Archive | September, 2008

Dems for McCain Face Open Bias at Chicago Bears Game

30 Sep

We here at HfH love, adore, and worship the brilliant blog Hillbuzz. If you’re not reading Hillbuzz, you should be.

Hillbuzz recently took to the Chicago streets and faced Obama thuggery head on. Hmmm, a battle between Hillbuzz and Obamabots? We’d put our money on Hillbuzz every single time. Go Hillbuzz! Go Hillary! Go McCain/Palin!

Via the powerful, awesome, amazing Hillbuzz:

Yesterday, Sunday 9/28/08, a group of DeMcCrats for McCain and Chicago Young Republicans got together to provide bipartisan visibility for John McCain at the Chicago Bears vs. Philadelphia Eagles game at Soldier Field. The plan was to walk through the publicly-owned parking lots during tailgating parties before the game to give people McCain window signs and stickers if they asked for them, and to let them know about the McCain events we have coming up in Chicago in the next 35 days.

Our group met up at the Field Museum, which is right across from Soldier Field, and as soon as we broke out our McCain signs and stickers, people came up to us and asked for some.  A family from Seattle, sitting on the stairs of the museum, called us over and not only asked for a sign and stickers, but also asked us to take their picture and tell everyone we could that not everyone in Washington state supports Obama. Per their request, here is this wonderful family from Seattle:

Mom, dad, the two kids — all McCain supporters.  And all of them are DEMOCRATS. This is what we keep telling all the Eeyores out there: don’t listen to the media, who are obviously in the tank for Obama and are doing everything possible to elect him. People on the ground do not support Obama the way the media claim they do — and no matter  how much the media pushes for Obama, the people on the ground resist him. This is happening in Chicago. It’s happening in Seattle. It’s happening ALL OVER. The media just isn’t reporting it, and great efforts are made by Obama supporters at all levels to depress enthusiasm for McCain and inhibit McCain visibility.

That’s just what happened to us on Sunday, when Monterrey Security, a private contractor hired by the Chicago Bears, repeatedly tried to keep McCain supporters from wearing McCain gear or supporting McCain at the Bears game, but DID NOT inhibit Obama supporters in any way. People were allowed to wear Obama tee shirts, buttons, etc. and walk freely into the parking lots and Bears game. People wearing McCain stickers, holding McCain signs, and wearing McCain shirts were stopped by Monterrey Security and told that no political items were allowed in the parking lot tailgating parties or inside the stadium. 

Obama supporters were not harrassed.

McCain supporters were told they were not allowed to have McCain shirts, stickers, signs, or other gear.

Monterrey Security enforced a policy at Soldier Field that applied only to supporters of John McCain.

Obama’s followers had free reign to do as they pleased.

 

The first incident we had at the game occurred in Soldier Field’s south parking lot (the one close to McCormack Place). The Monterrey Security guard stationed at the entrance we approached told us that the parking lot was private property and that the Chicago Bears prohibited any political canvassing or advertising in the parking lots during tailgating parties. We asked this guard where this policy was posted, and he said it wasn’t posted anywhere, but that it was a “known policy”. We asked him where we could obtain a copy of that policy, and he said he did not know, but maybe someone inside the stadium would know. We asked him how we could ask someone inside the stadium for a copy of that policy if we didn’t have tickets but were just there to tailgate — like a lot of people at a Bears game — and he said we would have to take all of this up with a supervisor and that he was just doing his job. We told him one of us was parked in this lot and that we wanted to go to the car and he said he would have to confiscate all of our McCain items before he would allow us into the lot. We asked him why, and he said it was just policy, that no political items would be allowed into the lot: no stickers, no signs, no buttons, no tee shirts. Nothing political was allowed in the lot — which in this case meant nothing with McCain on it. We could clearly see people with Obama tee shirts on inside the parking lot.

So, this policy applied only to supporters of John McCain.

We left this south lot in a search of a supervisor once this particular guard said he thought one of the Monterrey higher-ups would be at another lot. So, we attempted to enter a parking lot closer to the stadium and were stopped by another Monterrey employee, who had obviously been talking to someone on the radio because as soon as we walked towards this lot, the man said, “Oh, it’s you guys again.  They just told you McCain people you can’t be here, and here you are again. You can’t come in here with that stuff.” We explained to this man that our intent was not to approach anyone with anything McCain related — we just walk around and if anyone stops us and asks us for something, we would of course give it to them. Just walking from lot to lot, on public sidewalks, people stopped us repeatedly and asked us for McCain signs and stickers. We just wanted to walk up and down the tailgating lines — if people wanted what we had, we’d give it to them, but we’d never even ask them.  They would come to us.

Well, this guard got really animated and raised his voice at us, telling us he was in charge and we were not getting into the lot with anything McCain on us. No stickers. No tee shirts. No signs. No flyers. NOTHING. Someone in our group just happened to be an author of works on the First Amendment, and asked this guard how his directives here apply to civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution, which really set this man off, and he started yelling some more about the parking lot being under his control and he was not going to allow any McCain items in there.

 The guard’s yelling attracted a lot of attention — the men behind him in the photo above came out to us and asked for McCain stickers and signs, because they could clearly see Monterrey Security was taking a stance against McCain, and not allowing his supporters into the lot.

When these men tried to re-enter the parking lot with the McCain stickers we gave them, the guard tried to make them take the stickers off, or he would not allow them into the lot in which they were tailgating.  At that moment, a young woman with an Obama “Hope” tee shirt on walked right passed the guard and into the lot. We confronted the guard, pointed to the woman, and asked him why he allows an Obama supporter to wear her Obama shirt inside the parking lot, but won’t allow McCain items in there. The woman, startled, looked directly our way, with her Obama “Hope” shirt clearly visible, and the guard, looking directly at her, said, “I don’t see anyone. I just see you.” The woman disappeared into the crowd before we could get a photo of her, but the people listening in on all of this clearly saw her, and clearly knew what the guard was doing.  We spotted another Monterrey Security employee now on the public sidewalk, obviously called in to handle this situation, so we left the guard in the maroon shirt above and went over to talk to him.

That’s when things got even more interesting, because Monterrey Security couldn’t determine what land was public property and what land belonged to the city of Chicago, paid for by taxpayers. This new Monterrey employee we spoke to claimed all the parking lots at Soldier Field are private property, because they are leased by the city to the Chicago Bears, and are thus held in private hands. He also claimed that the sidewalks linking the parking lots were all private property too, because they were part of the land lease from the city to the Bears for Soldier Field. All of this is completely contrarian to what we were told by the Chicago Alderman whose district Soldier Field sits in — the Alderman says all of this land is public property. Additionally, while we were canvassing here, a group of protestors was picketing the Chicago Bears for union-related issues, and these protestors were allowed to walk freely along the same sidewalks we were told we could not be standing on wearing items supporting John McCain.

So, people could protest the Bears for union violations on land at Soldier Field on which we could not stand and silently support John McCain by simply wearing his campaign gear.

You are not allowed to stand on public land dedicated to SOLDIERS, at Soldier Field, if you are supporting a decorated veteran running for president.

But, if you are a nice looking young woman in an Obama “Hope” tee shirt, you can do anything you please. And she was not the only Obama supporter we saw tailgating.

It was only the McCain supporters Monterrey Security and, thus, the Chicago Bears had a problem with.

So, we ended up walking back to the area we originally met up at — the public sidewalk outside the Field Museum, across from Soldier Field. That’s where we encountered a City of Chicago employee directing traffic (pictured below), who stopped what she was doing to shout “Obama! Obama! Obama!” at us and waive her arm in the air the way Arsenio Hall used to, on his talk show, about a hundred years ago.

We asked the Chicago Police if there was any reason we weren’t allowed to be out there supporting McCain, and the police had no problem with us. It was all coming from Monterrey Security, and the police would not get involved with dealing with them. It was Monterrey Security that made the decision to allow Obama supporters to walk freely into the parking lots and stadium wearing Obama gear, but McCain supporters were harassed and prevented from wearing anything supporting McCain in those tailgating parties.

But, ironically enough, we ended up, after this runaround, at a position near the Field Museum were tens of thousands of people walked by en route to the stadium from the city’s transportation network:  we passed out our flyers and gave away hundreds of stickers, and a few posters to people willing to stuff them under their shirts to sneak them into the stadium if they couldn’t get them into their cars before the game. As people walked by, we had a lot of silent smiles, thumbs up, and other subtle gestures of support from McCain supporters in the crowd, especially from Eagles fans. We also had numerous people who came right up to us and thanked us for being out there, for giving visibility to John McCain, and for having the guts to support him in Chicago, of all places.

The Obama supporters who passed by were what you would expect: loud, screaming obscenities, saying vulgar things about Sarah Palin, mostly, and also saying vile things about McCain and his age. These are the very same people who call anyone not supporting Obama a racist, and yet they hurl the nastiest sexist and ageist slings at anyone supporting McCain. It’s unbelievable – and so very sophomoric and immature.

The funny thing is, whenever any Obama supporter would scream or yell anything nasty about McCain, a greater chorus of people around them would shout “Go McCain!” to drown these people out. For every one Obama thug in the crowd, there were a large number of McCain supporters who kept quiet until the moment they needed to speak up and fight back.

That’s just what’s going to happen on election day, folks.

Obama supporters are loud and bully anyone who doesn’t think like them. The media, and companies like Monterrey Security, try to drown out all resistance to Obama and prevent McCain’s supporters from having the visibilty and respect McCain deserves.

But, we can’t ever give up.  We can’t ever go home just because Monterrey’s guards try to stop us — keep looking for another place to do visibility. Keep emailing, blogging, canvassing, and phone banking to get the message out that people support John McCain and want him to be our next president. And this includes a large number of lifelong Democrats like us.

And on Election Day, when the media and Monterrey Security can’t go into that voting booth with you, pull that lever for John McCain and show all of these people that no matter how much they tried to force Obama on us, thinking people everywhere refused to drink the Kool-Aid, or crumble in the face of their organized bullying.

Advertisements

Obama and Palin?

30 Sep

Via CJOnline/The Topeka Capital Journal

What if presidential race ends in a tie?

By Bob Beatty

Any political analyst worth his or her salt is asked all the time, “Who’s going to win the presidency on November 4, Obama or McCain?”

In 2008 you wouldn’t be a smart aleck if you answered “neither.” Why? Because the U.S., in all its technological and entrepreneurial brilliance, has a presidential election system that allows for a tie.

In order to win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes out of the 538 possible. Note that 538 is an even number. Obama and McCain each receiving 269 electoral votes on Nov. 4 is not only possible, but it’s getting more and more probable based on state-by-state polling.

Using analytical methods based on data from previous elections and current state polls, here’s how a tie could happen:

There are a certain number of states that look to be guaranteed for one or the other candidate.

For McCain, those states include Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arizona, Alaska, Louisiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. These states total 173 electoral votes and constitute McCain’s electoral base.

For Obama, his base includes California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. Among those states, there are 200 electoral votes.

It’s generally believed the rest of the states could fall either way. However, by taking a conservative approach to the 2008 election —meaning that neither candidate will run away with it at the end — I can make a reasonable argument for the following distribution of these battleground states: For McCain, he could pull out victories in Indiana, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, West Virginia, and Ohio, giving him 252 electoral votes. For Obama, he could win Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico, giving him 260 electoral votes. That leaves three states totaling 26 electoral votes that for the past few months have been shown to be very close between Obama and McCain: Virginia (13 electoral votes), Colorado (nine), and New Hampshire (four).

If McCains wins all three, he wins the electoral vote 278-260 and is the next president. If Obama wins all three, he wins 286-252 and he’s the next president. If McCain wins Virginia and Colorado and Obama wins New Hampshire, McCain wins 274-264. If Obama wins Virginia and Colorado, he wins the race 282-256.

But here’s the stunner: If McCain wins Virginia and New Hampshire but Obama wins Colorado, Americans would wake up on the morning of Nov. 5 with a tied election: McCain 269, Obama 269.

What happens then? The House of Representatives would choose the president by a vote of state delegations — meaning one state, one vote — and the Senate would vote for the vice-president, with each senator getting one vote. We don’t know now who will have the majorities in the House and Senate when those votes are cast.

So, yes, it’s possible that on Jan. 20, 2009, the chief justice of the Supreme Court could be swearing in President Barack Obama and Vice-President Sarah Palin. Wouldn’t that be something?

Bob Beatty is a political scientist and Topeka resident who frequently is sought by members of the news media for comment about Kansas politics and serves as political analyst for KSNT (27).

Bill Clinton Not Ready to Say Obama a “Great Man”

30 Sep

Clinton hesitant to call Obama a ‘great man’

(CNN)– Former President Bill Clinton was hesitant to characterize Barack Obama as a “great man” Sunday, a phrase he had no qualms using last week to describe Obama’s rival John McCain.

Clinton told NBC’s Tom Brokaw that it was only earlier this month in Harlem that he and Obama had their “first conversation.” He said he had spoken with Obama before, but only in passing.

Clinton then explained what he meant in characterizing McCain as a “great man.”

“I think his greatness is that he keeps trying to come back to service without ever asking people to cut him any slack or feel sorry for him or any of that stuff because he was a POW,” Clinton said of the Republican presidential nominee.

Clinton, who successfully ran his own 1992 presidential campaign on the now commonly used phrase “it’s the economy, stupid,” said that he believed the current economic crisis “left [Obama] in a position of leadership that he’s now in.”

Clinton said he thought Obama “saw and imagined” how the economic situation could develop.

“And I think that the rest of us should admire that. That’s a big part of leadership, being able to sense, as well as see the future,” he said.

Clinton said he and Obama are developing a “really good relationship,” and the Democratic nominee has the potential for greatness. Explaining, he said Obama has many personal accomplishments, but none that exemplify his greatness to the country.

“When he becomes president, he’ll be doing things for the American people and for the world and he is-and the greatness will then become apparent because of the good he’ll do…That’s what I very much believe is going to happen.”

Some have questioned Bill Clinton’s support for Obama following the protracted primary battle between the Illinois senator and Hillary Clinton. The former president praised Obama during his speech at the Democratic National Convention and declared Obama “ready to be president of the United States,” as both sides tried to bring an end to the “Clinton-Obama rift” storyline.

Clinton himself was among the most outspoken critics of Obama’s readiness during the primary season.

The reason it has taken him so long to hit the trail for Obama was the need for him to return to work on his foundation after the long primary season, Clinton explained Sunday.

He is expected to campaign for Obama in Florida, Ohio, northeast Pennsylvania, and Nevada after the Jewish holidays.

“I’m going to do my very best to do every single thing he asks me to do,” Clinton said.

Obama Bounce Dead Cat or Trend?

30 Sep

Via TownhallBlog

Aided by a MSM willing to say whatever it has to say to help Obama make it to 1600, the democratic nominee has not yet been hurt by his very poor performance on Friday night’s debate.  Weekend talking heads chanting “ties go to the winner” nonsense and the output of loyalists like E.J. Dionne are trying to make Obama’s halting answers on Iraq, Pakistan and especially North Korea seem like C-minuses on a pass-fail test.  The cringe-inducing bracelet moment has surfaced in just a few places, and McCain’s dominance on the facts concerning Russia and his memorable “You don’t do that” dismissal of Obama’s threats towards our ally in Pakistan will get their full play this morning on all the talk shows, and of course Bill Bennett’s, Rush’s, Dennis’, Sean’s, Michael’s, Mark’s and my reach will instantly overshadow all the work done by CNN and the nets to spin this into “a draw that helps the rookie.”

Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about on the perils we face abroad, and he was led around by the hand on the bailout package.  He is a figurehead for Democratic party elites from the hard left edge of the party.  While the financial panic erased McCain’s momentum by taking the real reform message off the front pages, it will be back as markets settle.  The focus on the triggers of the crisis –look to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the friends of Bill Clinton–  can’t be bottled up now that the legislation is in place.  The idea of turning all parts of the government over to the gang that engineered the structure that brought it upon us is so absurd that only the MSM can ignore it, not voters.

Obama’s nearly 5 point lead in the RCP combined poll average has many nervous e-mailers sending me “it’s over” e-mails, but of course it is just beginning, and the deep uncertainty and fear in the country doesn’t help an untested Chicago machine pol much if at all or for long.  (The Battleground dead-heat numbers should encourage the worriers, as it is a long reliable and respected poll, though so are Gallup and Rasmussen with their 8 and 6 point Obama leads.)

The Palin pile-on from the the Manhattan-Beltway media elite also is working a strange and important reaction in the electorate, driving liberals deeper into their blind hate of the accomplished and popular governor, and rallying the conservative base to her cause.  The cultural divide in the country –obscured by the financial mess– didn’t go away, and it will dominate this week and weekend.

Palin faces an enormous challenge, just as she did on the night of her acceptance speech.  She will not be graded on the curve by the MSM as Obama was. 

But she does believe the right things, and understands the crucial choice facing the country.  These are significant advantages.  And if the momentum reverses itself again as is likely, Sarah Palin’s performance Thursday night will be the third time she has re-energized the McCain campaign.

A taste of what Joe Biden is about to see coming straight towards him Thursday night… 

Debunking the Palin Rape-kit Story

29 Sep

Via Slate:

It looks like the Sarah Palin rape-kit myth is still alive and flourishing. A reader sent along this editorial in the New York Times today by Dorothy Samuels decrying the policy and asking Palin to give voters an explanation.

Unfortunately, all this piece does is help perpetuate the myth. Thankfully, in addition to the blog posts I linked to in my first post about this, Jim Geraghty at the National Review Online has done his own thorough debunking, which I quote from below.

Samuels writes: “[W]hen news of Wasilla’s practice of billing rape victims got around, Alaska’s State Legislature approved a bill in 2000 to stop it.” However, the Alaska state legislature did NOT pass the bill in response to Wasilla’s policy of charging rape victims. As Geraghty points out, the bill came about because hospitals were charging victims.

Lauree Hugonin, director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, spoke at several committee meetings. She noted in response to Smith’s comment that while he had not found an instance where law enforcement has forwarded a bill, “hospitals have. It has happened in the Mat-Su Valley, on the Kenai Peninsula, and in Southeast, and that is why the bill is being brought forward.”

Further evidence that the law was not targeted at Wasilla:

Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged. (The Matanuska-Susitna Valley, the surrounding regionthe most densely populated region of the state, and roughly the size of West Virginiais mentioned in passing.)

Samuels also quotes from an article in the local Wasilla paper that police chief Charlie Fallon didn’t want to pass the burden along to taxpayers. That is an undeniably boneheaded and offensive statement. What she leaves out is his statement that he was TRYING to bill INSURANCE COMPANIES, not victims. “In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible,” is what he said. The story is old and incomplete. It doesn’t say what Fallon would do if the insurance company rejected the claim. But the current mayor of Wasilla says there is no record of a victimbeing charged for a rape kit.

Lastly, Samuels claims that the Palin campaign has not addressed the issue and has released a statement saying only that “Prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault is a priority for Gov. Palin.” However, Palin addressed this matter two weeks ago: “Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella told USA Today in an e-mail that the governor ‘does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.’ ”

I did make a small error of my own in my first post about this matter. I wrote that a quote from a Democratic legislator in Alaska that Palin likely didn’t know about the policy brought me little comfort. I misread his quote. In fact, that legislator, Eric Croft, said he believed that Palin DID know what was going on, and he’s helped smear Palin by saying that the legislation came about because of Wasilla.

I think we can all agree that victims should not have to pay for their rape kits. And billing insurance companies is a far from ideal solution. Reimbursing a victim with state money after she’s already had to pay out of pocket is even worse. But it’s a problem that’s hardly been exclusive to Wasilla or Alaska. Fortunately, states have been quick to pass laws against such practices once word gets out.

But the fact remains that this is a nasty and untrue rumor about Sarah Palin that’s been circulating for weeks. If you’re an Obama supporter who gets frustrated that people still believe he’s Muslim or won’t put his hand on his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance, you should understand the frustration that Palin supporters feel when this slime is taken at face value.

Oops!

29 Sep

Our Financial Future is in Their Hands!?

29 Sep

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, called this Wall Street bailout bill a “crap sandwich.” And then later, on C-SPAN, a “mud sandwich.”

And he was a supporter of the bill!

Rep. Paul Braun, R-Georgia, voted against it.

Before his vote, he called the bill “a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle, and I’m not going to eat that cow patty.”

If this is the caliber of ‘deep thinking’ going on in Washington during the most perilious economic times in decades, we are so screwed.

Paul Krugman said it best:

“So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch. As a friend said last night, we’ve become a banana republic with nukes.”