The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama

posted at 11:59 pm on October 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey


A Roadmap for Campaign 2008’s Homestretch

By Guy Benson ( and Mary Katharine Ham (

Editor and Contributor, Ed Morrissey


Allow us to put our cards on the table at the outset: We are two young conservative journalists—both in our 20s. Unlike many of our peers, we are not swept up in Obamamania and would prefer John McCain to win the election. We’ve teamed up with seasoned blogger extraordinaire, Ed Morrissey, whose careful and thoughtful pursuit of the truth—even when it benefits his political opponents—is respected across the blogosphere. In that spirit, we are not at all interested in perpetuating lies, rumors, and innuendo about Barack Obama. Promoting such information does America a disservice, allows Obama’s supporters to justifiably cry “smear,” and damages our own credibility.

What follows is by no means comprehensive, but it does shed some much-needed light on a number of Obama’s positions, statements, and associations about which he has been less than honest. We’ve attempted to boil each issue down to a succinct explanation with an accompanying, brief video clip—often starring Barack Obama in his own words. Before pulling the lever for someone who hopes voters will ignore his paper-thin resume, unsavory associations, and hard-left voting record, each citizen has a duty to do his due diligence.

In short, we hope this “closing argument” is compelling and clear, and we encourage you to share this essay with undecided or wavering family members, friends, and co-workers.


If recent polls are to believed, freshman Senator Barack Obama has a better than average chance of becoming America’s 44th President, the Commander-in-Chief of the planet’s most powerful military, and the proverbial leader of the free world. It’s worth mentioning that just four years ago as President Bush and Senator John Kerry were vying for the White House, Obama was still a part-time State Senator representing a liberal district in Chicago. Before that he was an attorney and, famously, a community organizer. In 2008, Obama has positioned himself as a post-partisan, thoughtful moderate with the superior judgment required to lead the country. These are lofty promises from a man with precious little executive experience, and a Senate career that lasted exactly 143 legislative days before he launched yet another campaign for higher office. No one can deny his ambition. In fact, if Obama wins on November 4th—and serves one full term in the Oval Office—the Presidency of the United States would be the longest consecutively held full-time job he has ever held without seeking another.

Barack Obama promises “change,” which is an appealing concept to an American public weary of a beleaguered administration and worried about the future. They are faced with a candidate who promises them everything: Tax cuts for 95% of Americans, universal healthcare, peace, saving the planet, and—according to his wife—the “healing” of Americans’ souls. As the saying goes, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Questions abound: Is this man prepared to be president? Does he hold mainstream values and policy preferences? Who has influenced his thinking, and where does he want to take the country? Has he been honest with the people from whom he seeks votes?


Barack Obama is out of the political mainstream on abortion. Don’t take our word for it, just listen to Sen. Obama’s own statements. In his final debate with John McCain, Obama asserted that “nobody is pro-abortion.” If you don’t have the time to read Princeton University professor Robert P. George’s detailed argument that Obama may actually fit that description, consider the candidate’s own record. In the clips below, you will hear Obama say three things.

First, he tells an audience that if his own daughters experienced an unexpected teen pregnancy, he wouldn’t want them “punished with a baby.”

Second, he pledges to a Planned Parenthood gathering that the very first thing he’d do as president is sign the Freedom Of Choice Act, which—according to the bill’s own supporters — would abolish bans on partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws nationwide while implementing tax-payer funded abortions. All three positions are wildly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans, yet they are Obama’s top priorities—just ask him:

Finally, Obama argues against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois Senator in 2002. Despite Obama’s protestations otherwise, he voted three separate times against this legislation, which was designed to require life-saving care for infants who survive botched abortions. This is a matter of record. Not only did an identical bill pass Congress without a single dissenting vote, the explanation Obama has offered for years to defend these votes has been exposed as a lie. Furthermore, Hot Air has a long list of supporting posts on this very subject:

Listen to Obama complain that providing care to these accidentally-born infants would place an undue burden on the woman and her abortionist:

Americans of good faith are divided on this issue. Many are pro-life, and many are pro-choice. Obama’s extreme record should horrify the former group, and should even give significant pause to the latter. Ask yourself, are babies “punishment”? Would you vote for the Freedom of Choice Act and against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act…three times?


As a skilled rhetorical magician, Obama presents himself as a tax-cutter. Even though he’s voted dozens of times to raise taxes, he assures Americans that 95% of us will have our taxes slashed under his plan. The Wall Street Journal isn’t buying it. Once again, though, the best way to assess someone’s positions is to listen to his own language. Note the two telling exchanges that follow:

First, Obama tells newly-minted national celebrity “Joe the Plumber” that his tax hikes on the so-called rich are designed to “spread the wealth around,” which Obama explains is “good for everybody.” Does that sound like a genuine tax-cutter to you?

Second, Obama is challenged by ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson at a primary debate in Pennsylvania. Gibson asks Obama why he insists on raising capital gains taxes (which affect millions of American investors) even after history has proven that raising said taxes actually decreases government revenues from the taxes, and cutting capital gains taxes actually brings more revenue into federal coffers. Obama has no answer, other than to blow off all the evidence, and say that raising taxes is the fair thing to do—practical consequences be damned.

Someone so obsessed with the concept of “fairness” is unlikely to be a friend to taxpayers. Obama’s record over his brief legislative career confirms his tax-and-spend impulses.


Barack Obama does not want anyone talking about his radical associations. He’s even sought criminal prosecutions against those who have dared to speak out on issues that make him squirm. Average Americans are judged by the company they keep, and our leaders ought to be held to the same standard.

Even though Obama says the issue is resolved (and John McCain refuses to raise it) voters must consider the case of Jeremiah Wright. Think of it this way: Barack Obama has himself estimated that he attends church twice a month. He spent twenty years at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ under the leadership of Rev. Wright. Within this metric, a rough calculation concludes that Obama sat through approximately 500 sermons at that church. 500. Still, he claims he never heard outrageous, racist, or anti-American comments from the pulpit. Watch the following clips—you probably saw them back when this controversy erupted—and ask yourself if you believe Obama’s self-serving selective deafness. The man featured in these clips is the same man who performed Obama’s wedding and baptized his children. Notice that his unhinged rantings did not elicit stunned silence from his congregation, but approving cheers. Is Obama’s “this isn’t the Jeremiah Wright I once knew” a credible excuse? Can you imagine anything like this being said at your church or house of worship—much less applauded?

Bill Ayers is another name many Americans have heard by now. He is a former terrorist who detonated bombs at federal buildings and plotted to blow up an army dance at Ft. Dix, New Jersey. He remains proud of his actions, and only regrets not having bombed more. Obama has been personal and professional friends with Ayers for more than a dozen years. When confronted with this association, Obama has said Ayers is (a) just a guy in his neighborhood, (b) a local professor, and (c) someone with whom he’d served on a charitable board. These are all true statements, but they obfuscate a much deeper relationship about which Obama is not being honest. In fact, the two served together on two boards—The Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where together they funneled huge sums of money to a who’s-who leftwing causes. Obama’s 1995 political coming-out party took place in the home of Ayers and his wife, a fellow unrepentant terrorist. Obama now denies this, but it’s a matter of record, confirmed by individuals who attended the party. Investigative journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, has written many thorough and indispensable articles on Obama’s substantial ties to Ayers. If you don’t have time to read them, consider the following videos.

First, CNN looks into Bill Ayers and the Obama connection. The report concludes that “the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama says.” It also confirms the 1995 political party Ayers hosted for Obama.

Second, Obama repeatedly states that Ayers’ violence took place 40 years ago when he was just eight years old. This is true, and it’s irrelevant. Would you shake hands with, let alone work comfortably with, someone who bombed the US Capitol and Pentagon, and remains proud that he did so? It is implausible that Obama didn’t know about Ayers’ sordid past, just as it’s implausible that he was unaware that Ayers’ hatred of this country continues to fester to this day. The following video features a 1998 ABC News interview with Ayers and his wife that showcases their continued defiance. It also portrays Ayers at a 1960s radical reunion just last year during which he describes the United States as he sees it today. Why did Obama feel comfortable around these people, and is it any wonder that he’s been less than forthcoming about their relationship?

ACORN is a community organization whose fraudulent voter registration activities have drawn indictments and investigations in more than a dozen states. Their intimidation tactics in the 1990s forced banks into issuing unwise mortgage loans to low-income individuals, setting the stage for the recent mortgage crisis that send the economy into a tailspin. Barack Obama has denied any connection to ACORN beyond performing some minimal legal work on their behalf in the distant past. Once again, this is an intentionally misleading understatement. As it turns out, Obama was a top ACORN activism trainer for several years. The charitable boards he and Ayers controlled funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN. His campaign paid ACORN more than $800,000 to register voters in the primary, but tried to disguise the purpose of those spent dollars in official expense reports. He’s since scrubbed his “fight the smears” website after these untruths were exposed.

This is a complicated issue, so it plays into Obama’s hands: Team Obama’s gameplan of spinning half-truths and muddying the water is in full effect as he tries to “run out the clock” on the election. Although Stanley Kurtz did the heavy lifting , syndicated columnist Mona Charen’s explanation summed up the issue quite well: Putting Obama in charge of cleaning up the mortgage mess would be akin to hiring an arsonist to put out a fire.

As we mentioned above, the Obama/ACORN nexus does not lend itself to quick and easy videos. Nonetheless, two stand out: CNN—not the other cable news channel Obama ritually bashes—filed an investigative report on Obama’s ties to ACORN, and once again found Obama’s explanation wanting. In addition, the McCain campaign produced perhaps the best succinct summary of Obama’s ties to ACORN in a 90 second web ad, the details of which have not been disputed. Watch and decide for yourself:

For fear of lingering too long on the “associates” question, we will refrain from exploring the convicted felonwho helped Obama buy his Hyde Park mansion.

Remember, though, these issues are “distractions.” Nothing to see here, folks.


Barack Obama gained much of his early traction by speaking out against the war in Iraq. He cites his initial opposition to the war as the crown-jewel example of his judgment on foreign affairs. Although many people credit him for being “right” on the war from the beginning, it’s indisputable that he did not have an actual vote on the war resolution. As a state senator from a liberal, antiwar district, one wonders how much political risk he assumed by speaking out against a Republican-led conflict. Regardless, after he was elected to the US Senate, Obama was faced with an actual vote on a controversial issue: The surge. John McCain and others said the strategy was the only way to salvage the war and recover from our missteps there. History has proven them correct. Obama not only opposed the surge, but actually predicted it would make matters worse. In other words, he was spectacularly wrong on his biggest foreign policy judgment call since joining the Senate. He stubbornly refuses to admit he was wrong. This may be the kind of judgment that’s expected from a partisan rookie Senator, but not a Commander-in-Chief:

During the CNN-YouTube debate in the summer of 2007, Obama unequivocally promised to meet without preconditions with the rogue leaders of America’s worst enemies—all within the first year of his administration. Hillary Clinton and John McCain have called this approach reckless, expressing concerns that Obama may be playing into our enemies’ propagandistic designs. In October 2008, the Iranian government announced its own preconditions for one-on-one meetings with the Unites States: Pull all US troops out of the Middle East, and abandon support for “Zionist” Israel. These absurd demands further expose Obama’s very poor judgment vis-a-vis a regime that is actively aiding and abetting terrorists in Iraq who are killing US servicemen. Iran’s “preconditions” prove that negotiating with bad-faith actors who hate Americans and Jews would accomplish nothing other than handing their regime a PR coup. In recent months, Obama’s campaign has continually claimed that he didn’t actually make the promise that he did. The tape does not lie:


Barack Obama was rated the most liberal United States Senator in 2007 by the non-partisan National Journal — farther left than Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders. He rarely mentions this extreme voting record as he campaigns throughout the heartland, just as he refrains from telling middle America what he really thinks of those who live there. Obama waits until he’s in San Francisco to do that. At a chic fundraising dinner, Obama sniffed that average Americans get “bitter” and “cling” to their guns and religion—as if these were shameful crutches. He may look down his nose at you, but he still wants your vote:

Obama also expressed disapproval of Americans’ (apparently) selfish way of life, scolding his fellow citizens for doing awful things like driving SUVs, heating their homes to a comfortable temperature, and eating as much as they’d like. Note the return of John Kerry’s “global test” in his remarks. If this is how he lectures Americans while he’s still pandering for votes, one wonders how preachy a President Obama might get:


Millions of Americans oppose Senator Obama’s candidacy for many different reasons. For a small number of bigots, one of them is almost certainly race. That being said, Obama’s surrogates and media supporters have shown very little reluctance to ascribe racism to virtually anyone who supports another candidate. This is shameful. Worse still, Obama has personally played the race card several times, accusing Republicans in general, and the McCain campaign specifically, of whipping up race-based ugliness. When McCain’s objects, Obama has disingenuously denied he was referring to race in his initial comments. Really? On one occasion, Obama accused Republicans of trying to “scare” voters by mentioning that he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” At another rally he made a similar claim, adding “…did we mention he’s black?” to his interpretation of the GOP’s supposed scare tactics. As someone who presents himself as a unifying figure, what does it say that he shamelessly injects racial politics into the campaign, casting aspersions on his opponents’ motives? Watch and listen for yourself:

With the exception of one time each by the Washington Post and ABC News (on their blogs), the media did nothing to expose this tactic by Obama and his campaign employed on these occasions:


After an embarrassing exchange on a talk show, the Obama campaign scrambled to arm its surrogates with talking points about Obama’s grand legislative record. What did they come up with? Two bills—and Obama talks about them endlessly. One deals with securing loose nuclear weapons and was so uncontroversial that it passed on a voice vote in the Senate. The other created a “google for government” system, allowing citizens to track government spending. Both were laudable efforts for a wet-behind-the-ears legislator, but Obama wants to be President. Beyond those two meager accomplishments, what has he done? It’s a question that has baffled official campaign surrogates and regular Americans alike:


All three of us have written many, many times on all of these issues. Taken individually, most of them would create doubt about the readiness and honesty of any political candidate. Put together as a narrative, we believe this paints the picture of a man who has few real credentials for the office he seeks beyond the Constitutional minimum, and a politician who has succeeded in obfuscating his hard-Left ideology.

Perhaps if Barack Obama had taken more time to build his resumé – especially with executive experience – he might have made a more compelling candidate, and might have demonstrated at least a little of the moderation he has claimed. Instead, Democrats want America to support at once the most radical and least qualified candidate for President in at least a century. They have tried to conceal this with the complicity of a pom-pom-waving national media that has shown much more interest in the political background of a plumber from Ohio than in a major-party candidate for President.

America deserves better than that. Voters deserve the truth from the press, not vague cheers of “hope” and “change” while willfully ignoring or air-brushing Obama’s record. We hope to set that record straight with our essay.

Update: We may add a couple more videos as the day goes along, so keep checking back. If you want to see more, please visit Mary Katharine Ham’s YouTube channel or the Weekly Standard.

Update II: Here’s one video we forgot in our comprehensive argument. Barack Obama offered his insights into his military policy in the middle of a war — cut everything that might make us secure:

He’ll cut missile defense, new weapons systems, and just about everything he can.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Has BHO produced a birth certificate for the State of Hawaii?

eanax on October 21, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Has BHO produced a birth certificate for the State of Hawaii?

eanax on October 21, 2008 at 5:01 PM

From the State of Hawaii, that is…

eanax on October 21, 2008 at 5:01 PM

The MSM just ignores what he said. – progressoverpeace

Indeed. I agree wholeheartedly. I also think the McCain campaign has not fully expressed your points in their ads. If he has, the message wasn’t convincing enough to remember.

This is the reason for my request. The topic of this thread provides a rational well founded and expansive list of reasons not to vote for Obama. Obviously I’m receptive to this reasoning, just as I am receptive to Hannity, Rush and Levin.

Juxtaposing McCain’s positive attributes against Obama’s negative attributes provides a convenient reference list to use when approaching family and friends who remain uncommitted or firmly entrenched in the Obama fantasy. There’s only two weeks left to be very specific and target weaknesses which could yield results. Perhaps my query will benefit others who are equally exasperated.

I truely appreciate your efforts.

heroyalwhyness on October 21, 2008 at 5:03 PM

heroyalwhyness on October 21, 2008 at 5:03 PM

My pleasure. I also get very frustrated that McCain’s words are getting so twisted and warped by the MSM. But McCain has been saying these things. Perhaps a post on the pro-McCain position would be nice, just the fundamentals that are so important, even though the anti-Obama argument is really more than enough for any reasonable person to make up his/her mind, especially given the very weak monetary position we are in. Times of monetary weakness are the times when nations really flirt with danger.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2008 at 5:11 PM

Response from a liberal

I sent the url for this to a liberal… here’s what I got back:

article: gee, how unbiased. If this is the best the attack journalists can find, he deserves to get elected.

Think about how invincible the ignorance here is – this person WILL NOT look, WILL NOT listen, and will not change – no matter what the facts.

So how do you beat that? I don’t know – but clearly what’s needed here is a movement of mass revulsion – and what that needs is a trigger.

It isn’t going to come from Fox, from McCain, or from any “tainted” source. So how about talking to the Clintons? They have debts – she wants to be on the supreme court? – these are people who make deals and I suggest a public appeal to patriotism and their sense of right (backed by the right deal) might have them narrate something very much like this on primetime t.v.

Paul Murphy on October 21, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Excellent! What a great job! I’ve sent it to many people who can in turn send it to more!

tru2tx on October 21, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Thank God. I’ve been trying to come up with my own and the mountain was just so large I didn’t know how I could possibly do it even half as well as you guys. Everyone and their dog I know is going to get this in their inbox today.

Thanks so much for your time and effort, and for being willing to do all that heavy lifting. You guys are awesome and you made my day.

Numenorean on October 21, 2008 at 5:17 PM

Think about how invincible the ignorance here is – this person WILL NOT look, WILL NOT listen, and will not change – no matter what the facts.

It’s a mass delusion, supported by many who have invested everything in trying to perpetrate this fraud on the public and are scared to death that the bubble might pop before the election. That fear will make it pop, I think. There are too many cracks in it, right now.

So how do you beat that? I don’t know – but clearly what’s needed here is a movement of mass revulsion – and what that needs is a trigger.

Paul Murphy on October 21, 2008 at 5:12 PM


progressoverpeace on October 21, 2008 at 5:19 PM


When the state legislature discovered that Wilmette had essentially charged DeMar for defending his home, several members moved a new law that essentially barred prosecution on handgun bans that arose from incidents of true self-defense.

[Obama] voted against SB2165, which didn’t even go so far as to remove the Wilmette handgun ban, but only prevented enforcement in cases of real self-defense. It passed nonetheless, 41-16.


Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.


I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, when we were both at the University of Chicago Law School. Indeed, when I introduced myself to him, he said, “Oh, you are the gun guy.”

I responded, “Yes, I guess so.” His response, as I recall it, was, “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”

When I said it might be fun sometime to talk about the question and his support of Chicago’s lawsuit against gunmakers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.


Much, much more is on the NRA’s page.

mad saint jack on October 21, 2008 at 5:31 PM

“Since our leader has taken to bludgeoning our party’s opponent, we will take pen and feather to pamphlet and parchment to make our case more clear.”

PresidenToor on October 21, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Thank you all very much. It speaks loudly that you say it now, before he’s elected. You’re prescient. That is a rare quality. I love Ed and MHK. OK, I *really* love MHK. Domestic: take from the rich, give to the poor; cripple the engines of the economy. Foreign: give up so much unilaterally; weakness; as Bolton says, Kumbaya, doesn’t understand how to represent US interests in the world. Obama the man — has troubling issues with his own racial identity. People will say I don’t look like the others on the currency … and did I mention, he’s black? Far left. Very far left. Lies about Ayers and Wright. On Wright — you can loop anyone’s worst statements and make them look bad. Obama is lying, and disingenuous. Wright is a black nationalist, black liberation theology, James Cone, Afro-Centricism. Ayers — just a guy in my neighborhood. Obama lies, he says only as much as he has to. He shades, he dissembles. Obama’s most hopeful supporters pray he’s not as he’s been. He is as he’s been. Love you, Ed, and MHK.

Paul-Cincy on October 21, 2008 at 5:38 PM

This is superb work.

It makes the case against Osama Obama as clearly — and, given the mass of evidence against him, succinctly — as one could wish.

But I too see an omission. It would be well, I think to explore the Obama/Odinga relationship. No sane Ameircan can be comfortable with the idea of having a president who is linked with a Kenyan terrorist whose methods include those Obama complains about in Darfur.

Maybe that’s too esoteric and too racially charged for the general public, though.

As presented, this is enough to make any rational American vote “guilty” and turn away from the false Messiah.

MrScribbler on October 21, 2008 at 5:38 PM

This is very unusual election…. Case in point: A very savvy and wealthy friend, who has been a honest to gosh independent for 30 years, told me ” Obama had me at hello” No amount of reasoning, logic or political argument can budge him an inch. I am reduced to setting the ground work for an enormous emotional let down from his unworldy expectations.

ursa5000 on October 21, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Oops, MKH. I guess my love isn’t that deep when I mess up her name. Will she buy my cover story.

Paul-Cincy on October 21, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Benson and Ham: I must take you to task for repeating an Obama canard: that he was merely eight years old when Ayers was a terrorist.

Bill Ayers’ most infamous bombing was probably the Pentagon. That happened in 1972 — when Obama was 11.

And moreover, Ayers didn’t turn himself in until 1980, when Obama was 19. So that means Ayers was still an active terrorist when Obama was in college.

Even after Ayers left, members of the Weather Underground continued to perform acts of terrorism. In 1981, they attacked a Brink’s truck, killing two police officers and a guard. This was all over the news at the time. And Obama was 20 years old.

Far from denouncing this attack, Ayers sat next to one of the Brink’s robbers, Kathy Boudin, during her sentencing. That occurred in 1984 — when Obama was 23 and had already graduated from college. And 11 years later, Obama had his political-coming-out party in Ayers’ living room.

So, Obama was hardly a mere child during the Weathermen’s notorious exploits, and as a self-confessed news junkie, was certainly aware of them.

Cato on October 21, 2008 at 6:22 PM

heroyalwhyness on October 21, 2008 at 5:03 PM

I just wanted to very succinctly sum up, for you, my pro-McCain reasoning:

1) McCain takes a pro-growth economic view. This would not normally be the most important position in the world, but given the stress our monetary system is under, the current debt of over 10 trillion, and the fact that the dollar is still the international reserve currency with all other economies ultimately dependent on us for their own growth, we are at one of the most vulnerable points our Republic has ever seen. The only solution to our predicament is to grow out of it. If we go into a protracted contraction, the dollar could collapse, which would be a scenario that no one really wants to contemplate – though we all came face-to-face with a taste of it just a few weeks ago. Everything depends on our growth. Truly.

(Maybe I shouldn’t have said ‘succinct’?)

2) Energy policy. This ties in with the above. McCain wants to DO things actively to change our energy profile. He wants to drill and he wants to build nukes (the most important). This is promoting economic growth and national security, while directly addressing the energy problem. Obama, on the other hand, has nothing but restrictive policies for energy – stopping and deterring current production – in favor of some very expensive future source that is not, now, known. This moves money out of the economy and channels some of it to less productive endeavors, on a hunch. (I just had to add that to show the extreme differences in position).

3) Foreign Policy. I don’t think anyone needs to much on this point, really. We all know the obvious. McCain is looked at, by the world, as being anything but naive. He understands the real cost of an American retreat. This point can never be stressed too much, as the cultures of our enemies must be understood as they are.

There are many other areas (SCOTUS appointments, trade policies, tax policies, …) but the above are the most fundamental reasons and everything else really flows from them, as I see it.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2008 at 6:30 PM

The best way to guarantee McCain and Congressional Republicans victory in November is to get George W to come out and endorse their opponents. I would love to see Obama trying to get out of that endorsement!

bopbottle on October 21, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Thank you Guy, MK and Ed.
Thank God people like you are working for us.

silverfox on October 21, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Thank you!!!

Canadian Infidel on October 21, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Is it just me, my pc and browser but all the videos are no longer available?

Sparky on October 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM

I would add to my above list:

4) McCain understands the Fannie/Freddie problem and tried to stop it and would. This is of utmost importance.

5) Standing as the only control for a lunatic Congress.

6) And I can’t believe I forgot to throw back in the fact that he wants a smaller government (the spending freeze, as I had mentioned just before) …

Then, there are other pro-McCain reasons like:

Standing for individual freedom and individual rights (versus the collective ideas of BHO)

Standing for gun rights …

but these are just part of the general debate and not of fundamental importance, as I consider those on the (amended) list.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2008 at 7:37 PM

“fundamental importance” .. er … I meant “immediate and specific importance”. Without the policies on the list, things could get a little too ugly for discussion of much, at all – as we just saw in the amazingly quick expansion of government on the word of the Treasury Secretary and a drop in the market.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2008 at 7:44 PM

I guess it was my VPN connection, lose the VPN and the dreaded sorry video no longer available goes away.

Sparky on October 21, 2008 at 7:46 PM

This is a good summation of some of the major arguments. There are so many others. Earmarks (including for his wife’s employer), ties to Fannie and Freddie, NAFTA, lies during the Saddleback Forum,…

Snidely Whiplash on October 21, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Without the policies on the list, things could get a little too ugly for discussion of much, at all – as we just saw in the amazingly quick expansion of government on the word of the Treasury Secretary and a drop in the market.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2008 at 7:44

McCain has less than two weeks to make a convincing case…. Not the time for lengthy complex policy issues. Challenge enough since, from the beginning, McCain has failed to express a clear coherent message other than the fact he has logged more time in the Senate than his opponent and was a POW.

highhopes on October 21, 2008 at 8:00 PM

John McCain:

I was a POW for longer than Obama’s been in the U.S. Senate.

Now he’s a POW of his radical socialist agenda.

Not tested; not ready. No to Obama.”

profitsbeard on October 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM

Sorry, but this is preaching to the choir and falls on relatively deaf ears. There is no medium where this would get to those who need to hear it. However, as one person observes, it would matter little to a generation that has been pavlov conditioned to disbelieve and reject truth. This is the generation spoken of in the Bible that because of their unbelief (and ingratitude) for God’s blessings (on this country) He will send them a strong delusion and that they would believe a lie. The spiritual dimension of this race are evident, although likely not acknowledged or accepted by most people today. God have mercy on our country which has done for over 200 years. I’ve already voted early for Sarah & Co. The votes are there and I believe could counter all the criminal mischief going on.

wepeople on October 21, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Great job guys! It really is a shame that no MSM outlet would ever put something like this together. The MSM have made their choice and we will see how this works out, not only for BO but for the MSM, as well.

d1carter on October 21, 2008 at 9:25 PM

From the State of Hawaii, that is…

eanax on October 21, 2008 at 5:01 PM


Good point (one among many) made by Andrew Martin, author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask (and a legendary Chicago muckraker, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic):

Monday (today) we petitioned the Hawai’i Supreme Court to order Obama’s secret birth records released.
Obama suddenly announced Monday his grandmother had been gravely ill for weeks. He has his own plane. All he had to do is tell the pilot to file a flight plan for Honolulu and take off. He’s the king of his own armada.
But instead of rushing to his grandmother’s bedside, Obama is waiting until I leave Honolulu before he lands.
Ask your self , “What would I do?” What would you do if you had your own plane and mom or dad suddenly took ill? Would you tell the pilot to set course for Hawai’i, or tell him to wait three (3!) days before coming to your relative’s bedside? How sick is she if Obama is will to delay his “emergency” for three days?.
This entire episode is becoming curiouser and curiouser.
Barack Obama vs. Andy Martin. The drama builds as we move closer and closer to disclosing the dramatic truth about Barack Obama.
Obama did not pay any attention to his grandmother until I showed up in Honolulu. Suddenly she is the center of his attention. She is so central to his campaign that he has suspended it! But when Obama was here last summer he only visited his grandmother for an hour. One hour! Now he suspends his campaign for her?.
Could anyone have predicted a more dramatic series of developing even ts?&l t;strong> Hannity puts me on the air as the Chicago expert who confirms the links between Obama and his longstanding anti-American, terror network. Obama’s goon squads immediately try to smear me in retaliation. The New York Times creates a front-page story out of 25 and 35 year-old nonsense in a desperate attempt to discredit and derail my upcoming Hawai’i investigation.
And Andy Martin’s investigative team lands in Honolulu and goes where no mainstream media have gone before, on the streets of Honolulu to dig out the secret truths about Barack Obama.
The day we landed in Honolulu was Obama’s D-Day. He can’t scare us. He can’t stop us. He can’t intimidate us and the New York Times can’t smear us with lies, half-truths and distortions.
The irony in all of this television drama is that Fox News is not the network following me around Hawaii. I will leave it to the network to disclose which one it is.
Barack Obama is looking increasingly like a desperate, doomed candidate whose Big Lie is about to be exposed.
What Obama fears most is that I search for the truth not because I am associated with McCain (I am not) or because I am a partisan Republican (I am not a right-winger). Rather I search for the truth for the sake of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I took an oath as an 18 year old to defend the Constitution of the United States from its enemies. .
Barack Obama is an enemy of the Constitution. He is using tens of millions of dollars in clandestine campaign cash from unknown sources to stage an electoral coup d’etat in our nation. That is why I keep fighting for the truth.
Barack Obama has been lying to the American people. And his Big Lie is about to be exposed.
Now that his secrets are on the verge of being revealed he has panicked and suspended his campaign to visit Hawai’i. Do you believe Obama’s explanation for the sudden trip?
Stay tuned for High Noon in Honolulu.

NightmareOnKStreet on October 21, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Great job guys! It really is a shame that no MSM outlet would ever put something like this together. The MSM have made their choice and we will see how this works out, not only for BO but for the MSM, as well.

d1carter on October 21, 2008 at 9:25 PM

It is a great compilation, I agree. I wish they would have mentioned the question of Obama’s eligibility or at least HIS REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH REQUESTS FOR HIS “VAULT”/long form birth certificate, citizenship docs, etc. like McCain had to.
The article I excerpted above sez:

The irony in all of this television drama is that Fox News is not the network following me around Hawaii. I will leave it to the network to disclose which one it is.

Which network do you think it is that is keeping close tabs on Martin (for Obama?)

NightmareOnKStreet on October 21, 2008 at 9:34 PM

Is a vote for Barack Obama really a vote for Harry Reid?

“A man you probably never heard of [Well most people never heard of] will run the country in 2009. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will hold the whip hand in Washington come November, no matter who gets voted into the White House.

He will almost certainly have at his command a filibuster-proof [Or close enough] Democratic Senate to team up with a unilateral House.

So whatever Reid wants, he’ll get…no matter who wins the White House. And what will he get? Look at what House Democrats passed in the last year:

The biggest tax increase in history! It was axed once. It won’t be axed again.

Robin Hood’s America

Last time there was a filibuster-proof Democratic senate, we got Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. The time before that, we got FDR’s New Deal.

A cornerstone of The New Deal was, of course, Fannie Mae, down 95% this year and now under government conservatorship because, as Warren Buffett said, “They had a blank check.”

Get ready. Here comes the New Deal II.”
– Richard Young

MB4 on October 21, 2008 at 9:37 PM

McCain has less than two weeks to make a convincing case…. Not the time for lengthy complex policy issues.

highhopes on October 21, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Agreed. That’s why the lawsuits regarding his eligibility/citizenship is so important at this stage. //fingers crossed//

NightmareOnKStreet on October 21, 2008 at 9:38 PM

Send this around! I’ve already started doing so. Have your friends send this around. Ditto on that.

Tommygun on October 21, 2008 at 9:41 PM

As presented, this is enough to make any rational American vote “guilty” and turn away from the false Messiah.

MrScribbler on October 21, 2008 at 5:38 PM

The problem is that reason seems to have taken the year off. People who are voting for Obama are not using their brains. It is all about hatred of Bush and some idiotic hope in the mirage of “change”. I keep hearing people say that “they are willing to give change a chance an see what happens”. They do not see that they are playing russian roulette. That is why I think the best strategy is to point out how risky it is to put a virtual unknown in the WH when it appears certain that the democrats will have filibuster-proof majorities, hence having unfettered power with no opposition or checks and balances.
We need to make the “undecideds” and “independents” clearly see what a risky proposition it is.

neuquenguy on October 21, 2008 at 9:42 PM


Thanks, Ed & Co.

Janos Hunyadi on October 21, 2008 at 9:55 PM

I wonder. Can Bill Ayers get on a plane? Or is he on a list of terrorists and is refused airline travel. Does he only stay in Chicago, or does he fly to NYC and LA to give speeches on socialism and Markism and Anarchy. And how Capitalism sucks.

wise_man on October 21, 2008 at 10:12 PM

i just want to thank you guys for this post.

this was necessary, and it needs to go out to every email inbox in the country. the double-standard of the press is reprehensible… astounding… unacceptable.

keep up the good work!!!

thedude on October 21, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Great work from Guy and MKH, as expected, but as someone said in an earlier comment, they are preaching to the choir here. This is the sort of information that needs to be getting to the undecideds which some polls put at nearly 11%, more than enough to tip the election to Maverick.

So how do you get this kind of info, what the msm should be presenting, out there?

The clock is ticking . . .

postaldog on October 21, 2008 at 11:08 PM

I wonder. Can Bill Ayers get on a plane? Or is he on a list of terrorists and is refused airline travel. Does he only stay in Chicago, or does he fly to NYC and LA to give speeches on socialism and Markism and Anarchy. And how Capitalism sucks.

wise_man on October 21, 2008 at 10:12 PM

LearJet Liberal probably doesn’t have to worry about it.

Laura in Maryland on October 21, 2008 at 11:15 PM

This was very well done, but as several commenters have already observed, it’s unlikely to sway anyone’s opinions. The hardcore Obamabots don’t care about any of it, and the swing voters have a hard time wrapping their minds around it. Obama performed an eerie transition from farce, to tragedy, and back around to plausibility. The truth about him is so horrific that the swing voters won’t believe it, at least not in time. They’ll say, “If he’s really as bad as all that, why don’t I hear about this on ABC News?” Or they’ll shut down unsavory thoughts with the “nothing could be worse than Bush” or “it’s time for a change” mantras, effortlessly ignoring the fact that Democrats have essentially run the country since Bush vanished in 2006, and are directly responsible for the financial crisis that worries them so.

I think pushing the Wright and Ayers stuff is still a good idea, but McCain needs to use these last two weeks to make a positive case for himself. A lot of swing voters might be tottering on the edge because they feel queasy when they see Ayers, but they need a proactive reason to vote FOR McCain. So far, he hasn’t really put one together, at least not on domestic policy. There’s still time, but he needs to use this weekend’s news cycle to get some proposals out there.

My fear is that the Republicans, as a whole, allowed the Democrats to frame the subprime crisis as a failure of free markets and Wall Street fatcats, a deadly mistake. I personally believe tax cuts, government spending reductions, and the removal of the insane regulations that sparked the subprime disaster are the wise course of action, while Obama’s increasingly crazed socialist spending spree will be all but suicidal. The problem is that it’s hard to sell that to the public when Obama’s promising them free everything, paid for by nameless rich people that can easily afford it.

We all know the “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” swill is actually a welfare program funded by massive tax increases. The people who will receive that welfare know it, too – do you think any of them are standing in front of their TVs, scratching their heads, and musing “Hey, now, I don’t pay any taxes – how can I get a tax cut?” The middle-class swing voters are the ones who will be in for a shock. They’re the ones who think the Messiah is somehow going to hand them a nice fat rebate check, and instead they’re going to see their taxes skyrocket, and quite likely watch the businesses that employ them fold up or move overseas. They’re the ones McCain needs to reach with a positive alternative.

Unfortunately, the entire Republican Party, and most especially McCain himself, all but subtracted themselves from the conversation by looking at their shoes and muttering about “fat cats” while the crisis was exploding all around them. They should have absolutely demanded the resignations of Dodd and Frank from the Senate – they should have screamed it at the top of their lungs, as a non-negotiable precondition for any sort of bailout bill, making the media begin reporting on those slimeballs, and forcing the Democrats to tell they country why they should remain seated. Besides being smart policy, it would have been minimal fiscal responsibility. Instead, I get to hear Barney Frank babbling about how much money he’ll be “getting” from “all those rich people.” He should have given that interview from federal prison.

I still think McCain might pull a win out of the fire. I have ManlyRash’s posts printed out and taped to the ceiling over my bed, so they’re the last thing I see every night. It just shouldn’t have been this close, and it got this way because Republicans made deals, reached across the aisle, and refused to name names. Liberalism is invariably wrong and destructive, and accomodating it is like injecting yourself with a little bit of ebola. Now outright socialism stands poised to take over because of a crisis it created, its power validated by the election of a man who is almost a caricature of an extreme leftist… and if he wins, absolute power will swiftly be used to ensure the electorate never has another chance to expel the poison.

I fear Ed, Mary Katharine, and Mr. Benson’s exhaustive work may be mostly of interest to a future generation that reads it and wonders how it ever came to this.

Doctor Zero on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Leave Barry alone!!!

csdeven on October 21, 2008 at 11:22 PM

I’d love to read “The Case for John McCain”

I can understand how die hard conservatives would be ok with JUST the “Case against Barack Obama”…but what about the rest?

I prefer Obama/Biden for a few particular reasons but not much else. Personally I just found the sarah palin choice reckless, that did it for me.

But seriously. Am I to understand that the same republican orthodoxy we have today applied for 8 more years will produce different results?

Im very willing to accept conservative answers to problems we face…but hasn’t that been the case by and large for the last 8 years? Yes congressional democrats have a hand in the mortgage crisis.

But are we to really believe that the same republican brain trust of bureaucrats and staffers will produce fundamentally different outcomes with regards to immigration, energy, foreign relations, education, health care, jobs, etc.?

I mean, McCain keeps saying the last 8 years haven’t worked. What will he REALLY change, with regards to the republican orthodoxy of the last 8 years?

Where is the centrists guide to “Heres why John McCain is right on …” and not “Heres why Barack Obama is wrong on…”

ernesto on October 21, 2008 at 11:29 PM

Bam. End of story. Stellar work, guys.

Metro on October 22, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Great vid clips but I’ve posted many of those before on another forum full of Left-wing Obamabots and their denials and spin cycles go into overdrive even when it’s The Ones own words contradicting his record (such as it is).

They. Just. Don’t. Care.

They like most liberals are socialists at heart even if they wont admit it openly but make no mistake, Obama is their dream come true and nothing, not even Obama himself will keep them from voting against their Messiah.

Yakko77 on October 22, 2008 at 12:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5