The Barack Obama Test is a page in The Audacity of Deceit's web site. So what? It is still valid. This is your chance to compare Senator Obama's policy positions with your own. It won't take long, won't tax your intellectual capacity too much, and its free. Why not take the test now and see where you stand relative to Senator Obama?
My own score was 98% disagreement with Barrack Hussein Obama.
Ben 10/10/08
[...] My guess is that Obama could jump either way if he is elected. But I don't want to find out. Gambling the fate of the United States on a fifty-fifty toss of a nickel is a very bad idea.TRUDAT!
Rule 1 for November 4: Don't risk destroying the country. [END]
[...] With 15 states, this kind of analysis is plagued by a small-n factor in which one state can throw the calculus off dramatically. [...]
[...] Beware the polls (especially CNN), my friends. I love those polls of course, but I don't really believe them on a day-to-day basis. [END]Bingo. Screw the polls. Steven M. Warshawsky at TAT thinker says;
[...] Ever since I wrote my anti-Obama piece, I have received numerous emails from Republicans and Democrats alike, asking whether I still think Obama will lose the election. Yes, I do. But what about the polls, they ask? The polls show that Obama is winning. No, they don't, as I will explain. [...]You will have to read the rest of that article as I did. Interestingly enough, the Leftinistra are the ones running these polls. That is a historical fact. Just for the hell of it, I will relate a story here. My wife was polled last Friday. She didn't tell me who it was because she doesn't remember. However, I did hear the conversation and I was laughing so hard that she had to tell me to shut up. She pretty much told them that she was voting Obama. I asked her why she did that and she said that the country was screwed up enough already and she didn't want the pollster to put her down as another racist. I wish I had recorded the 5 minute conversation she had with an idiot pollster. I wonder how many more Americans are tainting the pollsters in this manner?
[...] Lastly, the Rasmussen poll shows that Obama is leading McCain among likely voters nationwide by a margin of 51% to 45%, with 4% undecided. The margin of error for this poll is +/- 2 points. A-ha! Obama definitely is winning according to this poll (that is, assuming the undecided voters do not "break" for McCain). But there is something curious about this poll, which relates to the second issue I raised above about polls. This poll "weighted" its responses to reflect a predicted voting population of 39.3% Democrats, 33.3% Republicans, and 27.4% unaffiliated. However, in the last presidential election, just four years ago, the party affiliation of actual voters (according to the CNN exit poll) was 37% Democrat and 37% Republican. Perhaps Democrats are going to "out vote" Republicans by 6 points this year, but I think this is a very dubious assumption. In any event, there is no reason to accept the results of the Rasmussen poll over those of the other two polls (or over the results of many other polls I could have examined). [...]And there you have it. The pollsters are out-polling each other and neither one has a clue. There is nothing to compare this election to except wishful thinking and supposition. Run away from the pollsters and those that swear by them folks. Don't give them the pleasure to fake you out and give you the impression that they know what they are talking about because they don't.
A post at Faultline featured this You Tube video, a pro-Obama advertisement. That is not background music, it is the Adhan; the Muslim call to prayer. Yes, that is what Senator Obama called "the sweetest sound at sunset".
Who are they targeting with this advertisement? Arabic speakers who understand the Adhan, or ignorant, easily confused Americans who might admire the poetic melody?
7 October 2008: Latest Updates
Final update - 8 Oct - 4am Eastern: The morning after. Thank God, nothing happened. The biggest story of the day turned out to be the rather lackluster Second Presidential Debate. The predicted terrorist hurricane never touched our shores. Once again, a projected date for a possible "event" has come and gone. After almost two weeks this disturbing article can finally move down the list and take its place with all of those other articles in Radarsite's archives.
I want to thank all of those who in one way or another contributed information and ideas to this report. We will most likely never know the real 'story behind the story'. Was this whole predicted catastrophe merely a result of mistaken information or erroneous interpretations? Was there ever any real basis to this warning? Was it perhaps just a purposeful propaganda ploy by our enemies to further destabilize an already chaotic economic situation? Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine.
Have we learned anything from this whole unsettling episode? Yes, I believe we have. Perhaps the most important thing those of us who have been following this story have learned is that we truly are in a war and we truly are still vulnerable. Not just vulnerable to some massive terrorist attack, but vulnerable to rumors of massive terrorist attacks. In these last few volatile weeks where our news has been dominated by a faltering economy and a hugely important presidential campaign, it is vital for us to remember that these are not the only things that matter. There is a looming menace hovering over us which, despite these current domestic distractions has not receded into the background; if anything our world is becoming more dangerous every year.
Yesterday, October 7, I had occasion to contact the Department of Homeland Security on an entirely different matter. During the course of the conversation I asked the HS agent what advice I could give my readers for coping with this new environment we find ourselves in. What criteria do you use to make up your mind as to whether a reported threat should be taken seriously or not? At what point do suspicious activities we may observe become suspicious enough to report to the authorities? Is there such a thing as being too suspicious? In short, in this dangerous new post 9/11 world we now live in what's the difference between taking rational precautions or merely succumbing to unreasonable paranoia? What defines the boundaries of our New Normal? His answer: Trust your instincts. Trust your common sense. Evaluate the information to the best of your ability, and then if you truly believe the situation warrants it, act on it. Don't worry about making a fool of yourself. Don't worry about being wrong.
If this situation arises again -- and it most likely will -- I think Radarsite would handle it essentially the same way. Put all the information we can gather together in one place, in one article. Keep that article bumped to the top of the posts. Open the post up to all comments and emails and post them all to the ongoing report. Immediately update any new information -- especially any information which seems to question or negate the validity of the original report.
And finally, in the words of the HS agent, don't worry about making a fool of yourself. Don't worry about being wrong. Sometimes it's wonderful to be wrong.
I want to thank all of those readers who contributed their insights and information to this report. I think we have shown what can be done when serious people come together to address an issue like this. You have provided us with a model for future collaborations.
Lastly, these October 7 Radarsite articles have received literally thousands of readers (over ten thousand yesterday alone) and yet surprisingly few derisive comments, surprisingly few comments accusing us of fearmongering or grandstanding. What does this tell us about our present day circumstances? To me, it says that people really do want as much information as they can get about this volatile environment we all share. To me, it says that many people are very aware of the threats we face and want to stay as informed as possible. And to me, this an encouraging sign. -rg
Read more at Radarsite
Time for a pep talk.And that isn't all there is...The Campaign Spot has a Pep Talk as well...a few of the points I have already addressed...DAYS ago...
Take a breath, folks, it's all going to be okay. I know the polls have looked bad the last few days, but this election isn't over yet.
1. As quickly as things turned sour, things can turn around.
The last week's sudden surge of support for Obama isn't the result of anything his campaign is doing right. Nor is it the fault of McCain doing something wrong. Obama's bump is a result of the sudden shock of economic crisis. Formerly skeptical voters of the yellow dog persuasion are running home to mamma.
You will note that McCain's numbers aren't that bad. His national average is right around where it's always been: 44%. In effect, he's simply lost his convention bump, something that most people were predicting would happen all along. Obama's soaring, but there's no reason to expect his new supporters are all that solid. Things aren't over yet.
2. Today's debate format favors McCain.
Now, I thought McCain was going to bomb during the first debate; that turned out to be wrong. Maybe he'll have trouble tonight, but based on past performance I doubt it. McCain has an amusing tendency to get under Obama's skin whenever they're in the same building. I anticipate that Obama's going to be puffed up on his good press, which will make him extra-sensitive when McCain starts to prick him this evening.
Sure, we expect the so-called "undecided voters" that Gallup is rounding up for this townhall to be center-left, but that type of crowd is actually McCain's type of crowd. The burden is going to be on Obama to distinguish himself from McCain, not the other way around. My greatest worry is that McCain is going to be too centrist for Republican tastes. But, things aren't over yet.
3. McCain is finally, finally on the attack.
I'm glad he's forcing the media to at least mention Obama's connections to Bill Ayers and Fannie/Freddie, even if major news organizations misleadingly shrug it off as "going negative." Too many people are completely ignorant of both. I know you almost don't believe me (and I still can't quite believe it either), but it's true. People who are generally well-informed have no idea that Obama held his inaugural political event at Ayers' house. They have no idea how much money Obama has taken from Fannie/Freddie PACs and individuals. That needs to change.
McCain and his proxies need to remind people that Obama's path to the presidency has been paved by extremists, racists, and crooks like Father Pfleger, Reverend Wright, and Tony Rezko. Sure, everyone has known that stuff since May and it's lost all its force. But it wouldn't hurt to call this to the minds of centrist voters. Contrast the ideal of corruption-fighter Obama with the truth that he took a sweetheart deal from a criminal to buy his house. Contrast the ideal of the post-racial candidate with the truth that he took a pew at the church where refrains of "U.S. of KKK A." are commonplace.
There's still time to turn this around. McCain needs to explain it slowly and without taking a tone. If he gets nasty, people will just say he's having a temper tantrum, the "last gasp" of a dying campaign. That doesn't have to be the case.
Remember, last year at this time McCain was supposed to be finished, too. We have four weeks to go. Let's not give up just yet.
Be of Good Cheer, My Rightie FriendsAnd there you have it. Stop whining.
Reason for good cheer on a Tuesday morning if you're a Republican.
1) If it were a 1996 election, with the perception of "peace and prosperity", Obama would be ahead by 20 percent. Clinton won a solid reelection running on the v-chip for television, school uniforms, curfews for teenagers, cracking down on deadbeat dads, etc. Instead, we're holding an election during two wars and amid one of the greatest economic crises in generations.
The other guys nominated a lawyer/community organizer who's never run anything larger than a Senate office who never served in the military, who's been in the U.S. Senate for less than four years. Our guys nominated a war hero.
How solid is the public's faith in the ability that Obama could manage a crisis?
2) This story, if accurate, is huge and demonstrates how circumstances can change in a New York minute. An American policy in Afghanistan, repeatedly derided as failing, has spurred the Taliban to turn on al-Qaeda? If this pans out, shouldn't this prompt the candidates to revise and extend their assessment of our Afghanistan policy? Doesn't this blow up the "we're losing in Afghanistan because we're distracted in Iraq" argument?
3) Think about what McCain and Palin have had thrown at them this cycle - every Obama ad, every 527 ad, the ubiquitous Obama posters, the "Fact Checks" that don't actually check any facts, the all-out cheerleading from so many corners of the press, etc. There is nothing more that the press could do to help Obama, short of having Keith Olbermann screaming on all channels at all times. And yet McCain and Palin are hanging in there. Sure, Obama's up 5.8 in the RCP average. (Who would have guessed that Zogby, CBS News, and James Carville's Democracy Corps would be showing the smallest lead, each showing 3 percent?) But remember Clinton won by 8 in 1996, and he had the advantage that Perot was splitting the anti-Democratic vote. Newsweek's Evan Thomas once contended that friendly media was worth 15 percent in the polls. With almost everybody in the MSM making an all-out push, they've got their guy up six a month out. This is it, the press's ability to influence the election is spent. A six percent lead is an uphill climb, but very far from insurmountable.
4) Palin brings up William Ayers, and the AP declares it racism. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank says that criticism of Congress' oversight of the subprime mortgage meltdown is driven by racism. Criticism of Gwen Ifill for not disclosing her book to the Commission on Presidential Debates is, we are told, racism.
I've been very skeptical of the Bradley effect; for a long time, I thought most Americans who don't prefer Obama would just say, "I prefer the other guy." On the other hand, we're in a political environment where criticism of white Democrats is enough to generate cries of racism. The American people see this. They know it's horsepuckey. Heck, the first Saturday Night Live debate sketch depicted Obama promising to play the race card on Kim Jong Il.
In these circumstances, it does seem plausible that white voters could tell a pollster, "yes, I'm voting for Obama, please don't call me racist."
Juan Williams of NPR and Fox News puts the Bradley effect a lot higher than I do. "Obama's got to have a buffer of 5 to 8 percentage points," Williams said. "So if you have a race in which McCain is at, you know, 41, and Obama's at 41, then imagine that really what you're looking at is McCain at 49, Obama at 41."
Currently #4 of 5228 (top)
out of 47,671
