Tag Archives: Obama

Mr. Good Will of Austin

"In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as ‘Will, Good’ from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as ‘Loving’ and his profession as ‘You.’ A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375."

Too bad the legal limit for an individual is only $4,600.

But my favorite in this good Newsmax piece on Barry’s secret, foreign fundraising is the 520 donors who seem to be from Iran. Even the Clintons, back in Bad Bill’s day, only took money from China.  

Barry’s ACORN

What the Big Media, and especially Barry’s head cheerleader, the NYTimes, isn’t reporting:

"ACORN also got funding from two charities, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, when Obama served on their boards, and from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge – the radical "education reform" outfit Obama ran from ’95 to ’99.

"Ironically, the group stood to be a key beneficiary of the goodies Democrats were loading into Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s rescue plan – including one demand that 20 percent of any profits the feds make from reselling mortgage securities go to fund groups like ACORN."

Even after GOP reps got ACORN out of the bailout bill, it still was defeated today–with Barry blaming, who else, the GOP.

Barry another Adlai Stevenson?

Here’s a take on the first debate that resonates, though the bogus polls already are giving Barry the win:

"Obama lost because he comes across as a smug, arrogant, self-important, smart ass. His style is condescending constantly pointing fingers, frequently raising his fingers to eye level, jabbing constantly, make’s one feel he’s lecturing us – because he thinks he is smarter than us all."

Unfortunately, you could also say that Mac was condescending, with his words, if not his fingers. But it could be that Barry is another Stevenson, whose loss to Eisenhower (twice) often is credited to his professorial, smarter-than-you style. Too bad there were no "debates" in those days to compare.

McCain won, I think

I didn’t watch much of it live. I have seen several clips, and I followed some of the live-blogging, and read the conclusions of others–some of whom thought that, while Barry may not have won, he didn’t lose, either. Mr. B.’s mom, whose job it is to watch such things, thought it was a tie. She thought Mac won on content but Barry won on style. Style. Like an Olympic gymnast. Sigh. In some of the clips I saw, he was clearly irritated. I thought it was Mac who was supposed to have the temper?

All in all, I don’t think any of these "debates," are very meaningful, since the participants seldom say anything imaginative. Just their stump speech points. Nor do I think they have much impact on the elections. On the Big Media and the soundbite collections, sure, but how many people do they persuade? I think Biden and Palin will be more fun to watch and I won’t miss that one.

The bogus polls

Hard as it may be to do, these last few weeks of the presidential election are the time to ignore the polls. Many of them will be phony from here on out, as the polling companies weight their results on the Dem side to satisfy their clients, usually partisan-Dem Big Media.

If mystery-man Barry somehow proves more compelling than "reporting-for-duty" Kerry did in 2004, and the turnout on election day is wholly different (packed, for instance, with bright-eyed Dem youth), then the polls might be meaningful. Otherwise, there’ll be a repeat of 2004, when the polls showed right up until election day that Kerry was going to take it. Then he lost by three million votes. There’s already some indication that Barry could lose by a lot more.

Dems use bailout for radical pork

I had a suspicion the Dems would want to prolong the economic agony as a way to help their presidential candidate. When the economy falters, as the saying goes, the voters turn to the party out of power. Hence liberal Big Media’s partisan assertion all year that we are in a recession, despite the lack of statistical evidence for it.

But it never occurred to me the Dems were so cynical as to try to use the bailout bill to benefit the very groups whose radical missions (in pursuing no-money-down minority housing loans) helped create the mess. No, not Freddie and Fannie, but La Raza, ACORN, and the Urban League.

The Seablogger calls it "a kind of creeping civil war, conducted through politics, in accordance with revolutionary theory," which Mac probably knew about and was determined to thwart when he pulled his return-to-the-Capitol-to-look-presidential stunt. Presidential politics has always been fierce, and 2008 seems especially so, though I suppose if we’d lived in the 1850s, in the runup to the real, shooting Civil War, we might think this was all pretty tame.

No surprise

Afterall, they’re not planning to shovel all that money into a hole in the ground. But it may be hard to convince people that Paulson’s buyout/bailout will actually make money for all of us. While the author of Fannie Mae’s suicide, Jim Johnson, surreptitiously develops Barry’s proposed presidency. Swell.

Via Instapundit.