I wonder if the BBC intentionally encapsulated the Barry campaign in two paragraphs

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has attacked John McCain’s links to a 1980s financial scandal.

He also accused his Republican rival of being more focused on running a smear campaign than on fixing the US economy.

So, go and attack McCain over something he was exonerated over, then complain that McCain is attacking him. Barry’s skin is so thin that if you prick him, you will probably be touching bone marrow. And that accusation of running a smear camp isn’t just something Barry has done in the past: it occured again Sunday

One day after John McCain’s running mate escalated the vitriol of the presidential campaign by invoking a 1960s radical, Barack Obama accused Republicans of trying to distract voters from the sagging economy with “smears”

Speaking to thousands of voters Sunday afternoon at Asheville High School, the Democratic nominee argued that McCain shares President Bush’s economic philosophy.

“Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that they can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance,” Obama said. “They’d rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. That’s what you do when you’re out of touch, out of ideas and running out of time.”

And as part of the same speech given by Mr. Teleprompter

I want you to know that I’m going to keep on talking about the issues that matter - about the economy and health care and education and energy. I’m going to keep on standing up for hard working families. We’re not going to let John McCain distract us from what we need to do to move this country forward.

Issues like character, leadership, and judgement apparently no longer matter to Obama, at least not when they should his complete lack of any of those three.

After 8 years of listening to the massive whining from Democrats and their supporters about Bush having stolen the 2000 election, calling him the pResident, then claiming the GOP stole the 2004 election, issues that have never stopped being a cause to make Liberals wacko, we get this from Cynthia Tucker at the Baltimore Sun (she is also the editorial page editor for the Atlanta Democrat Journal-Constitution)

The base of the Republican Party - a dwindling but still significant group - clings to a handful of pseudo-facts that don’t hold up to serious scrutiny but that still occupy a central place in GOP ideology. Those include the assertion that Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the United States, that affirmative action in lending led to the mortgage crisis and that voter fraud is a serious problem in modern elections. In campaign seasons such as this, when victory may turn on a handful of votes, none of those claims is more important to Republican activists than overhyped allegations of voter fraud.

During the last decade, GOP-dominated state legislatures around the country have used assertions of mischief at the ballot box to push through harsh voter ID laws, requiring voters to present state-sponsored photo identification cards when they go to the polls. Republican strategists have also pushed prosecutors to go after allegedly fraudulent voters.

Those GOP strategists know better: One study after another has shown that voter fraud is, at worst, extremely rare. And the sort of in-person fraud that would be prevented by stiff voter ID laws is virtually nonexistent. But Karl Rove and his minions also know this: Voter ID laws can be used to disenfranchise a few hundred or a few thousand voters who are more likely to vote Democratic, usually poor or elderly voters who don’t have driver’s licenses. In close races, shaving off 1 or 2 percentage points is all you need to claim victory.

Are you snickering and chuckling right now? Democrats whined beyond belief about fraud, all the while registering the homeless, foreigners, illegal aliens, pets, dead pets, dead people, and felons, not to mention registering to vote in multiple states. This is a central point in many liberals’ world, with tons of threads at the Democratic Underground, Brad Blog, Daily Kos, etc. The Democrat Party, the Kerry camp, and now the Obama camp deployed massive amounts of lawyers all over the country because they were worried about cheating. But, hey, it is a GOP only issue, you know.

Plus, we got a Karl Rove and Saddam Hussein mention!

All the GOP has tried to do is respond to the whining by Democrats, as well as the reality of the real voter fraud perpatraded by Democrats, with common sense. Having to show an ID is apparently completely out of bound for the Democrats, which should let you know what’s in their heads. The Supreme Court has upheld needing ID to vote, BTW, Cynthia.

Ah, but meanwhile, let’s hear from someone who know a bit better then an editorial writer,

Our nation may be on the brink of repeating the 2000 Florida election debacle, but this time in several states, with allegations of voter fraud, intimidation and flawed voting machines added to the generalized chaos that sent Bush v. Gore to the Supreme Court for overtime.

“If you think of election problems as akin to forest fires, the woods are no drier than they were in 2000, but many more people have matches,” says Doug Chapin, editor of the nonpartisan Electionline.org.

The article itself is written by John Fund, who wrote “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.” I reckon he knows a bit on the subject.

And, what Cynthia missed was that the Baltimore Sun just ran an editorial called “Voter Beware” on the issue of fraud, which a reader took issue with, since it didn’t bother to mention ACORN.

And I guess she missed this

Thousands Of Dead People On Connecticut’s Voter Rolls

and

More Dead, Underage And Fictitious Voter Registrations in Indiana, From ACORN

Nothing to see, move along. But, heck, in Democrat World, having a split ballot is almost voter fraud. It certainly is an issue to the Democrats, when, as we saw in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, Democrat voters are just not smart enough to follow directions in filling the ballots out.

Oh, BTW, Democrats have controlled both branches of Congress since 2007, and had control of the Senate till january 2003. What have they done to help reduce fraud? It’ll never go away, nor will the dirty tricks, that is part of politics.

The Associated Press provides one of their best “gee, ya think so?” headlines of the year: Push to register felons to vote could aid Obama

Undaunted by the heat, James Bailey spent his late-summer afternoons walking Virginia’s bleakest neighborhoods on the hunt for ex-cons — each a potential voter who might cast the decisive ballot in this hotly contested state.

Finding them isn’t the hard part. It’s getting them to admit that a past mistake has kept them from the ballot box.

“People are really, really reluctant to say, ‘I lost my rights to vote,’” Bailey said of his quest, which continued in the run-up to Monday’s registration deadline in Virginia for the November election.

Nationally, there are roughly 4 million released felons whose convictions have cost them the right to vote at least temporarily, if not permanently. To return to the ballot box, felons must negotiate suffrage laws that vary from state to state, in many cases working with election officials who can be both unfamiliar with the law and hostile to former convicts seeking to register.

Such challenges matter little to Bailey and others trying to return former criminals to voter rolls, an effort they consider crucial in light of the results of the past two presidential elections: A shift of a few hundred votes in Florida in 2000 would have changed the outcome of the presidential race, and the results in 2004 came down to a margin of 119,000 votes in Ohio.

The nonprofit groups and individual activists making the push on felons’ behalf agree the effort is broader this year than in previous elections, even if they aren’t necessarily making a coordinated push. They expect that effort to benefit Barack Obama more than John McCain, given that the population of former felons is disproportionately black.

First, they still can’t get over Bush’s two presidential wins. Sad, really.

Second, it always seems to be the case that giving felons the right to vote helps Democrats, and it is not just because so many are Black. A good guess would probably be that criminals know that punishment for what they do is much less under Democrats, usually along the lines of a short sentence, which is then reduced as “time served,” and some therapy.

Third, have you ever noticed that the Democrat Party keeps up the pressure to register the most politically clueless, along with those who are offering nothing to society? Felons, the homeless, college kids who think they will get free drinking money, illegal aliens, etc. If someone was really interested in the issues and in voting, well, they would get their butts out there and register themselves. It really isn’t that hard. If you do not have the will to go register yourself, maybe you should sit on the sidelines and watch.

Oh, and in Ohio register-and-vote land

What must a voter do to prove they’re a qualified, eligible voter when they register and vote at the same time?

Anyone who registers to vote must fill out the same paperwork, whether they do it in person minutes before voting or at any other time. You are not required to show identification, but must provide either your driver’s license number or the last four digits of your Social Security number.

Maybe if people would be required to show ID, it would only be a tiny problem. You know, that thing you need to show to pass a check, use your credit card (not that companies taking your CC look at them that much anymore), and are required to have on your person when you drive. Something that is rather easy to get and not that expensive. But, we can all infer why Democrats do not want people to have to show ID to vote.

Surrendie didn’t know if he should be sad because Saracuda did so well last night, or happy because so many in the Liberal media were so flumoxed by her performance that they were forced to surrender and say “She done good!” But, Surrendie loves how they have done it. Consider an Internet front page story at the Washington Post

Sarah Palin looked as though she had prepared for her appearance at the vice presidential debate last night by studying Tina Fey’s impressions of her on “Saturday Night Live.” She twinkled and winked and piled on the perkiness, a “darn right” here and an “I’ll betcha” there.

At the same time, Palin seemed determined to banish thoughts of her as airheaded and inexperienced; she was really debating her own public image rather than Sen. Joe Biden. She subverted the whole purpose of the exercise by merely repeating the key points of her running mate, Sen. John McCain, and ignoring questions that called for more specific answers.

No mention from Tom Shales about the lies of Joe Biden. Who is Tom Shales? He is a Style writer for the Washington Post. Nice to know the Post apparently has no political writers sober enough after Palin’s performance (and, to be honest, let’s not forget that Biden did do very well himself, certainly better then either McCain or Obama) to write a decent article. Shales’ article is considered “top news,” if you look at that link.

Despite the even toned article at the LA Times, one which tends to avoid the zingers by Palin, their headline says it all for those searching for some medical mary jane in the newsroom

Palin and Biden spar in VP debate but neither deals a knockout

And, how can we ignore the Grey Lady?

Gov. Sarah Palin made it through the vice-presidential debate on Thursday without doing any obvious damage to the Republican presidential ticket. By surviving her encounter with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and quelling some of the talk about her basic qualifications for high office, she may even have done Senator John McCain a bit of good, freeing him to focus on the other troubles shadowing his campaign.

It was not a tipping point for the embattled Republican presidential ticket, the bad night that many Republicans had feared. But neither did it constitute the turning point the McCain campaign was looking for after a stretch of several weeks in which Senator Barack Obama seemed to be gaining the upper hand in the race. Even if he no longer has to be on the defensive about Ms. Palin, Mr. McCain still faces a tough environment with barely a month until the election, as he acknowledged hours before the debate by effectively pulling his campaign out of Michigan, a Democratic state where Mr. McCain’s advisers had once been optimistic of victory.

So, she did fantastic, but, it don’t mean nuttin’.

Exit question: other then perhaps at Fox News, the Washington Times, and a few other media outlets, are there any in the Credentialed Media who do not have hangovers like Cuba just won the World Cup?

Head on over to Stop The ACLU for my quick thoughts and a post debate roundup from around the Interwebz. Easier then trying to update on three sites.

Tonight’s vice presidential debate is one of the most anticipated debate in a very long time. Actually, it might be THE most anticipated ever! At least in this lifetime. A lot of people are anxious to see how Sarah Palin performs tonight. Some hope she excels and others hope she fails. Either way, a lot of people will be watching.

Its being reported that her strategy for tonight is to go after Biden and stay on the offensive, emphasizing the differences between Biden and Obama stances on policies.

However it goes, it’ll certainly be interesting to watch.

If you’d like to participate in online discussions about the debate, you can find one in real time at Right Pundits.

The headlines of both articles gives a good idea of where the Times wants to push the reader. We’ll start with Sarah Palin, then get to the Gaffe Master after the jump

Past Debates Show a Confident Palin, at Times Fluent but Often Vague

Not since Dan Quayle took the stage in 1988 have debate expectations for a major party candidate been as low as they will be on Thursday for Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Setting the stage for calling Palin a lightweight

A newcomer to the national scene, Ms. Palin has given little indication that she has been engaged in a serious way in the pressing national and international issues of the day.

Sorry she couldn’t have been in the Senate since 1972 like Biden, and having failed 3 attempts for the Democrat nomination, or having been chosen as a VP with more experience then the top of the ticket. I doubt Clinton was real concerned with national or international issues while governor of Arkansas, either.

But a review of a handful of her debate performances in the race for governor in 2006 shows a somewhat different persona from the one that has emerged since Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, named Ms. Palin as the vice-presidential nominee a month ago.

Ms. Palin, a former mayor who had become a whistle-blower about ethical misconduct in state government, held her own in those debates. (There were almost two dozen in the general election alone; she skipped some, and not all were recorded.)

Some pleasantries thrown in to give an appearance of journalism, rather then opinionation

Her debating style was rarely confrontational, and she appeared confident. In contrast to today, when she seems unversed on several important issues, she demonstrated fluency on certain subjects, particularly oil and gas development.

But just as she does now, Ms. Palin often spoke in generalities and showed scant aptitude for developing arguments beyond a talking point or two. Her sentences were distinguished by their repetition of words, by the use of the phrase “here in Alaska” and for gaps. On paper, her sentences would have been difficult to diagram.

John Bitney, the policy director for her campaign for governor and the main person who helped prepare her for debates, said her repetition of words was “her way of running down the clock as her mind searches for where she wants to go.”

These tendencies could fuzz her meaning and lead her into linguistic cul-de-sacs. She often used less than her allotted time and ended her answers abruptly.

Um, uh, um, well, you see, Jim, ah, what I mean is.  No mention of The Messiah’s constant and consistent speaking manner when his friend Mr. Teleprompter is off having a drink after a hard days work from the Times, or any other Credentialed Media outlet.

But, you can tell what the Grey Lady wants to do: paint Palin as a bubble headed lightweight. Period.

And on to Biden

Can anyone point out a Credentialed Media article which discussed the negative implications of the pastors, both visiting and resident, at Trinity Church discussing how great Obama is, how evil his opponents were, and their other political talk? Jeremiah Wright? Who dat?

Defying a federal law that prohibits U.S. clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, an evangelical Christian minister told his congregation Sunday that voting for Sen. Barack Obama would be evidence of “severe moral schizophrenia.”

BTW, unless the pastor happens to be preaching Black Liberation doctrine, they must be evangelical. In MSM world, they are all “fundies” unless they ean Left.

The Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. told worshipers that the Democratic presidential nominee’s positions on abortion and gay partnerships exist “in direct opposition to God’s truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures.” Johnson showed slides contrasting the candidates’ views but stopped short of endorsing Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain.

Johnson and 32 other pastors across the country set out Sunday to break the rules, hoping to generate a legal battle that will prompt federal courts to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

The ministers contend they have a constitutional right to advise their worshipers how to vote. As Johnson put it during a break between sermons, “The point that the IRS says you can’t do it, I’m saying you’re wrong.”

The IRS was alerted to this by “opponents,” ie, far Left groups who despise religion, except when Obama is practicing it and Pflegar (I refuse to use his religious label, as anyone who acts like he does doesn’t deserve to be in that job) is using his time to flount IRS regulations.

This time, the church action is concerted. Yet while the ministers say the rules stifle religious expression, their opponents contend that the tax laws are essential to protect the separation of church and state. They say political speech should not be supported by a tax break for the churches or the worshipers who are contributing to a political cause.

Yes, that notion that does not appear in the Constitution. The real one, I mean, not that “Living Constitution” based on European laws one.

Anyhow, let me point out that when I go to church, I do not want to listen to political speeches. I have no problem with Church time being used at other times, but not during the worship time. But, if I was going to one where that was happening, I would switch in a minute, even if the preacher was showing support for my candidate.

I’m sure we’ll be seeing the story about the IRS investigating left side churches like Trinity United tomorrow, right? More then likely, we will see the ACLU demanding, well, something. They always demand something. It’s like they hate freedom or something.

I thought it was about even during the debate on the economy, but, Barry looked bad on the rest. His interruptions, his snotty and pissed off expressions. Here’s one that stood out to me: he stated that he was always for missile defense. Oh really?

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

February 29, 2008. Video available at the link.

Already video from the debate

Of course, the New York Times doesn’t quite label Barry a liar, but, even Surrendie can read between the lines of a jilted Grey Lady, who has been carrying Barry’s water, and is not amused when he makes her out to be a fool: Dubious Claims in Obama’s Ads Against McCain, Despite Vow of Truth

Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign gleefully publicized a spate of news reports about misleading and untruthful statements in the advertisements of his rival, Senator John McCain. Asked by a voter in New Hampshire if he would respond in kind, Mr. Obama said, “I just have a different philosophy, I’m going to respond with the truth,” adding, “I’m not going to start making up lies about John McCain.”

Yet as Mr. McCain’s misleading advertisements became fodder on shows like “The View” and “Saturday Night Live,” Mr. Obama began his own run of advertisements on radio and television that have matched the dubious nature of Mr. McCain’s more questionable spots.

A radio advertisement running in Wisconsin and other contested states misleadingly reports that Mr. McCain “has stood in the way of” federal financing for stem cell research; Mr. McCain did once oppose such federally supported research but broke with President Bush to consistently support it starting in 2001 (his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, does not support it). (snip)

In all, Mr. Obama has released at least five commercials that have been criticized as misleading or untruthful against Mr. McCain’s positions in the past two weeks. Mr. Obama drew complaints from many of the independent fact-checking groups and editorial writers who just two weeks ago were criticizing Mr. McCain for producing a large share of this year’s untruthful spots (“Pants on Fire,” the fact-checking Web site PolitiFact.com wrote of Mr. Obama’s advertisement invoking Mr. Limbaugh; “False!” FactCheck.org said of his commercial on Social Security.)

So much for Hope and Change and a New Way Of Politics. Maybe Obama should change his campaign slogan to Truthiness.

Just for clarification, ads that stretch the truth do not bother either myself of The Surrender Monkey, nor does negative advertising, or mud slinging. That is just politics, as it goes back to when Og challenged Grag for leadership of the stoneage village. But, like the Times is working the edges around, you can’t sit there and say you are against all the normal politics, and then go and do them.