Say Anything Blog

What?

Though it would seem that sentiment should translate into a surge at the polls for Obama, the junior senator from Illinois has a deeper problem in rural areas like the one Murtha represents, the congressman said.

“Obama’s got a problem with the race issue in Western Pennsylvania,” Murtha said, adding that it could knock up to 4 percentage points off his lead in the polls. He said he asks voters to look beyond Obama’s skin color and “listen to what he’s saying.” Obama would be the first black U.S. president.

(more...)

FOXNews.com
Monday, October 13, 2008

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

(more...)

Charles Gibson interviewing Barack Hussein Obama.

Sen. Barack Obama says the personal attacks levied against him by the campaign of his presidential rival, Sen. John McCain, particularly references to his association with 1960s anti-war radical Bill Ayers, are an attempt to “score cheap political points.”

“Why don’t we just clear it up right now,” Obama told ABC News’ Charlie Gibson in an exclusive interview for World News. “I’ll repeat again what I’ve said many times. This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois . . . And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that . . . I’ve ‘palled around with a terrorist’, all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points.”

(more...)

The Obama channel
Channel 73 on the Dish Network is now The Obama Channel.

Obama’s media buying strategy has been marked by a willingness to work the angles and to try to pick up a few votes at the margins. The decision to go to everything from extensive radio buys to odd-hour infomercials reflects the fact that the campaign media buyers spend a lot of time thinking about how much persuasion any given dollar can buy, and given a very cheap format — late night cable channels that need filler, for instance — will settle for a thimblefull of persuasion.

The satellite channel is the latest of these marginal gambits: Three readers from different parts of the country email that Channel 073-00 on the Dish Network is now labeled OBAMA. ("What is up with Sen. Obama having his own channel?” asks a St. Louis reader.) The channel plays his two-minute ad laying out his economic plan on a loop, over and over.

The only explanation: The media buyers think they can reach enough people per dollar to make it worth the odd buy.

The channel’s appearance has provoked scorn and alarm on conservative blogs, though, and some discussion on a forum for Satellite TV aficionados, where one user writes that a Dish Network executive e-mailed to reassure the user that it “is paid advertising by the Obama campaign and is not an endorsement of Sen. Obama by DISH Network” and will broadcast through Nov. 4.

“DISH Network Channel 73 is paid advertising by the Obama campaign and is not an endorsement of Senator Obama by DISH Network. DISH Network made the same offer to the McCain campaign, an offer that remains open,” Dish Network spokesman Parker McConachie emailed Politico.

UPDATE: Thursday, viewers said, the Obama channel started airing a wider variety of Obama content than just his two-minute ad, including other ads and the video that introduced him at the Democratic National Convention.

(more...)

Artur Davis to “Hannity & Colmes”:

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”

(more...)

(more...)

(more...)

(more...)

(more...)

Some are thinking or have suggeseted that a McCain victory may damage the republican party, possibly irreparably. Some say it is necessary to save the republican party by ensuring our country’s demise comes at the hands of the democrats.

McCain is right about country first.  This election, as every election, is about the foundation of our country, liberty.  We put America first when we understand liberty is our highest political priority, not the republican party.  Given the choices on the ballot, clearly the cause of liberty will be better served by a McCain/Palin victory in November.

In 2003 Obama blocked a vote on a state bill which would have afforded constitutional rights to a child born alive in spite of a medical attempt at ending the child’s existence.

In 2008, when asked when does life begin [does a baby get human rights], Obama answered that was “above my pay grade”.

Given Obama’s admission that he is unqualified to judge when life begins [a baby receives human rights], how can he even begin to take a strong pro-abortion position?  Moreover, what is he doing passing judgment on the life of a child that survives an abortion? 

Remember, Obama’s position on abortion and infanticide were not merely privately held opinion, but guided his decision and legislative actions while in office. (more...)

Wouldn’t a debate on an issue without the usual intellectual dishonesty be a welcome discussion?  One where we can claim what we believe and not have to deal with petty attempts to mischaracterize our positions and subsequently dismiss the point. One where liberals would come clean and explain why some of the liberties we were afforded by our Creator and secured in our Constitution are too many and should be given to the state for the sake of others who because of their conditions don’t have to give up those same rights (wealth redistribution)?  One where government is subject to the same greed and envy the liberals ascribe to free market economics?  One where the inspiring imaginations of world peace can be tempered by historical facts, human nature, and economic realities?

I just walked in the door after driving home from the local theatre where Ben Stein’s “EXPELLED” is playing.  I haven’t taken any time to allow it to soak in, but thought I’d record my first impressions.  I’ll just say Mr. Stein’s work is profound and excellent.  I look forward to the debates that will undoubtedly follow over the next few months.  You can bet that the Darwinists will come out with guns blazin’ over this one.

It is a given that conservatives don’t trust government and that liberals don’t trust conservative government, but it is just as obvious that liberal government doesn’t trust its citizens.  Liberal politicians seek at every turn to control more and more aspects of every citizen’s life.  Take this recent story of gov’t control over the thermostat in private homes:
Big Brother to control thermostats in homes?

The very idea is repulsing and offensive.  That liberal government doesn’t even trust citizens to responsibly and economically adjust their own thermostat is another glaring example of what happens when power beyond what is necessary for public security is centralized in government. 

Healthy relationships require a mutual trust.  Conservatives find this impossible when government holds more power than intended.  Liberals, however, put much confidence in such centralized political power.  Remarkably, the fact that their prefered form of government doesn’t trust them to set their own thermostat, somehow merits their trust. 

Why?  Why would anyone trust a centralized power, especially one that doesn’t return that trust?  What kind of warped realationship is this?