Of course this is despicable but what to do about it?  Someone needs to offer a reward to anyone who can get their hands on the tape.  I have no doubt that there is someone greedy enough to do what it takes to get the tape if they are offered a big enough reward.  There are plenty of wealthy people backing McCain so put your money where your mouth is.  In one shot we can expose Obama for the radical that he is and show that the LA Times has lost all journalistic integrity.  A double bonus for the price of one!

“Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky.”

Obama was forced to backpeddle on this one because neither he nor his campaign could come up with a single example of McCain using race either directly or indirectly in the campaign. 

Some in the media have long been arguing that any criticism of Obama is seen as racism.  Now it has gone even further.  In the last day or so, it was revealed that Gwyn Ifill, the moderator of VP debate, is writing a book titled: “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.”  A fact which, by the way, she failed to mention to the Commission on Presidential Debates. 

Now the assumption that a book titled “The Age of Obama” is pro-Obama (and Ifill is therefore biased) is being called racist because it apparently suggests that all black people are pro-Obama.  The problem with that argument is that the title speaks for itself.  As Jim Geraghty states: “Implicit in Ifill’s book proposal is the concept that Obama is more than another version of Geraldine Ferraro, a groundbreaking nominee on a major-party ticket who ultimately lost and became something of a historical footnote; it is that he and his name will define the age we are currently living in.  If that’s not “pro-Obama”, what is?”   Exactly.  And Ifill’s interview on the book makes it clear that it is pro-Obama when talking about the subjects of her book which include Obama, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Mass. Governor Deval Patrick, among others:

“They all chose to get into politics for the most upstanding of reasons, and they all have achieved much more than their parents could have hoped… This book is about a generation of people who took seriously the achievements that their parents fought for. They knew that Martin Luther King did what he did so that they could do what they’re doing. And they decided to follow through…”

Someone actually said to me yesterday, “Would they be making an issue out of this if it involved two white people?”  YES!  And Ifill made the same argument: “Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?”  Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, “I don’t know what it is. I find it curious.”  Do you think the Obama campaign would allow someone who is writing a book about the “Age of McCain” or the “Age of Reagan” to moderate the debate?  Of course not.

So spare me the righteous indignation for daring to question Gwyn Ifill’s impartiality.  Criticism of her has nothing to do with racism.  In fact, I would argue that she is getting more of a pass because people are afraid of coming off as racist.  Criticism of someone who is a minority can actually be legitimate and have nothing whatsoever to do with race — like when the “moderator” of a debate has a financial stake in the outcome of the election.  If this kind of tactic is what we will see from Obama over the next four years if he becomes President, it will be frightening.  When dissent is crushed in the name of racism, what next?

My friends, we face on of the biggest economic crises in our country’s history.  I suspended my campaign last week to go back to Washington to try and facilitate a deal.  I believed that both parties had worked together to come up with a solution that was at least palatable to both sides.  The House GOP was successful in stripping the proposed bill of unnecessary pork and adding greater oversight and protections for the taxpayer.  Unfortunately, in part as a result of action taken by the Speaker immediately preceding the vote, it failed.  We are now at a crossroads.  The Democratic House can pass a bill without the support of the House GOP.  Now that the bill has failed, I am gravely concerned that the concessions we fought so hard for may be stripped from the bill and passed along party lines.  We cannot let that happen.  The American people demand better and they demand bi-partisan efforts in this crisis.  As a result, I propose that both sides put aside their partisanship and reluctantly vote for this bill.  It is not a panacea and it is not perfect but our failure to act will be catastrophic.  I am prepared to do whatever is necessary so that a bill is passed with the support of both parties. 

I think McCain made the right choice by putting the country first and agreeing to go back to Washington and focus on the economy.  As Allahpundit points out: “If McCain takes ownership of the bailout effort and manages to get his suggestions on limiting executive compensation and so on as part of the finished product, he will be able to trot McCain-Dodd on the campaign trail as yet another reform he’s accomplished by working across the aisle. And in a time of crisis, no less.“  Of course Reid is now back-tracking and asking McCain to say away (which is for another post) but McCain should ignore him and go to Washington anyway.

In order to focus on this issue, McCain originally called for a postponement of Friday’s debate.  But now that Obama has said he wants the debate to go on and the public, at least in early polls, seems to agree, what should McCain do?  Well, he certainly shouldn’t advocate for the postponement of the Vice Presidential debate as he has suggested.  What he needs to do, is this: attend the debate on Friday and work around the clock before and after to advocate for changes to the bailout plan that make it more palatable, i.e., caps on executive compensation, lower capital gains and corporate taxes, more oversight, etc.  If he does both and succeeds in getting a bill passed, he won’t take any flack for postponing the debate and can take credit for yet another bipartisan effort in the face of one of this country’s worst financial crises.  Then he can also make the argument that he put the country first while Obama put his campaign above the needs of the American people.  Now that McCain has made the offer, he can keep the moral highground while still attending the debate — “I wanted to postpone the debate momentarily to come to a resolution on how to handle this crisis not because I wanted to avoid a debate but because it would show the American people that we could work together on something so important.  But since Obama could not agree to do the same, I will work tirelessly on the legislation by day and on the weekend and still make time for the debate.”

With that, he can hold on to his argument that he puts the country first, put to rest any argument that he wasn’t prepared for or was afraid of the debates and show that he, unlike Obama, can work on important issues with people from both parties.

In 2005, John McCain cosponsored the a bill in Congress warning that “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”   Yet, this bill never made it out of democrat Chris Dodd’s committee. 

On the other hand, Senator Obama, in only four short years in the Senate, is the recipient of the second largest amount of lobbying contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Money which was spent to keep regulators off their backs.  That is not the change we need.

John McCain has a plan to reform Wall Street and Washington without input from special interests and lobbyists.  Demonstrated leadership and judgment in a time of crisis. 

I think the ad would be simple and short (so it could make it into a 30 sec. spot).  The credit crisis is very complicated but I think this ad would make at least one aspect of it easy for everyone to understand. 

I also thought he did a great job talking about the specifics — something Obama has been criticized for failing to do.  He talked about “Doubling the child tax exemption from $3,500 to $7,000 will improve the lives of millions of American families”; “We will use our community colleges to help train people for new opportunities in their communities”; “for workers in industries that have been hard-hit, we’ll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one, while they receive re-training that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage” and ”We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice.”  He went on to talk about energy:  “we’ll build more nuclear power plants. We’ll develop clean-coal technology. We’ll increase the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas. We’ll encourage the development and use of flex-fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.”   

He also didn’t attack Obama.  He clearly established the two candidates’ differences but never patronized him, didn’t make any snide remarks and ultimately took the high road — leaving his surrogates to do the dirty work (which they did quite well).  He even had some nice words to say about Obama: “And I wouldn’t be an American worthy of the name if I didn’t honor Senator Obama and his supporters for their achievement.”  But, of course, he went on to say that we would win this anyway. 

He also talked about his time as a POW without over-selling it.  He didn’t talk too long about it and what he did say was a new take on the theme: Before I was shot down I was self-centered and thought only of myself.  My experience taught me a lot of things, including how great this country is.  We all know the story but he added some details we haven’t really heard before.

Then the whole speech was brought to a crescendo at the end with shouts (above the applause) to “Stand up, stand up, stand up, and fight.  Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up.  We never quit.  We never hide from history.  We make history.”  I thought it was an amazing ending! 

I would only have changed a couple things.  First of all, it was a bit long.  It was even longer because the crowd couldn’t stop cheering him on (which is not really a bad thing).  Second, I really wish he would have said something like this in response to the protestors: “Isn’t it great that we live in a country where people have the right to protest?  And shouldn’t we thank all of the men and women in the military for protecting that right?”  But it was unplanned and his response was kind of funny anyway (“Please don’t be diverted by the ground noise and the static.  You know, I’m going to talk about it some more. But Americans want us to stop yelling at each other, OK?”)  . 

Now on to the silly media.  I thought it was funny when I turned to MSNBC to see the reaction.  One of the pundits said it sounded like a State of the Union address.  I think that’s a compliment– he seemed Presidential.  Then I checked out MSNBC’s website for the reaction.  I was surprised to find reaction posted there from the Washington Post that “Sen. John McCain’s acceptance speech as its presidential nominee last night was a hodgepodge of generalities, musings on courage, reminiscence about his years as a POW in Vietnam, and rabble-rousing calls for change.”  Tom Shales must have been watching a different speech.  Other than the part about being a POW, his comments are more appropriate for Obama’s speech.  He gave many specifics (see above).  In fact, one of MSNBC’s pundits (can’t think of her name — the one with the short hair and the sneer), called it a “term paper on economics.”  That’s how specific it was (HERE).   

MSNBC’s site was filled with other gems like: “McCain put the country to sleep” and “McCain missed opportunities.”  I didn’t see a single positive piece on McCain’s speech.  Then I turned on my local news and heard the “journalist” say “McCain’s speech was good but not great.”  As if that was simply a statement of fact. Then the LA Times puts this out.  Talk about desperation.  I think the media is underestimating McCain just like it always has — just like it underestimated the backlash that has already resulted from vilifying Sarah Palin.  Bring it on!!

But it is Republican women who are cheering Palin on.  And it is Republican donors who are making record donations, largely as a result of the Palin announcement.  Over 37 million people watched her speech — only 1 million less than Obama (despite the fact that only 6 networks covered her speech to Obama’s 10).  What is going on here?  What other candidate for vice president could have done the same?  No other candidate that was under consideration could have brought the kind of reaction we are seeing to Palin.  Pawlenty — nope.  Ridge — hardly (in fact, the “base” might very well have revolted).  Even Kay Bailey Hutchison is doubtful.

But the vitriolic attacks came anyway.  Not from conservatives who, by the left’s accounts, should be shouting that a woman should be staying at home barefoot and pregnant rather than running for vice president.  But from the left.  They question her choice to run for office rather than staying at home to care for her child with Down’s Syndrome or her 17-year-old pregnant daughter.  They even question whether having a pregnant teenage daughter disqualifies her from becoming vice president.  Unbelievably, Harry Reid even called Palin’s speech last night “shrill.”  When have you ever heard that word used to describe a man?  And when have you ever heard anyone question whether a man’s family commitments disqualifies him from running for office?   And here is my favorite:

This was sent to me by a family member who obviously does not read my blog.  I think we should all be offended by this.  Not for the picture (which is actually pretty funny), but for the caption.  Since when does having a pregnant, teenage daughter have anything to do with her qualifications as vice president?  And since when does that prove that she is hypocritical or that she lacks family values?  I guess the Democrats’ version of family values would be if Palin escorted her daughter to the abortion clinic.  Or if she had gone herself when she found out she was carrying a baby with Down’s Syndrome.

So I say this to all women: It is ok to cheer on a woman who values family, sticks to her pro-life convictions (even if you don’t agree with them), comes from a small town and knows how to shoot a gun.  And all of us should condemn those that make attacks solely because she is a woman (even if you are in the same party).  Cheer her on because she is shattering that glass ceiling.  I would say the same thing about Hillary if she had been the Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee even though I agree with almost nothing she believes in.  I would cheer on the fact that she had made it this far and then I would proceed to explain why I think she is wrong on the issues.  Isn’t that what our bra-burning mothers told us: “We just wanted to make sure you have the same opportunities as men.”  Since when does that mean: But only if you are pro-choice, were educated at a fancy college and are a Democrat?  Standing up for women everywhere means standing up for them even when you don’t agree with a single word that comes out of their mouth.  Because that’s what feminism is all about, right?

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy…

“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”

Maybe he should try telling that to Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats who decided to simply turn off the televisions, electricity and air conditioning to prevent the House from voting on offshore drilling before they took their vacation.  Hate to say “I told you so” but I did.

I am at a loss.  Obama was scheduled to meet with wounded soldiers stationed in Germany during his European tour but decided against it, saying it would have been “inappropriate” and “too political”.  Say what?  How on Earth can a meeting with wounded soldiers be considered “inappropriate” or “too political”? 

Well, it seems that the real reason is that Obama could not make this visit a photo op so he decided to cancel it.  The Undersecretary of Defense, David Chu, explained that “Obama would not have been able to bring any of his campaign staff — only one Senate staffer and security.  He also would not have been able to address the media or make any campaign-related statements.”  It now becomes clear.  He could not turn this visit into a photo op so he decided to snub the troops in favor of giving speeches to a bunch of foreigners (who apparently don’t really like him much anyway — HERE).  Makes sense.  I like McCain’s response:  “Barack Obama is wrong.  It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military.”

This is yet another example of Obama’s inability to say what we all know is true.  He must really think the American public can’t see past the facade.  Well, we are starting to wake up to the fact that Obama has little of substance to say and what substance he does have, changes from day to day.