Here's to hope!

I sure hope Obama turns out to be a fine President. Given how little there is to go on, hope's really all I've got.

RICObama

So, it looks like The One's internet fundraising involves the intentional disabling of name/credit card account verification settings on his site's payment application, allowing for donations from any account without being able to track the legitimacy or legality of the donation. There was an SNL skit about John McCain's imaginary friend Joe the Plumber. Maybe they should have done a skit about all of Obama's imaginary donors? In case you want to scream about Republicans doing the same thing, others have tested it, and McCain's site won't accept donations from phony donors that Obama's site readily accepts. How long has this been going on? Is this another "not the website [Obama] once knew" in the making?

Moreover, this allows foreigners to donate to his campaign, in direct violation of federal law. There's no way anybody with any experience in e-commerce could not know this.

Couple this with the ACORN voter registration fraud (soon to be outright vote fraud), almost exclusively on behalf of its patron Obama, and you have what appears to be the makings of a concerted effort to violate election and fundraising laws throughout the country.

Isn't this sort of thing what RICO is used to investigate and prosecute? Is this guy going to "win" the election, only to have another bloodbath at the Justice Department to avoid an investigation/prosecution?

A quick litmus test for the Election

Consider this: Obama/Biden is a ticket comprised of two lawyers.*

The last two administratinos comprised of lawyers - well - didn't exactly reign glory on the profession or, arguably, serve the country all that well:

1. Clinton/Gore**
2. Nixon Agnew

The Obama campaign, with its non-answers to basic questions ("there is no evidence to indicate that" --- to a basic question of what sort of relationship Obama had with Ayers? GMAFB), is highly reminiscent of Mr. Bill, no?

Do you really want four to eight years of parsing what the meaning of "is" is?







* I know that this is hard to believe, given Biden's horrendously inaccurate answers about basic Constitutional provisions during his debate, but 'tis true.

** No, Gore didn't finish law school, but he certainly paid attention while he was there, given his reliance on the "too much iced tea" defense during the campaign fundraising investigation.

Quick Question

A lot of energy is going into highlighting Obama as a socialist for his openly stating that he intends to use the Federal tax system to redistribute wealth. That's not entirely accurate: he's not looking to tax wealth (and why would he: many of the rich are his most ardent supporters), he's looking to redistribute income. All in the name of "fairness". My response to him is along the lines of Jon Stewart's missive to Sarah Palin: "F*ck you". When the government actually goes about creating income rather than seizing it from others, then it can dole it out as it sees as fair.

But there's a better question. Assume that Obama's right and its the economy, not just the financial markets and financial sector, that is hurting. How will Obama's professed policies affect prospects for recovery? Even assuming the credit market rebounds (and early indicators are that it is), any economic recovery is going to require equity investors in the enterprises that will provide the growth. Has anybody asked Senator Obama or any of his advisers how his stated policies will facilitate growth in the economy? If so, I've not seen it.

But think about it for a second. You have some money you want to invest and you've got to choose where it goes. When the Obama tax increases (and his plan is premised upon allowing the current tax rates to expire) hit, there will be an immediate increase in incentive to invest outside the US. Then you look at Obama's support of the Employee Free Choice Act* (an oxymoron, to say the least) and its likely passage and implementation in an Obama administration and you have another major disincentive to invest in any business that could become subject to the Act. Moreover, those businesses that are potentially subject to the Act will have a very strong incentive to configure their operations in a way likely to keep its principal operations outside the reach of the Act. That could mean a flood of offshore outsourcing. Is any of this likely to create economic growth? Conversely, is it reasonable to predict that it will, in fact, impair growth and recovery?

More importantly, why isn't any of this being asked of Obama and his campaign?

* If you've got a job and you aren't a member of a union and don't want to be a member of a union, you really need to read that act and the analyses of it before you vote.

Colin Powell

Joe Biden's latest tourette's episode appears to have diluted the impact of Colin Powell's endorsement of The One.

There's been a lot of energy expended on the racial aspects of the endorsement, but I think that is ultimately unknowable by anybody but Powell. I think it's also beside the point.

I used to admire Colin Powell and thought him a rare honest broker in a capital filled with sleezy, self-serving cowards. Powell's conduct during the Valerie Plame fiasco showed that I was mistaken.

The endorsement of a dishonorable man isn't really of much value.

Irony

Regardless of how the election turns out or for whom you wish to win, you've got to enjoy the irony of Mr. Campaign Finance Reform getting outspent by an opponent who has raised unprecedented amounts of money. Perhaps people will keep that in mind when they are sitting down to try and regulate private conduct in the future.

Of course, the flip side of this is whether Obama is, in fact, raising all this money legally. It would appear that, in true Chicago fashion, the law is being honored more in the breech than the observance. I'm sure there will be a thorough investigation of this after the election, and more calls to MoveOn.

Hello-- Way too late, I'm sure

Here it is with the election reaching its conclusion and I decide to finally launch something. Probably a good indicator that you should stop reading now.


I was tinkering with a post regarding the media and how it will be the big loser in this election, no matter how it turns out and was all ready to post it when I found and read this:

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

ht: instapundit

While it's limited to the bullshit-fest being spun about the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scandal (and it is a scandal), I found it could just as amply apply to the election as a whole and the selling of Sen. Obama by the media.

If I were a NY Times or Tribune shareholder, I'd sell and then I'd sue.