack of enthusiasm for the candidate was pretty obvious. Obama has no such connection. In fact, the one thing he had going for him in the area, John Murtha, decided to pick the scab off the bitter/cling incident by calling his constituents racists, and then rednecks. Personally I think Murtha fell on a grenade, potentially ending his political career to prevent Obama from getting into the White House. Between that, Joe the Plumber, Bittergate, the Hillary/PUMA effect and Obama’s ever shrinking tax break income threshold (it used to be $250,000…now his ads say $200,000….his VP says $150,000….Bill Richardson says $120,000….we know it’s really around $42-50,000…middle class, get ready for the mugging) chances are McCain is going to win all four of those counties.

Another Kerry stronghold was Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties. Margins were not that wide there either.
Lackawanna County (Scranton is County Seat): 14,807
Luzerne County: 4,620

I believe that it is the PUMA effect that will have the greatest impact in drawing Democrats away from Obama. Forget Biden’s connection to Scranton. He hasn’t had any there in decades. No one is seeing his appearance there as a homecoming. It’s a hey I used to be from here vote for me kind of feeling. When Democrats for McCain and Harriet Christian are leading PUMAs on major canvassing safaris, reminding everyone what Obama and the DNC did to Hillary, the candidate they still love, what Obama said about them, etc. I see both counties in play big time. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication up there!

Joe the Plumber will also pull in votes in Allentown, and Erie. We hear time and time again that working class voters are “values voters,” meaning that they vote with the candidate whom they feel represents their beliefs, even if they are voting against their economic interests. In 2008 the McCain/Palin ticket not only speaks to them more, especially with a woman who comes directly from the working class, but will better serve their economic interests by not taxing them into the poor house, or taxing their employers into laying them off (and with those ever lowering tax thresholds that is exactly what is going to happen).

The simple fact of the matter is that if McCain’s internals didn’t have him in striking distance he and Palin wouldn’t be wasting their time. And if Camp Pampers didn’t think the same thing he and Biden wouldn’t be there either.

One final factor working for McCain: Pampers fatigue. Pennsylvania was the state that shocked the nation when polls came out saying they were sick and tired of hearing Pampers’ voice and seeing his face everywhere. They felt that way during the primaries. I can only guess how they feel now. I would imagine there are a lot of people in PA doing what I do…turning down the volume on the TV, changing the channel, or throwing random objects. No one overkills like Pampers whose motto must be, “Too much of me is never enough.” Pampers, I’ve got news for you; too little of you is too much of you. PA is also the state where Pampers told Ed Rendell, “We don’t need the people, we just need the checks.”

Don’t be surprised if it’s going to be Pennsylmania for McCain tomorrow. Sorry Pampers, you need the people, not just the checks.

[More of Shtuey Van Shtuey's superb writing can be found here]