Obie's excuse machine is cranking

Since late February, this year's presidential campaign has been Barack Obama’s to lose. With vast Main Street appeal and the ability to bilk average citizens out of millions of dollars, the idea that Obama might actually lose seems even more far fetched than the nightly, Pravda-like claims of Keith Olberman. Nonetheless, recent polls have shown that at the least this election will be a horse race until the end. Faced with a tough fight and Zeus forbid an Obama defeat, a strange series of excuses have begun to bubble to the surface as explanation. Fantastically, few assign any blame to Obama or his politics, opting instead, to imagine causes both overly broad and factually inaccurate. In short, the quest for excuses has thusly begun with MSM golden saints writing editorials and even ‘articles’ that try to excuse and justify a potential Obama defeat as a result of... latent racism, Main Street ignorance, or a McCain campaign which is supposedly now both immoral and dirty.

Foremost of these arguments is a completely brazen, totally improper use of racism and the race card. No better example of this can be seen than a recent Washington Post article in which Obama supporter Randall Kennedy said in regard to an Obama defeat: "I'll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice -- not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.”

Such fear-mongering and overly generalized claims are now appearing all over the American left. While divergent in style, the excuse that Obama could only lose due to racism is now a very real, prepositioned part of the 2008 dialogue. To his shame, Obama has from time to time played into this idea with statements to the effect that, racists would only vote for his opponents and his own primary loss might disenfranchise millions of Democrats.

Meanwhile closer polls have spawned a series of rather urgently styled contentions in regard to John McCain, 2008, and the public in general. In a strange mixture of causes, an Obama defeat is now being defined as the result of some kind of foul play by McCain or some kind of group denial on the part of the American public. In this, the American voter is being portrayed as some kind of mindless robot who can only choose according to a visceral response. To me nothing is more insulting to the American voter than to say he or she is motivated solely by wedge issues that he could not "actually" agree with or believe in.

As for the McCain campaign, Obama has been attempting to paint any potential defeat as one at the hands of a James Bond bad guy and not a legitimate political campaign. Obama and his staff are now calling the McCain Campaign the “sleaziest in modern history” and the reincarnation of Nixon-Agnew. Oddly, Obama is trying to take the high ground on an issue when he has no credit as for months his campaign has employed negative attacks, lies, and false quotations. Obama is now playing into that orthodox leftist victimhood that paints the GOP as minions of darkness and Liberals as the perfect and unblemished champions of truth. Oh and yes, the threat of mass liberal exodus to Canada in the event of a GOP victory is back on the table. We should be so lucky.

While the result of such actions is quite the same, the rationale for this pre-defeat debunking differs according to source. For the Obama sympathizers that stack the media, explaining in advance an Obama defeat is a clever escape from realities of a 21st-century America that they never understood and cannot readily command. Keen on personal glory and factual sophistry, many media commentators are now drunk on high-minded Obama rhetoric which has no room for voter choice. In collusion, and in the high coldhearted circles of the Daily Kos or Rosie, lording brains cannot comprehend a world in which voters have examined the candidates in an even-keeled manner and decided to disagree with Sen. Obama and his politics. Like Magtheridon himself, the Hard-Left seems incapable of understanding that America is neither a giant College or a European Principality.

As for the Obama camp itself, laying a groundwork for defeat is, in my opinion, a clever way of hedging bets and raising money. For his part Obama, who for months, has built up himself as a modern day Pharaoh cannot take on the slightest accountability of mistake, lest his superficiality become less bright and his role as a newly discovered Greek god become less pronounced.

Meanwhile, after a rockstar convention and the great discovery of Gov. Sarah Palin the outlook for the GOP ticket has dramatically changed. The party seems rejuvenated and a refreshed Sen. McCain is tearing up the stump with a patriotic, sensible and aggressive agenda of reform. In the moldy conclaves of Republicans and conservatives, months of anguish and reminiscently professorial recrimination has given way to excitement, hope, and whispers of a great leader finally finding his wings. Oh and yes, there are also those wonderful rumblings in many quarters, Democrat, Republican and independent alike that we can actually defeat the farce of Obama and elect the leadership of John McCain.

Big spender Obama faces deficit

When Sen. Obama’s imperial presence deemed it apt to break his own word in regard to public financing, a lofty goal of $300 million was set for the final months of the election. This number was to be gained in three installments of $100 million and in a manner which kept Obama on the trail and out of fundraisers. This seemed like a good plan, especially due to Sen. Obama’s inclination to speak his rather disdainful attitudes when ensconced in the comfort of a finance reception. But so far, this grand three-month plan has gone wrong. The DNC is lagging far behind the RNC in fundraising and Obama’s team has been unable to tax Clinton supporters to the degree that they first believed they could. Obama’s team seems also to be running into a wall where donors and potential donors are simply tapped out. Subsequently, Obama has missed his first month’s goal and indications abound that this shortfall may continue. Yet, have no doubt, Obama will still have substantial financial resources this fall.

Senator Obama, has, for the large part spent his way to success. However, his distributions during the general election have been bizarre, pie in the sky, and overly ambitious. Obama’s initial electoral strategy called for serious financial commitments in over 20 states. Included in these were reliably GOP states like Georgia and Alaska as well as the usual suspects of Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Missouri. Strangely Obama has also made small commitments of money in places like West Texas and Utah. Obama can indeed raise money like the dickens, but he has shown, that he also has the will to spend it like the Tsars, Louis the XVI and Rachel Maddow.

One example of this is in Obama’s efforts to send paid voter registration teams to places like Chicago and New York City. While voter registration can turn the tide in a close state like Colorado, its use in a solidly blue state like New York is dubious at best.

Another case is in regard to Obama’s expenditures in the State of Georgia. Obama has spent over $2 million in a state that the GOP won in 2004 handily. For his investment Obama fought to within 6-9 points of McCain, which obviously isn’t enough to win the state. Now Obama seems to be pulling out of Georgia, but oddly his team seems happy with the Georgia results noting how far they were able to cut into the GOP’s 2004 margin. If these indications pan out Obama will have succeeded in wasting $2 million in the state for no real return.

Now take a look at Alaska. For a time it looked like Obama might be able to capture this state. Some polls even had him even with McCain and so in Obama logic the campaign put financial resources into the State. Then Gov. Palin made it on the GOP ticket and put Alaska out of reach by 20 points. With the Palin development it would make sense that Obama would pull out of Alaska. After all, why waste money on a state that you trail in by such a margin. Obama’s team, however, insists that they are still going to push forward in Alaska, a financial decision that should send rational minds out the window.

Sen. Obama has repeatedly shown a lack of financial sense in his campaign. When faced with tough decisions on where to spend money he seems to be keen on spending it everywhere. Instead of using financial sense to run his campaign, Obama seems to prefer a policy of simply taxing his contributors over and over again. His distribution of campaign funds lacks sense and his proclivity to go back to the well for more is disturbing. This policy raises serious questions about his ability to manage a complex budget. His own behavior exemplifies the fundamental idea of "tax and spend" in epic style.

Sen. Obama is very fond of using the argument that he has managed a campaign as a qualification to be President. I think Americans should acknowledge that argument. Acknowledge it and then take a serious look at how exactly Sen. Obama has been running his campaign. What they will see is a financial house of cards that is frightening and a will to tax supporters and waste money that is downright Roman in scale.

Mason Tvert, our own Michael Moore

Editor: If you define a Michael Moore as someone who practices political provocation, lacks manners, and dishes it out but can't take it, Denver's own Mason Tvert, pot prophet and McCain hater, would seem to qualify. So our contributor Jim Krefft can testify from experience. He writes: My War with Mason Tvert

Standing up for conservative values means more than just voting for conservative candidates. It also requires the backbone to debate and stand up to fringe radically liberal elements in a respectful but decisive manner. I thought about this during a recent go-round with Mason Tvert, the leading advocate for legalized marijuana in Colorado.

Several weeks ago Mason Tvert and minions launched the website Drugdealercindy.com as a rather tasteless advocacy for marijuana and against consumable alcohol. The website features a number of unproven claims against prospective First Lady Cindy McCain and is strange in its singling out of one of the only women in the beer industry. Among them are claims that Mrs. McCain is a drug dealer due to her ownership of Hensley & Company, an Arizona beer distributor, and the statement that she “makes millions of dollars dealing a drug far more harmful then marijuana”.

Disturbingly, the site also calls for patrons to download and print out wanted posters of Cindy McCain for display in public locations. Finally, the site asks for people to sign a petition so that: “…Our country should not punish adults for simply making the rational, SAFER choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol for relaxation and recreation.” Some of these themes seemed in error to me so I called Mason Tvert to ask about them. What happened next is the purpose of this writing.

After leaving a question on Tvert’s machine, I received a call from him. After a rather heated exchange he claimed that I was the only person in America who felt this way about the website. I was about to respond that this was unprovable when Mason hung up on me, saying he didn’t “have time for this.” If you’re wondering why someone who has control of his own schedule would call someone else and then hang up on them, then you’re thinking like me. In general it is not proper phone or debate etiquette to hang up on someone when you yourself are the initiator of the conversation.

So I then wrote Mason asking him for a discussion of both debate etiquette and phone manners. He responded once but has since declined to comment on my inquiries on the subject. By email he informed me: “When you made it clear your sole purpose was to argue and not to discuss anything relevant whatsoever, I came to the conclusion that the discussion was not worth my time.” After a few more ideological grenades Mason informed me that he felt that “You heard this message, hence I consider the effort successful.” I think this is a shame. By ducking discussion and ignoring proper debate procedures, Mason discredits his own movement and his as yet evident message. Moreover, by being rude, and displaying bad phone manners he brings up serious questions about himself as a political advocate. I hope Mason reads this writing and I hope he accepts my challenge to a debate on phone manners, etiquette and the responsibilities of a political advocate.

In this political season we are often faced with those who disagree with us or those who disparage things that we hold dear. I for one look forward to such times, and certainly think that it is free debate and respectful conversation that has made this country what it is today. A good debate is important not just for the people but for the issues themselves and even more, the fundamental ideas behind those issues. But what happens when the debate stops being respectful? And what does it mean for the ideas, and for America in general, when the debate ceases to be about substance or the people and becomes about raw emotion and personal vanity?

Twenty-somethings for McCain

"If McCain doesn’t win, the liberal tyranny of Obama will be so epic, you’ll vomit." The reason this sounds more like a Lodo bar conversation than your typical pundit is that Jim Krefft is a year out of Colorado College, an Ebay entrepreneur, and author of a book on military history -- the very picture of a twenty-something in a hurry and pardon his dust. I asked Jim, who helped me in the Colorado Senate when he was in high school, why he's for McCain and whether the old guy can win. Here's his answer - Editor HOW MCCAIN CAN WIN

Conservatism is defined by its ability to hold true to cherished values and ideals both fundamental and foundational to the American way. We uphold the traditional family and free market as both allow us as citizens to be healthier, happier, and freer. But the often unnoticed part of conservatism is that it has a built-in elastic clause: a proviso that allows those fundamental ideas to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of a moving and advancing world.

In 2008 this means that the GOP and conservative leaders alike must begin to listen to the ideas and observations of the new and next generation of young conservatives. People like, with all humility, this 24-year-old author.

This year is a critical pass for the Republican Partyand the conservative movement. We could both, party and movement, continue our current state of malaise and surrender ourselves before the marching armies of Senator Obama’s rather invasive liberalism.

Or we could act like men, act like conservatives, take our medicine like adults and fight until our last breath. Our standard bearer is John McCain, an absolutely relentless leader who is often misunderstood, but always honorable.

For McCain to win will require a few things. Foremmost of these is his own aforementioned quality, the quality that will get conservatives to show up en masse for McCain on Election Day and earlier. McCain won’t win if GOP members and activists sit at home pining away for the happy days of 1980. Oh and believe me, if McCain doesn’t win the liberal tyranny of Obama will be so epic, you’ll vomit.

To win McCain must also do his job; he must make it clear to the nation just how hard-left Obama is and who he represents. McCain must also show how Obama is, quite directly, a fraud who is misleading the American public with high rhetoric and undeliverable promises.

McCain must win the idea battle. He must show that the GOP can own the energy issue; that we can drill in the short term and pursue alternative energy in the long. Or that we can care about and protect the environment without devolving into the religion of Al Gore and the Human Extinction Movement.

McCain needs to present fiscal sense that allows for maintained military spending and balanced budgets. He needs to show that we will finally start fighting the War of Terror with sense and thought, finding those responsible for 9/11 and executing them publicly. McCain must argue for the free market and empowerment of small business while ensuring that the corporate giants participating in said market do so with ethical dealing and care.

John McCain must win in 2008. If we work and he wins the battle of ideas, those electoral states will fall right into place.