The Obama campaign’s defenders are out on television claiming that just because ACORN has committed voter registration fraud does not mean that that anyone would actually cast a fraudulent ballot, and that such claims are mere paranoia caused by desperation. It is clear that they take the American public for fools. There is no reason to register false names other than to be able to cast false ballots.

Yes, they are totally separate crimes. So are brandishing a weapon and armed robbery. However, it is reasonable that a man arrested outside a 7-11 for brandishing a weapon may also have intended to commit armed robbery inside the 7-11, and that he was merely caught before completing that crime. Most prosecutors would have little difficulty in convincing a jury that the man was guilty of attempted armed robbery. Nobody but the man’s defense attorney would call this unreasonable; being outside the 7-11 with a weapon to brandish is a “substantial step” toward the completion of the crime of armed robbery. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition, taken with the aim of furthering the crime. All U.S. jurisdictions use language similar to this to define the crime of attempt.

Fraudulent voter registration, though its own crime, is likewise a substantial step toward the completion of the crime of fraudulently voting. Therefore, establishing attempt, or even a conspiracy to commit voter fraud, should not be out of reach for the Justice Department. RICO arrests should be made now, before the crime is completed.

Once upon a time in Europe, a priest named Martin Luther became disgusted with a Church practice (there was only One Church at the time) called indulgence. Even today, we say that someone “indulges” in a hot fudge sundae or some other treat because of this practice. An indulgence allowed a person, for good works rendered, to do something that otherwise might be a sin. It was seen as a ‘Get Out of Hell Free’ card and was often traded for money.

Although Luther was excommunicated and formed the group today known as Protestants, the Catholic church later admitted he had a point about the abuse of indulgences and greatly restrained their use (indeed, the Catholic Encyclopedia greatly disagrees with the definition given above.) How does this relate to the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign?

Senator Obama offers “Change” and is to be considered a “transformational figure” as he stares off nobly into the future. Many on the Right have been ringing alarm bells about Socialism and Obama’s radical ties, but nobody on the left and few in the middle pay attention – because the Right seems to cry “wolf” in every election against the small and incremental increases in Big Government. To understand how this relates to indulgences and whether to vote for Obama, voters need to know what “change” and “transformation” mean. With his thin résumé, he offers nothing else. (Think of the audacity of claiming that McCain “doesn’t get it” on foreign policy, when McCain has spent longer in a POW camp than Obama has in the Senate.) Obama is supposed to be reassuring about foreign and domestic policy, implying a certain steadiness. He will get our troops home, but will fight nebulous and unnamed foreign threats to our security. He will support business, except Joe the Plumber, and give all deserving voters a tax “cut.” Does anyone truly believe that Obama’s campaign offers any change other than the candidate’s skin color? If Socialism is not the big transformation, then “Change” means merely a president with a skin tone darker “than those on the currency.” Obama offers racist voters an indulgence.

Think about it. Any voter can at any time after this election counter charges of racism with, “I voted for Obama.” It is a ‘Get Out of White Guilt Free’ card, traded for a vote. This is made on the assumption that most if not all voters focus on race, and reflects the Obama campaign’s focus on race as the only important issue. (Remember, Obama’s promises are no different than those of other Democratic candidates, and his only warnings are against “more of the same” and “those who would try to scare you” because he “looks different.”) This is a racist appeal to racist white voters, and excuses racist black voters who also vote for Obama merely because he is black. This is a racist campaign.

It is not racist for the McCain camp to point out Obama’s racism, although the news media would certainly present it that way, confirmed by learned professors. Black Studies, Women’s Studies, Chicano Studies, and Gay Studies departments all tell their students that discrimination is “structural,” that is, personal attitudes mean nothing. Having a black friend or a gay friend is not enough to exonerate the guilty white liberal; majorities collectively oppress minorities, meaning that no black can be racist, nor a woman sexist. This is why Governor Palin has seriously been accused of not being a woman; she is not ‘empowering’ her collective group. Therefore, Senator Obama cannot be accused or racism, nor McCain exonerated from the charge, by this redefinition of the term ‘racist.’ No explanation of the false and racist appeal of the Obama campaign can possibly lead to anything but greater and ever more triumphant ‘confirmation’ by the Obama campaign and its media friends that, in fact, McCain is the one using racism to try to win the election.

Unfortunately for Senator Obama, his indulgence works whether or not he wins; this may not redound to his electoral advantage.  Racists might still vote against him and lie about their vote. That strategy will certainly be offered as an explanation if Obama loses in the face of seemingly inevitable advantage in the polls.  It has a twofold advantage, excusing both Obama’s shortcomings, and the liberal bias of the news media’s polling practices. Would they admit, or even mention, the racism of a campaign that depended on offering racists such an opportunity in the first place? Asking such a question amounts to a mere indulgence.

In an earlier post, I incorrectly stated that the Weather Underground bombings took place in 1968. They took place in 1969. I apologize for the error.

Hallelujah! The boring ‘debates’ are finally over! Neither candidate said something outrageously stupid, although McCain looked a little more stressed than Obama, and the usual suspects thereby declare “O” the winner. As an aside, those with a little bit of formal training (or who were fortunate enough to be alive, back in the halcyon days when high schools actually taught things like civics), get annoyed when these dog-and-pony shows are dignified with the word “debate.” Debate is a formal term with a formal meaning, not a joint interview. When one considers the bias of the press, it is a wonder that McCain insisted on one, much less three.

Now, with that out of the way, what can be done with two weeks left? This morning, Sarah Palin held a rally in Maine, a state not generally expected to turn from ‘blue’ (Democratic) to ‘red’ (Republican). Michigan Republicans have been begging McCain-Palin not to abandon them, after some campaign workers were transferred from Michigan to Maine. Those living deeply inside their tinfoil hats believe this to be a sign that McCain’s numbers show an electoral tie, with the rogue electors from the ‘winner-take-almost-all’ states of Maine and Nebraska deciding the election. North Omaha is discussed as a gain on the Democratic side. Sensible adults usually scoff at such wonkery, but why else would she be there?

Why, else, indeed? The truth may not really matter, in light of today’s activity. If Sarah can rally a blue state to at least purple merely by showing up, she can turn the campaign around simply by touring the states where the Democratic Party has become complacent. Michigan would be an obvious choice for her next stop of many.

To discuss energy, and how true environmental concern should include nuclear power as an alternative fuel, Sarah should go to Seattle, Washington; to somewhere in Oregon; and to Malibu, California (even better: outside Barbara Streisand’s house). Michigan, Washington, and Oregon are all very weakly blue states, despite their reputations. Even usually red Nevada should be included, as local concerns over the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository can be allayed by discussion of how McCain’s nuclear regulation will differ from the present (put in place by Carter). Comparisons of “O” to Carter resonate with older voters.

Should California or even New York ‘use up’ valuable campaign resources? Yes! Her appearance in either will keep the “O” campaign off-balance, and gain free media attention as they discuss whether there is a chance of Republican success in these states. Sarah Palin rallies in Colorado and New Mexico will reassure the base there that they are not forgotten nor conceded.

Sarah should round out the tour in the swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (and possibly Indiana) with appearances on her own, building on the momentum gained. Attacks on ACORN activities and demands for honesty might not be inappropriate, if Ohio and Omaha still look corrupt, as they likely will. The question,“If Obama’s really so popular, why is he trying to steal the election?” should be asked often by Sarah Palin.

The McCain-Palin ticket needs to break the wall of complacency the press is trying to build. If Sarah Palin can steal a red elector from a blue state, she can deliver entire states, too. Go Sarah, go!

It pains me to have to say it, but if grassroots Republicans fail to turn out to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, then that will only prove that many Republican voters really are stupid. However rhetorically squishy-center and functionally liberal a McCain administration might be, the Obama Nation will be much worse. Yes, this is the most liberal Republican to head a ticket, arguments about Nixon and “W” aside, but this is also about the most leftist Democratic ticket ever, without doubt. It seems odd to talk about leftists in the twenty-first century, decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but Bill Ayres from the Weather Underground supports Obama.

Don’t remember the Weather Underground? Both Mr. Ayres and the national news media prefer it that way. The transfer of power from the liberals to the radicals in the Democratic Party began in 1968, with riots and assassination (leading eventually to the anti-anti-communist McGovern of 1972). The pro-communist Weathermen aided the cause with several bombings, the last of which was accidental. Mr. Ayres conveniently forgets the extent of his involvement, because there is no statute of limitations on murder.

Populist ‘fairness’ is not leftist ‘revolution,’ but class-warfare rhetoric satisfied both groups, and provided Red-blooded operatives an old-fashioned respectability.  Republicans know that the Democrats collectively lost control of their party and possibly their minds in 1968, and their candidates have been sliding toward the edge of sanity ever since. Traditional Democratic voters see the trend, and worry that the Republicans may be right. The problem is that anti-anti-communism seemed plausible because good old class-warfare stem-winding has been around since before the publication of the Wizard of Oz. Unionizing hadn’t destroyed America, and warnings that the leftists were plotting against us just seemed paranoid. Today’s media and Democratic talking heads minimize the threat of the Weathermen by talking about their incompetence and ignoring their successful bombings. Voters in 1968 did not, and gave the presidency to anti-communist Richard Nixon.

It is often said by politicians that, “This is the most important election in a generation.”  This year, that is actually true: this is the most profound choice of direction since Ford (R) vs. Carter (D). Remember, people knew what a Carter administration was like when they chose not to re-elect Carter in 1980; they didn’t have a clue back in 1976, but they did know the moderate Ford. Squishy-center vs. leftist; sound familiar? Remember that nobody in this new generation remembers JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, or even George Bush. Bill Clinton and “W” are the only presidents these voters know; viscerally, they represent the Democratic and Republican parties. Voters with longer memories have a duty to use their longer historical perspective, and communicate these lessons as best they can.

Republicans should not draw the wrong historical lessons: Populism (à la Maverick McCain) will not convey popularity, nor will disastrous Democratic leadership necessarily lead to miraculous rescue, as in Reagan’s victorious 1980. The best lesson may be from 1972.  Watergate did not win Nixon re-election; the fact that the voters knew that George McGovern was a leftist did. McCain should realize that he will be accused of dirty tricks no matter how clean his campaign is, and give the public ‘straight talk’ about Obama.

Democrats draw the wrong lesson from 1972, and seem to believe that dirty tricks are the way to win elections, not avoiding the slide to the left. Voter fraud has always been a concern in elective government, with Chicago long an American cliché of such. Now, a Chicago politician runs for president, and ACORN fills the news. Republican voters should understand how fiercely Democrats believe that the 2000 election was stolen, and how fiercely they intend to show that, “turnabout is fair play.” The only cure is a high turnout, overwhelming corruption by sheer numbers. This may sound Pollyannaish, but local voter registration authorities are catching much blatant voter fraud; the subtle fraud left must be small, necessarily.

It matters little if Obama sweeps Chicago with 205% of the vote, in the Electoral College. Fraud in the ‘battleground’ states is what must be fought, while voters in ‘solid’ states should remain on their guard. This brings us back to the fence-sitting or depressed Republican voters who wonder whether to turn out for the McCain-Palin ticket. A second Carter term may not produce a second Reagan. If Democratic operatives are doing everything they can to submerge the Republican vote, why help them?

Are the Republicans showing the epithet to be true? Secretary Paulson and Senator McCain are good cases on point.

If the Secretary of the Treasury of the U.S. is not receiving money under the table from the Obama campaign, he is stupid. Economists (that is to say conservative economists, who have at least some grasp of finance, as opposed to politics) differ greatly about the causes and proper solutions to the ‘crisis’ in the U.S. and the world. However, even the Keynesian talking heads bloviating for the Democrats would probably be against shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre (although the presence of an actual fire might sway a few – Bill O’Reilly, whose favorite word is ‘bloviate,’ keeps going on about the politicians’ needing to have warned us about the shockingly obvious risks of borrowing more than we can afford, or investing in derivative securities.) Even with an actual fire, shouting, “Fire!” is likely to cause more harm than it avoids, but Sec. Paulson (R?), Speaker Pelosi (D), and Sen. Reid (D) all inflamed the markets into panic. This was unnecessary in any fiscal sense, because there was no panic to avoid yet, so all the necessity must therefore have been political.

Yes, Lehman Brothers and AIG might have been in trouble, but the long-expected receivership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provided the perfect means and justification for snuffing out risky mortgage derivatives. Almost as an aside, the “mark-to-market rule” could have been suspended unilaterally by Chairman Bernanke (R? D?), to see whether or not it is actually harmful, which we still do not know, empirically. Yes, world markets are in trouble, but the panic started here. Secretary Paulson is personally responsible for the one-quarter loss of value in the stock market and every retiree’s portfolio, which is a hardship to millions of voters. The retired, employed, and unemployed all now look askance at a Republican administration that gives away giant blank checks of dubious constitutionality to those who, by their own admission, are irresponsible. This was demanded by Speaker Pelosi (D) and Sen. Reid (D). The voting divided the Republican caucus, and put John McCain (R) on the same side as Barack Obama (D), denouncing capitalism. If the Secretary of the Treasury of the U.S. is not receiving money under the table from the Obama campaign, he is stupid.

If John McCain thinks that jumping on the ‘populist’ bandwagon will help his campaign, he is stupid. Populism can have many meanings: populism in France might mean opposition to high taxes and easy immigration, while populism in Palestine might simply mean opposition to Israel. In the U.S., Populism with a capital P was historically the opposition of farmers to railroads and workers to factories; this has almost exclusively been a movement within the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan was popular, but never a Populist in this sense. Confusing popularity with Populism is not only a nineteenth-century notion, it was wrong even then: William Jennings Bryan (D) lost the race for the presidency three times as a Populist.

Democratic politicians still pander to the public with Populist rhetoric because FDR made it respectable again in the 1930s. He won the Presidency because the previous Republican administration let a market crash become a disaster. Sound familiar? The American people know where to get socialist solutions to capitalism – from the Democratic Party; denouncing the markets belittles Republican candidate John McCain, and makes him seem desperate. When McCain runs against the Bush administration, he only confirms Obama’s claims that the Republicans can’t be trusted. Failing to connect Obama and other Democratic politicians to the grossly political and irresponsible practices of lending institutions does not insulate the administration from criticism; silence, rather, is a tacit admission that Democratic accusations are accurate. Collegiality, which is such a necessity to a Senator, is actively harmful in a candidate for President of the United States.

Reagan’s policies of strong defense and lower taxes were truly popular. Today’s truly popular policies would be those of populism in France: lower taxes and border control (assuming that the voters take McCain’s superiority on the subject of national defense as a given). These are not Obama’s policies, and part of the reason that Obama has never gotten a majority in any respectable poll. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be McCain’s policies, either. The Republican candidate should espouse Republican policies, which have been proven popular time and time again. If John McCain thinks that jumping on the ‘populist’ bandwagon will help his campaign, he is stupid.

Are Secretary Paulson and Senator McCain showing the epithet about Republicans to be true? As Fox News says, “We report, you decide.”

Sigh. I really wanted to like An American Carol, but the writers and editors made it very hard. Comedy about a serious subject is always a difficult balance, but apparently first-rate talent was somehow unwilling to attempt it. Three possibilities exist. The first is simply that scriptwriters and editors are so divorced from reality as to be unwilling to participate. The second is that scriptwriters and editors are too afraid of being blacklisted to participate. The third (and sadly most likely) possibility is that first-rate comedic talent simply no longer exists in Hollywood.

I mean, really, when was the last good movie you’ve seen? When you did see one, was it by Pixar? We know that Pixar makes authentic Disney movies, because real Disney movies make us cry. Of course, they also make us laugh, but such is a balance found in great drama, and certainly not a balance found in slapstick comedy, which relies rather on one gag after another, keeping the audience from catching its breath. Too much breathing room was left in this movie; An American Carol is simply not paced as well as earlier films. Let’s face it, Airplane! and similar previous works by the producers are only ‘classic comedy’ by comparison to the other clunkers the movie-going public has had to endure since the demise of the old Hays code. I considered a detailed analysis of the plot and jokes, but since the producers didn’t bother, why should I?

The past always seems better than today, because that which was ugly, useless, or immoral has generally been discarded. This does not mean that evil, foolishness, and bad taste were absent, nor does it mean that such things are acceptable because they have always been. Some eras of history just seem thinner than others because there was little worth preserving. So far, the 21st century seems more notable for its technology than its culture.

I am just livid over NBC’s “fact-checking” of McCain’s “account” of “his time” (torture) in the Hanoi Hilton. Obscene is the best word for it.

However, this is just a symptom of a larger problem. Liberals have long claimed that the media has a conservative bias because corporations own them, and could not possibly allow news contrary to their class interests. This Marxist trope has become a reflex, to the point that I’ve heard it from my own mother. However, NBC’s shameless support of Obama seems to refute this.

NBC reflects the political bias of not only its own management, but of the acknowledged politics of the chairman of GE, NBC’s “corporate master.” Doubtless they giggle over cries of bias, because, according to the trope, this is the first time anyone in the press can possibly ever have taken such a position.  They might say, “It’s only fair after so long.  After all, the Republicans do it.”

This beautifully illustrates the larger point: Democrats always say that, or something like that, to justify their dirty tactics. Nobody on the Republican side ever says anything like that, because they simply don’t think that way. Psychologically speaking, this is called projection. Democrats seem to look in the mirror and fail to see themselves. Rather, they dissociate themselves from their own racism, sexism, and religious intolerance: “Oh, that’s horribly ugly. It must be Republican.”

So whenever the Democrats or mainstream media assume that the Republicans must be “fact-checked,” remember that this is a necessary psychological maneuver to justify blatant bias or outright lying. After all, the Republicans are out to get them, so they can’t possibly be paranoid.