The Occasional Observer

I was looking back--way back--in the deep OccObs archives.   It was interesting to read some of the posts during the earliest stages of the race for the GOP nomination in the '08 cycle.  In the Fall of '06, I found Duncan Hunter an interesting possibility because he was beating the drum of protectionism;  I thought Brownback would be the best conservative option from an ideological perspective, but for his support of McCain/Kennedy (in hindsight, his support of McCain/Kennedy may have been his strongest recommendation); and I was commending Virgil Goode for insinuating all Muslims are the enemy.  What a clown circus.

SHK, OTOH, got one big prediction right. Unfortunately, the link in the original blogpost no longer works. I found this NYP story from the same date. Any idea if it was what you were referencing, SHK?

Here's the upshot of the article:

Some of Rudy Giuliani's fiercest city critics are set to launch "swift boat"-type strikes to inform voters around the nation about the former mayor's behavior before 9/11, The Post has learned...

...Here are six obstacles Rudy Giuliani will have to overcome if he expects to be president:

1) BERNARD KERIK - Former top cop imploded after nomination as homeland security chief raised ethical questions.

2) RUSSELL HARDING- Patronage pol pleaded guilty to embezzling more than $400,000. Investigators also found child porn on Harding's computer.

3) WARDROBE MALFUNCTION - Giuliani might get dressed down for wearing women's clothes on "Saturday Night Live."

4) WIFE STRIFE - First the cousin, later the mistress.Donna Hanover was the woman in the middle.

5) WHAT'S LEFT - Giuliani has liberal-leaning views on gun control, abortion rights and gay rights.

6) THREE'S A CROWD - Giuliani moved out of Gracie Mansion (right) and into a condo with two gay men and a dog.

I'm rarely surprised at this point by the shotgun tactics that are often used in politics, but what happened to Senator Stevens in this case (and I'll admit, I bought into the prosecution's case hook, line and sinker) is one of the most disturbing political episodes I can think of.

You may recall that Stevens was convicted on 7 felony counts of corruption just days before the election this past November. As a result, the WWII veteran and longest serving Republican in the Senate was defeated by Democratic challenger Mark Begich by the slimmest of margins (Stevens was actually leading when the polls closed, before absentee ballots were counted). Clearly, if not for his legal troubles, Stevens would have breezed to reelection.

But get this: the U.S. Attorney's office apparently worked to suppress exculpatory evidence, and fabricate evidence of criminality on Stevens part.

Stevens had written a note to Bill Allen, a wealthy friend who was coordinating the work on Stevens' home, that Allen should send Stevens a bill for all the work done. He further told Allen that more instruction regarding the renovation project would come via a mutual friend, named Bob Persons.

During Stevens' trial, the U.S. Attorney had to explain away this note to Allen, which read: "You owe me a bill. Remember Torricelli, my friend. Friendship is one thing, compliance with the ethics rules entirely different."

The U.S. Attorney's solution? Solicit testimony from Allen, under oath, stating that Persons had told him to disregard Stevens' note; that the note was merely CYA for Stevens.

Here's the rub: the FBI had interviewed Allen 5 months before the trial, and Allen stated he'd never spoken to Persons on the topic. And this interview, occurring 5 months before the trial, was mysteriously never written up according to standard FBI procedures:

The newly discovered April 15 interview wasn't transcribed the way interviews with Allen and other witnesses had been, on FBI form 302s or memorandums of interviews, the Justice Department said this morning. Rather, it was discovered in the notes of attorneys who questioned Allen that day, five and half months before his testimony.

"The notes of the April 15 interview indicate that Bill Allen said, among other things, in substance and in part, that he (Bill Allen) did not recall talking to Bob Persons regarding giving a bill to the defendant,"

Translation: the U.S. Attorneys knowingly allowed an erroneous statement to stand unchallenged, and buried evidence that they knew the testimony was false.

Bush's Justice Department managed to successfully convict the longest sitting GOP Senator, a legend in his state and a WWII veteran, of corruption charges, through the use of corruption. A Democrat won a Senate seat that should still be in Stevens' and the GOP's hands. And an 85 year old man had his reputation impugned so that a couple of young punks could try and make a name for themselves.

Disgusting.

And of course, there's the double standard of the relatively light coverage this story has received in the MSM. Could you imagine if a Democrat had been wrongly convicted of corruption and lost his seat as a result? The endless "pursuit of the wrongdoers" that would be found on page one?

I haven't heard one call from the press--or a Democrat--for a Special Election (as Gov. Palin has done), given how unfair and tarnished the vote was. I'm not sure if a Special Election is the right solution, but you can bet the drumbeat for one would be deafening if the shoe were on the other foot.

David Frum has started a website called "The New Majority" which is worth a look.

For starters, they have a long interview with Giuliani in multiple parts. Check it out if you get the chance.

The WSJ points out that, based on exit polling, she helped the ticket:

Asked if she was "a factor" in their vote, 60% said yes, while 33% said no. Yet of those who said Mrs. Palin was a factor, 56% voted for Mr. McCain, while 43% voted for Mr. Obama. Even among independent voters (a group Mr. McCain lost by eight points) she was a net vote-getter for the Republican ticket among those independents who said Mrs. Palin was a factor.

I've got a feeling that PA, FL, OH, NH, MO, and NV are still gettable for Mac. He needs all of them (save he could lose either NH or NV, but not both). The spreads that are showing up in national polls are ridiculously wide. And the number of non-responsive and undecided voters is unusually high for this late in the cycle.

Polls will tighten over the next two weeks.

Meanwhile, in the print (putting on my Chris Rock voice) MEDIA, Charles Krauthamer makes a compelling case for why Chris Buckley, Colin Powell, Ken Adelman and Chris Hitchens were crazy to abandon ship on the McCain campaign:

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

The next 48 hours may well dictate who becomes the 44th President of the United States. The Democrats and their unofficial surrogates in the MSM, namely CNN, NBC, and the NY Times, have been unabashedly trying to undermine the public's perception of John McCain's judgment, by attacking his selection for V.P., Gov. Sarah Palin.

Lacking any real disqualifying factor with which to attack Gov. Palin, they have instead attempted "death by a thousand cuts." Find any possible line of attack, launch them all at once, and hope voters are too weary to try and sort through the attacks in order to separate the wheat from the chaff (or in this case, the chaff from the chaff).

So let's look at a few of the items that have been raised as disqualifying for Gov Palin.

1) Inexperience.

A quick look at the top of the Dems' ticket should make it clear that, should voters decide Palin is unprepared to be President, it virtually assures that McCain is elected.

2) Her daughter got preganant out of wedlock.

Unfortunate for Bristol and the whole Palin family. But it wasn't Sarah's doing, and she and her husband are saying and doing all the right things to support her daughter, and counsel her into taking the right path.

3) Palin was a member of a fringe Alaskan political party that advocated secession from the U.S.

Bullshit. This came up on dKos and I haven't seen any validation of the claim. Apparently, she's been a registered Republican since '82 and there's no record of her supporting this group. She supposedly addressed them via satellite at their state convention last year, but referenced them as "competitors" in the speech, with the upshot being that competition makes the U.S. political system works. This one actually could have dinged Palin if it were true, but like I said, show me the evidence beyond Olbermann wishing it were so.

4) Her husband got arrested for DUI when he was 22.

Again: not the candidate. And beside, if our ticket's vice (in the distant past) was booze, and their ticket's (in the distant past) was coke, I think we win again.

5) She actually supported the bridge to nowhere.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of this one. It has been reported that Palin wrote a memo saying that Alaska should use the seniority of their Congressional ontingent to secure federal funding for infrasturcture projects before the GOP lost control of Congress. And she also campaigned at one point saying the Bridge to Nowhere was a good idea, before later changing her mind. But I haven't seen the smoking gun at any point where she said "we should secure federal funds to pay for this bridge." If you recall, in her V.P. acceptance speech, she stated that she thought "we [Alaska] could build it ourselves", and that they didn't need earmarks to do it. One could be for the bridge but against federal largesse. I'm not sure if there's any fire behind this smoke or not.

The bottom line: there's not much there there.

The Dems are banking on people's pre-conceived notion that a pretty female, that they haven't heard that much about, couldn't possibly be ready to run the country. Even if she's had more meaningful experience, and regularly exhibits better judgment, than the Messiah that voters are seriously thinking of making President this coming January.

The key point here is that perception trumps reality. People will perceive whether or not Palin is ready based on how forcefully she makes the case for a GOP administration tomorrow night. The speeches of the ticket's surrogates will also be important in refuting the media.

What I do know is that, by one or two weeks from now, people's opinions of Palin will have hardened considerably beyond what they are now. Whether she becomes marginalized, a la Quayle, as Team Obama/CNN/MSNBC would like, or becomes a dynamic female conservative leader that changes the fabric of this election and beyond, may well be riding on the next few days.

If people conclude she's a lightweight, it undercuts McCain's candidacy in any number of ways (his judgment, his vetting process/organizational principles, his stated claim to placing country above politics, etc.), and this year is probably lost.

If she "wins the crowd," it makes the left look hypocritical (feminists?), McCain look prophetic yet again, and the blowback against Obama from female voters for attacking Palin could be huge.

Some, like Alex Knepper at Race 4 2008, are already calling for McCain to force her hand into refusing the nomination, so that McCain could pick a new veep. Doing so would be a fatal error. Everyone would conclude that McCain had done a shoddy job of vetting the candidate, didn't see these "problems" coming, and Mac would end up taking the same hit that he'll take if she stays on the ticket and is marginalized. The bounce Mac would get from a Mitt or Rudy would never compensate for the hit to McCain's own credibility.

This campaign's going to sink or swim with Sarah. If it swims, they'll survive to a later round, where Mac will still have some work to do.

This will be the last Mad Money Challenge of this election cycle, unless it isn't.

Just as a quick recap, ManBeast crushed all comers in part 1, by doubling (tripling, and quadrupling) down on McCain to take several primaries.

In part 2, D.C. tapped Palin as a high choice, and picked most of the shortlist, ensuring his win.

Now, we will move on to part 3: picking the outcome in the fall.

Each participant will make 2 calls:

1. McCain's share of the popular vote to tenths of a percent (e.g., 43.5%, 52.1%, etc.)

2. McCain's # of Electoral Votes (>269 required to win).

Scoring will go as follows: each participant starts with 200 points. They lose points depending on how far their predictions vary from actual results.

-For each 0.1% off in terms of popular vote, the participant loses 1 point. If you predict McCain to win 50.0% of the vote, and he actually tallies 58.0%, you would lose 80 points, and be down to 120. It doesn't matter whether your estimate is high or low, just how big it is.

-For each EV away from actual results, the participant loses 1 point. If you predict McCain to win 276 EV's, and he actually comes in with 326 EV's, you'd be down 50 points. Again, it is the magnitude of error, not direction, that matters (see below * for an important caveat).

Combine the two predictions to get the final result. In the example above, the participant would lose 80 points in part 1 and 50 points in part 2, leaving them with a final score of 70 points (200-130).

*However, if you do not pick the actual winner in the EV count, you lose an additional 25 points. For example, if you pick McCain to win the election with 270 EV's (to 268), and Obama wins 270-268, you only lose 2 points based on your EV total, but you get docked an additional 25 points for choosing the wrong winner. In the event of a 269-269 tie, everyone who didn't pick a tie loses the 25 points.

All predictions need to be in by Sunday night 9/7/08, at 11:59 PM. As with previous rounds, for it to be fun, try not to check the comments until after you've made your picks, so that your giving it your best guess and not trying to game the results.

Round 1: picking the pick

Dark Commenteer: 14 points
Fredo: 0 points
ManBeast: 0 points
SheaHeyKid: 0 points

Round 2: picking the short-listers (Pawlenty, Romney, Ridge, Lieberman, Palin)

DC: 42 (Palin 2, T-Paw 5, Romney 7, Ridge 8)
Fredo: 39 (Ridge 1, T-Paw 3, Romney 5)
MB: 33 (Romney 2, T-Paw 3, Ridge 11, Lieberman 15)
SHK: 27 (T-Paw 1, Romney 5, Lieberman 15)

I had Condi #2: if only I'd picked the right female!

Congrats to D.C., our resident political soothsayer and Mad Money Part II champion!

All the cable news networks are now confirming Sarah Palin will be McCain's V.P.!

D.C.: Rejoice!

Appears Pawlenty is out, since he won't be in Dayton today. On the other hand, both Palin and Romney supposedly are or will be, so it could be them. Also, secret service supposedly scoped out Romney's sister's house in MI yesterday, leading to speculation it could be him.

Bubba's at it again. Undercutting the Obamassiah. Try this one on for size:

"Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

From Kavon at Race 4 2008:

Throughout the week, many here at R4′08 speculated as to what was holding up the announcement of Obama’s Vice Presidential selection. After all, why would you announce it on the weekend and throw away entire days of (most likely) fawning news coverage?

We received our answer at 3am EST time last night.

The man who wants to be our President is apparently so childish that specifically waited to release his choice at a time that would send a clear message to Hillary Clinton and the 18 million Democrats who voted for her. Last night, at 3am, Barack Obama looked every Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in the eyes and gave them “The Finger”.

The questions for Hillary’s supporters are as follows: Are you going sit down and take this? Are you going to allow a man that is willing to conduct a presidential campaign in such a childish/infantile manner to become the President of our nation?

Seriously folks, if Obama can’t rise above acting like a 5 year-old towards his competitors in his own party, how the heck will he act if things don’t go his way with Ahmadinejad?

From Cilizza's piece in today's WaPo, I'm reminded of one of my favorite Biden moments:

During the 2006 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the Post's Dana Milbank wrote this of Biden's performance:

"Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., in his first 12 minutes of questioning the nominee, managed to get off only one question. Instead, during his 30-minute round of questioning, Biden spoke about his own Irish American roots, his "Grandfather Finnegan," his son's application to Princeton (he attended the University of Pennsylvania instead, Biden said), a speech the senator gave on the Princeton campus, the fact that Biden is "not a Princeton fan," and his views on the eyeglasses of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)."

Ouch.

CNN guessed this late last night, since a lot of activity was seen at his house (police cruiser with his family showed up late). I'm surprised Obama's campaign made the official announcement on a Saturday morning, but I'm sure they had a reason for burying this story.

Biden announcement gives Obama a few things. First, it gives him someone who supposedly will eliminate any claims that his ticket is too naive on foreign policy. Second, it gives Obama someone who supported him early after dropping out of race. Finally, as I suggested a few days ago, it gives him a real pit bull to attack McCain, while Obama can keep his hands clean. One thing is for sure: as Obama's #s continue to tank and the stakes grow, this race will go increasingly negative. Expect attacks from both sides to greatly accelerate going forward.

I'm feeling fairly vindicated for a change. I have believed right along that there was zero chance of Hill being veep, and it's now being confirmed that she didn't even make the short list. I said on Monday I thought that Kaine was Obama's first choice, I'm sticking to that. Despite the fact that Biden has led the buzz, and Chet Edward's is the flavor du jour, I'm guessing it's Kaine standing next to Obama on the podium tomorrow.

HE NEVER EVEN VETTED HER

It's bad enough when you vote to uphold infanticide. But to then lie about it outright, and get caught in the lie--well, that ain't gonna help the Baummer.

Here's the lie in question:

Mr. Obama contended that he "would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported," but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because "that was not the bill that was presented at the state level." Except that it was.

As it turns out - and as even Mr. Obama's campaign admitted Monday to the New York Sun - the National Right to Life Committee wasn't lying; Mr. Obama was. The specific difference cited by Mr. Obama in the CBN interview was that the Illinois bill didn't contain the federal legislation's language explicitly stating that it would not "undermine Roe vs. Wade." (This was not merely off-the-cuff, as the campaign had issued a written statement to CNN in June offering the same rationale.) Not only did the bill contain the exact provision from the federal bill, but Mr. Obama voted in favor of adding it as an amendment. After the state bill was changed to be almost identical to the unanimously passed federal law, Mr. Obama voted against it.

I actually saw the interview with Brody that the article references. It's not like Obama just tried to lie in passing. He got very heated, and basically accused his opponents of smearing him. It turns out he was lying right along. This vote will haunt him.

Update: McCain camp responds

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people “cling” to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?

“The reality is that Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he’s completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.”

Update 2: Drudge says McCain is developing a "hard-hitting" ad in response

Here's what a commenter at Race 4 '08 had to say on the topic. I can't verify the trutfulness or source of what he writes, but I wouldn't be suprised if it became the main topic of McCain's counter-strike:

Obama has opened himself up for the Rezko/Auchi commercial now…
He bought his house, with a shady land deal on the side with money from a convicted felon….Rezko btw apparently got money from this guy Nadmi Auchi - who have been a bagman for Saddam Hussein.

Auchi was a member of the Baath Party in Iraq before Saddam Hussein came to power.[2]. While he denies any ties to Hussein’s government, British media rerports indicate he sold naval ships to Hussein’s government in the 1980s.[2]
He is of the largest shareholders in BNP Paribas, a French bank involved in the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme for Iraq.
In 2003, Auchi was convicted of fraud, and given a 15 month suspended sentence and a £1.5m fine for taking illegal payments from French oil company Elf Aquitaine.[3]. Following the verdict, Elf (by now merged with TotalFina and re-named Total) decided to take legal action against Auchi in France; Auchi responded by suing Total for £200m in turn, this time in the UK.[4]
In recent years he has entered into several partnerships with Chicago-area businessman Tony Rezko, effectively coming to his rescue as his various investment schemes began collapsing. Auchi bought about 15 of Rezko’s pizzeria’s in Wisconsin, according to court records.[5] In 2005 he took a stake in Rezko’s South Loop development at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street, a deal estimated by observers familiar with the details at $170 million.[2]
In 2008 Stuart Levine, the government’s star witness in the corruption trial against Rezko, asserted Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, were among the guests at party in Auchi’s honor that took place at Rezko’s residence April 3, 2004.[5] While Obama has acknowledged his ties to Rezko, a spokesman said that the senator responed that “Sen. Obama does not recall meeting Nadhmi Auchi at any time or on any occasion, and this includes any event that may have been held for Mr. Auchi.”[5]
In 2008 the Times of London reported the discovery state documents in Illinois recording that a Panamaian company by the name of Fintrade Services lent money to a funderaiser for Obama in 2005. Fintrade’s directors included Ibtisam Auchi, the name of Mr Auchi’s wife. Spoksespeople declined to answer when questioned about whether he was linked to this business

ht: Kavon

A lot was made of Obama's enormous fundraising edge, but it may well turn out to be irrelevant. To this point he has outspent McCain by more than 2:1, and of particular importance is that he doubled McCain's ad spending in July, yet we all know what the current polls say. So McCain can also claim that he will be better on the economy than Obama, as he can point to running even with someone who has spent twice the money.