David Online

With all due respect to the mainsteam media who are all agog over the election of Barack Obama and are torn between whether Obama is the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or as Time magazine puts it, a King born in a manger, this Lincolnesque “team of rivals” reference is nonsense.

The Boston Herald is reporting today that Sen. John F. Kerry “is broadly seen as Obama’s top choice for Secretary of State.” That alone should be reason enough not to vote for Obama today.

John F. Kerry’s Senate record is undistinguished… and where it stands out… mainly regrettable.

He got the Cold War wrong. He got the Gulf War wrong. He got Nicaragua wrong. He got Haiti wrong. He got Grenada wrong. He got the surge in Iraq wrong. And Obama wants this guy who looks like he was born to be a mortician as Secretary of State?

What can we say of Senator Kerry? He was for the war and then he was against the war. He was for it, but he wouldn’t fund it. Then he’d fund it, but he wasn’t for it. He was for the Patriot Act until he was against the Patriot Act. Or was he against it until he was for it? I forget. He probably does, too.

This is a guy who has to Google his own name to find out where he stands.

When Barack Obama spoke with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008, he said his energy plan would bankrupt the coal industry. Coal generates over 50% of the elctricity in the U.S. Elaborating further on his cap and trade energy plan, Obama said electricity rates would skyrocket. Ed Morrisey at Hot Air has the video.

“The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.”

The pundits tell us the “undecided voter” may determine this election. That is downright frightening!

What kind of person is an undecided voter? Am I to understand that the undecided voter still hasn’t made up their minds about Barack Obama who has been campaigning for almost two years? That they’re still undecided about John McCain who also ran for president in 2000 and has been a senator for 35 years?

As John Stossel would say, “Give me a break!”

What are they waiting for? The other night when Obama gave his 30 minute infomercial that cut out the World Series pre-game show, Frank Luntz, the political pollster who works with focus groups, had a group of undecided voters in Tampa whom he interviewed before and after the Obama show. In the before interview, one lady said she was waiting to hear, “what is he [Obama] really, really, really going to do? I want more than just good rhetoric.”

For Heaven’s sake lady, have you done any research at all on the candidates? Are you still at a total loss as to what each wants to do? Have you bothered to compare the candidates’ positions on the major issues? Have you given any thought to the character, experience, and judgment of the candidates? Are you still bewildered of the philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans?

To be perfectly honest ma’am, if you haven’t figured out by now what each candidate “is really, really, really going to do”, you probably shouldn’t be voting.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must have been trying out her Tina Fey routine last week when she said in all seriousness,

“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,” said Pelosi.

A Democratic majority in the House, a Democratic majority in the Senate, and the most liberal Democrat ever elected as president, and the Congress will be more bipartisan! That has to rank up there with some of the most absurd comments ever made since man first learned to talk.

I’m used to having politicians lie, but to totally insult my intelligence is utterly reprehensible.

In Pelosi’s perfect world, bipartisan is Republicans supporting Democrat policies. When Republican Chuck Hagel votes with Democrats, that’s bipartisan. And when Democrat Joe Lieberman supports the Commander in Chief in a time of war? That’s not being bipartisan – that’s treason.

According to a an article in the Washington Post today, the disclosure that Barack Obama’s aunt may have violated “privacy policy.”

“The Department of Homeland Security is investigating whether its privacy policy was violated after a news organization reported that an aunt of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama is an illegal immigrant from Kenya, officials said yesterday.”

The Washington Post is not the only one on the case. As Mark Levin writes in The Corner, Politico is also investigating this security breach. Not the security breach that Obama’s aunt is an illegal immigrant who was instructed by the Immigration Department to leave the country in 2004, but who gave the information to the media!

Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, donated $260 to her nephew’s campaign and had planned to vote for him. Unfortunately, “Given the information that has been brought to our attention, the contributions are being refunded,” said Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman. Not to mention the planned vote has also been refunded.

With hundreds of millions of dollars collected in the true Chciago style of being virtually untraceable, I’m amazed the Obama campaign could identify his aunt’s contributions of only $260.

The really big story in this kafuffle, and the one no one is talking about, is why it took The Times of London, England to bring this news to light. Where was the Boston Herarld on this? Where was the New York Times? Still up in Wasilla digging through Sarah Palin’s garbage?

Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news?

Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public…until…