Prepare Yourself for Political Apocalypse: Obama is Ineligible to be President

It is quite possible that the United States of America is about to outdo itself in the realm of explosive politics and racial issues. The gentleman pictured at left, Leo Donofrio, a former attorney turned poker player, has become the catalyst for what could be a full blown constitutional crisis that will divide this country for decades to come. The Supreme Court has taken up for consideration in conference Donofrio v. Wells, a suit brought in state court against the Secretary of the State of New Jersey, challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States on the basis that he is not a "natural born" citizen of the United States. It is worth noting that the same lawsuit also alleges that McCain is not a "natural born" citizen, for a somewhat different reason, and therefore also ineligible to stand for election to the Presidency.

For the sake of clarity:

• The lawsuit does NOT allege that Obama is not a United States Citizen.
  
• The lawsuit does NOT allege that Obama was not born in the U.S. in Hawaii in 1961.

On both of these scores, the plaintiff agrees that Obama is a US citizen and agrees that Obama was born on US soil in Hawaii. Rather, the lawsuit alleges that Obama does not fit the meaning of the term "natural born" citizen as that term is used by the U.S. Constitution in Article 2, Section I which states,

"No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

As far as the issues surrounding Obama’s birth certificate are concerned, Denofrio states Obama has not been presented with a legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore has no legal responsibility to produce one.

However, Denofrio says he believes if “Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put the issue behind him forever.

“That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of president since he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ by the Constitution.”

Broken down to plain everyday language, the lawsuit argues that the term "natural born" citizen essentially means not merely someone who is a citizen, or even someone who was born in the United States, but a citizen born to two citizen parents in the United States.

If SCOTUS concludes that the above is the operative definition, then Obama is not eligible to be President because he was born of parents who were not both citizens of the United States. According to Factcheck. Org:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

The Donofrio lawsuit alleges therefore that Obama's dual citizenship status at birth means he does not fit the meaning of the term "natural born" citizen and is therefore disqualified from eligibility for election to the office of the President.

Positively diabolical isn't it? Under this interpretation, Obama could have been born on the mall in Washington D.C. in front of Jesus and ten million witnesses and he would not be eligible to be President, by virtue of his dual citizenship at birth. The typical everyman/everywoman on the street has always figured that if you are born on US soil, you are a natural born citizen and can be President. Turns out, not so much. The average person on the street that voted for Obama, and I'll bet some that didn't are gonna say, thats a technicality. You're going to blow up the entire election on a technicality.

As if that was not explosive enough, Clarence Thomas may very well have played what will become an absolutely infamous role in this drama. Cobb, given that the issue at stake is the presidency itself, actually manages to understate this today:

Apparently Clarence Thomas is about to draw the ire of millions, and some massive fudge is going to happen or else all hell will break loose in America. He apparently has made the move that will force the Supreme Court to consider one of the several lawsuits over the birth of Barack Obama.

What has he done? Donofrio’s first application was denied by Justice David Souter on Nov. 6. The rules of the court, however, allow for a renewed submission to a justice of the petitioner’s choice. Who answered the call? Justice Thomas referred the case to the full Court on November 19, and then the full Court distributed it for conference tomorrow, December 5, 2008, after an initial consideration on the Thomas referral. The full Supreme Court will meet in conference on the suit to determine whether or not they will take up the case or decline to hear it.

Our prediction: if SCOTUS decides to take up this case, they will ultimately agree with the plaintiff's interpretation and construe the Constitution to state that Obama is not a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, rendering him ineligible for election to the office of the President. At that point, several species of Hell are going to break loose.

I am almost incapable of imagining the scope of the civil and political fallout from such an action by SCOTUS to render null and void the will of 52 million voters who cast their vote for Barack Obama. This case is nuclear and has just gone to DEFCON 2.

What happens if SCOTUS decides against Obama, as best I can tell at the moment, will be determined in part by the timing of any such decision. Bear in mind that despite the manner in which Obama is addressed, technically he is NOT YET the President Elect. He does not officially become the President Elect until December 15th, when the Electoral College meets to certify the electors of each state.

There are two potential scenarios to consider:

1. Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President before the Electoral College votes on December 15
2. Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President after December 15 but before the inauguration

Candidates for POTUS are chosen by the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, which are private organizations.

The Right Side of Life saved me some research:

Democrat

Per the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention (As Adopted by the Democratic National Committe, February 2, 2007), VIII. PROCEDURAL RULES OF THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, Paragraph G:

Filling a Vacancy on the National Ticket: In the event of death, resignation or disability of a nominee of the Party for President or Vice President after the adjournment of the National Convention, the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee shall confer with the Democratic leadership of the United States Congress and the Democratic Governors Association and shall report to the Democratic National Committee, which is authorized to fill the vacancy or vacancies.

Republican

Per The National Republican Committee Rules, RULE NO. 9, Filling Vacancies in Nominations:

(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.

(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.

(c) In the event that the members of the Republican National Committee from any state shall not be in agreement in the casting of votes hereunder, the votes of such state shall be divided equally, including fractional votes, among the members of the Republican National Committee present or voting by proxy.

(d) No candidate shall be chosen to fill any such vacancy except upon receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the election.

If Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President before the Electoral College votes on December 15?

The above party rules would apply and the Electoral College would vote based on what their respective party decides as well as the Electoral College Process. Essentially the party would decide who the candidate would be. Presumably, they would elevate Joe Biden and he would select a running mate, though it would be such an unprecedented moment in history that anything might happen.

If Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President after December 15 but before the inauguration?

It seems to me that the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution would then control the situation. The Twentieth Amendment provides,

“if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or in the manner in which one who is to act shall be elected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

In this scenario, Joe Biden becomes the President, as he is not handicapped by this issue of his status as a "natural born" citizen at birth.

Circling back to the several species of Hell that will ensue, it would not be out of the question that there might be civil unrest. Clarence Thomas will become the most reviled black man alive. People will spit on his likeness. If they were going to take Obama down, we'll say, Thomas didn't have to be the one to hand overThe One. He will be the 2nd coming of Judas, the successor to Brutus for the rest of his life. Leo Donifrio will find himself branded among the most hateful of men, for all that he sounds like a reasonable enough guy. I imagine that there will be a massive collective gasp of horror and shock planetwide when this historical electoral result is rendered meaningless. The planet is going to recoil from America if SCOTUS renders Obama ineligible. Financial markets around the world will plummet as the US plunges into unprecedented political turmoil and uncertainty. Black Americans will fall into a pit of unrelenting and bitter despair, with our niggling suspicion confirmed that America would find some way to prevent a black man from ascending to the Presidency. We'll also believe that despite the fact the Donifrio's suit seeks to invalidate McCain as well, if McCain had won the election, this suit would not even have been given consideration. The Court's standing and legitimacy will be severely diminished in the eyes of a vast amount of the electorate. Millions of youth and latinos and people everywhere who got involved for the first time, inspired by a campaign for the first time, will become cynical and distrustful and will check out of the political process in disgust.

Prepare yourself for political Apocalypse. Today we are at DEFCON 2. If and when SCOTUS should decide to take up this case, we will go to DEFCON 1. Should SCOTUS conclude that Obama is rendered ineligible as a candidate to stand for election to the Presidency, this country will rip itself apart.

Update: I spoke this morning with Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent for Legal Times, a legal news website that covers SCOTUS. Tony very graciously gave me a few minutes of his time and indicated that he was aware of the Donofrio v. Wells case being scheduled for conference and told me a bit about the procedure. Generally, the conference is held in the morning and if the court decides to take up a case, they will announce that in the afternoon. If they decline to hear a case, the announcement of that is typically not made until the following Monday. Assuming this custom holds, if there is no announcement that the case is being taken up this afternoon, it is therefore likely that the Court decided to decline the case and that decision will be made public on Monday.

Parting Thoughts on Palin

I actually buy the premise that Palin was among the best picks available to McCain given what he felt he needed to accomplish, namely consolidating the republican base behind him. Were I Palin, I think I would say to anyone, "hey, I did my job". She revved the base, raised lots of money and helped him close the chasmatic excitement gap.

But anybody who is being honest will admit that while Palin had appeal and telegenic, crowd pleasing charisma in spades, she lacked gravitas in equal amounts and the McCain campaign's poor handling of her only compounded the problem. By the time she had some level of sea legs about her, they had already allowed a media narrative to become established that she would not begin to shake until the end days of the campaign, by then far too late.

Further, what her bona fide political skill set is yet I think to really be proven out. Certainly Alaskans deemed her right for the times there and clearly she was a breath of fresh air over the old boys network that has been running Alaska since statehood. She balanced a budget during prosperous times when oil was trading above $100+ a barrel. Now her skills will really be put to the test as she has to manage the state on oil revenue way below her budget projections. How her term plays out in Alaska will clue us in on whether she is ready to run the nation.

For all the talk of her energy chops, we never heard word one of that on the campaign trail beyond the sloganizing. We never got one policy speech on energy to my knowledge. Considering that the McCain camp was billing her as an energy expert, I find it hard to believe they never bothered to deploy her for heavyweight duty on that topic unless the fact was that she could not credibly speak on it.

The McCain campaign clearly blew it in correctly deploying her charisma and base drawing powers against The One, but I think its also the case that she didn't demonstrate that she was very much deeper than the charisma either.

Exit comment: Its been said, fairly, that Palin was no more inexperienced or unready than Obama for the rigors of a national campaign or the responsibility of national service in the White House. Its a good comeback, but here's the thing; we had two years to watch Obama rise to power on a strategy and with a team he crafted and I have to tell you that I don't believe Sarah Palin is capable of doing what Obama has done. She has the potential to be the white, female Obama doppelganger on the right, but I don't think she has it in her. The cool thing about that supposition? We get to test it. She's got four years to build. By 2010, if she is going to be a player, we'll know.

Black Republicans Not Feeling the Love, Because It's Not There

Kindred black republican Sophia Nelson has fired up a post election analysis on the GOP defeat, its causes and where the GOP goes now. Her starting premise:

"After such a devastating loss, Republicans will have to do some retooling. We'll have to decide whether we want to be the party that believes in smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation, or whether we're going to be a litmus-test party that responds only to the demands of social conservatives. But most important, we'll have to confront our most disastrous modern legacy: our poor relationship with black Americans, the very people the party was formed to protect from the expansion of slavery into Kansas and Nebraska in 1854"

Nelson suggests that this defeat came because the McCain campaign conceded the black vote. That would be accurate only if you assumed that they ever intended to make a play for it in the first instance. I would contend they did not. Early on, McCain, along with the other front runner republicans, blew off Tavis' Smiley's debate, a prime opportunity for the front runners and the party itself to make a case to black America. Later on, McCain traveled to Atlanta for King's big memorial event and apologized for opposing his holiday, a transparent and tepid attempt to curry goodwill with blacks. Clearly a harbinger of the decrepit cogitation going on in the republican party when it comes to blacks. That kind of gesture might have got you some love in the 50's. It means diddly squat now. Out of 2,000 delegates at the republican convention, a mere 36 were black Americans. It continued downhill from there. The fact is, McCain and the republican party writ large, never even gave it a shot. They figure they can win without blacks, particularly since they were banking on the hispanic vote to come their way. For all his various and sundry apostate stances which put him crosswise with the base, principled attention to the issues of black America was not one of them. Nelson suggests republicans may have lost the black vote for a generation, but it's hardly fair to suggest that its McCain's fault. His abysmal performance is merely a symptom of the GOP's political indifference to black America.

Nelson points to RNC leadership hopeful Michael Steele's succinct analysis of the problem. "The problem, former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele told the Washington Times last week, is that party officials "don't give a damn." To them, he said, "outreach means let's throw a cocktail party, find some black folks and Hispanics and women, wrap our arms around them -- 'See, look at us.' And then we go back to the same old, same old."

This is so blisteringly accurate its heartwarming. Coming from the guy who is vying for leadership of the RNC, it's almost a sign of hope for the GOP. Alas, this is the same guy who thinks the McCain campaign should have vigorously hammered away at Obama with Rev. Wright. Tactically, such behavior might have been effective with base republican voters, but it would certainly have only widened the chasm between the GOP and black Americans. Steele wants to lead the RNC back from the wilderness, but doesn't seem to see such tactics as the same old he identified as the problem.

Sophia echoes a common lament of the black conservative and/or republican existence. "My black GOP colleagues and I endure endless ridicule and questioning from other African Americans, including close friends and family members who wonder how we can belong to a political party that is so overwhelmingly white, male, Southern, conservative and seemingly closed to ethnic minorities. And truth be told, it's sometimes an ill fit."

Tis all too true. My mother in law routinely described me as the "whitest black man" she ever knew. When the conversation turns to politics in social company, you find yourself defending conservative viewpoints and catching the raised eyebrows that signals that your conversation partner is thinking "sellout". This is actually become less the case I think on social issues, where blacks have some natural conservative bent, but on policy issues, still a tough sell. Ill fit? Try no fit. GOP outreach to black American's has never seemed more than half hearted and when they began to think there was electoral gold in them hispanic hills, their attention really did drift.

Steele's prescription to fix this problem and presumably Nelson's as well? "Talk to them. Actually engage the black community where they are. Stop thinking you're going to get by by having a handshake and a photo-op, and actually go and listen to black folks in the issues and the concerns they have and . . . make them important to the [party's] overall strategy."

It sounds good. The problem? The GOP has never given any indication that they considered politically addressing the needs of black folks as important to their aspirations for governance. In fact quite the opposite. Year after year, the GOP has hammered away at affirmative action in ways that indict blacks as unqualified recipients of its largess, championed get tough law and order approaches in the war on drugs without regard to the consequences and now we reap the re-entry whirlwind, and fueled election races across the land with racially coded messaging for extra punch. They've done these things quite knowingly, to win the republican base, thinking that the base was large enough to keep them in power.

This is where I think Nelson is off track. Nowhere in her analysis does she confront the GOP's repeated, knowing and intentional utilization of racial messaging, a method of political attack that is used by party apparatus at a variety of levels. The continued use of such tactics and scapegoating of blacks and hispanics (for example, the CRA forced banks to lend to poor black people meme or the we will be overcome by a brown invasion meme) that is done with every intention of firing up the base and appealing to white base voters by using these issues constructed in wedge fashion. This is purposeful, and it seems to me that Steele does not want to acknowledge that piece and Nelson is avoiding it because its an inconvenient truth she would rather not speak.

Being a black of conservative political bent and nominally a republican (reluctant is my preferred term) I do so with a clear understanding that the party has been communicating for some time now its lack of interest in black America as a political entity. The GOP does not make any real effort I am aware of to effectively apply conservative principles to the major policy challenges facing black America despite ample opportunity and fertile ground to do so. Even beyond that, the party has demonstrated that it is more than willing to pursue electoral and political victories in a manner that cuts against the political interests of black Americans with regard to how it conducts its messaging.

As the GOP tries to rebuild, it shows little to no sign that it will confront this fundamental disconnect and black conservatives do not do the GOP, themselves or black America any favors by not calling out the issue squarely.

Sarah, What About Energy?

Sarah Palin today gave whats being billed as her first major policy speech today about what a McCain/Palin administration would do on the education front for special needs children. As the mother of a special needs child, Palin is becoming an expert on the challenges inherent in parenting a child with development challenges. Nothing wrong with that.

However, the McCain campaign has over and over touted Palin as an expert on energy. Deep into the campaign, 11 days to go, and the first policy speech is about special needs education? But on energy, where she is supposed to be an expert, all we get is sloganeering - "drill baby, drill"?

Palin is competent to govern Alaska, heck, she was clearly a step up over the very corrupt republican leadership there. However, the notion that she was prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency now has clearly been demonstrated to be false. On energy intelligence, the McCain-Palin campaign is running on empty.

It Takes 4 Sec. States to = 1 Colin Powell

John McCain on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: Senator, on another Sunday talk show, General Colin Powell has just said that he's going to vote for Barack Obama. He says he meets the standard of being a successful president. He says that Senator McCain is unsure about how to deal with the economy, and he does not feel that Sarah Palin is ready to be commander in chief. Your reaction?

MCCAIN: Well, I've always admired and respected General Powell. We're longtime friends. This doesn't come as a surprise. But I'm also very pleased to have the endorsement of four former secretaries of state, Secretaries Kissinger, Baker, Eagleburger and Haig.

Obama v. McCain Round III Reflections

McCain lost this debate decisively, and for the first time, I think Obama clearly won it. Debate #1, Obama held his own, got it called a draw and that equated to a win. Debate #2, a shaky performance but no lost ground, again ruled a draw and equates to a win in effect for Obama. This time, he actually won the debate.

Why did he win? Because he for the most part gave coherent answers that would appeal to moderates and independents, as well as his democratic base.

McCain the entire night delivered attacks against Obama that are red meat for the conservative base, but will not snag independents and moderates. All night long, I felt like he was talking in base shorthand.

I actually thought Obama was baiting him, enticing him to bring the Ayers attack, which McCain took forever to get to even when the moderator offered up the opportunity with his opening question. When he finally did get to it, it was clumsily executed, as were many of the hits.

People want to hear the parameters of the candidates policies, not just the ideological engine that drives them. McCain’s centerpiece on education for example; Vouchers, a reasonable enough and reliable tried and true republican, conservative idea on addressing failing public school systems. In my own opinion, its a half measure, and the truly effective, conservative policy approach was actually championed by….Obama! in the form of charter schools (competition, accountability). McCain tossed them out as an aside, Obama elaborated on that a bit. On healthcare, Obama spent more time explaining McCain’s plan than McCain did.

On many points, McCain enthusiastically extolled the conservative ideological point of view, but almost always expressed in base shorthand, easily understandable to the likes of conservatives, but not nearly explanatory enough for moderates and independents who are not of the same bent and want some elaboration.

The “I’m not Bush” line was great. Too little, and way too late. The Ayers and Acorn attacks, delivered in base shorthand, no detail, no narrative, clumsy, lacked impact (for the base, moments to cheer maybe, but not for anybody else).

Demeanor wise, McCain seemed agitated and tight and once or twice annoyingly snarky. Obama seemed calm, loose, prepared and was not shaken much out of that the whole night.

While McCain had more energy in this debate, he communicated in way too much base shorthand and he devoted too much time to attack angles that don’t net independents and moderates. When he was not making that mistake, he was at several points totally squandering attack lines or pivoting from one subject to the attack in very clumsy ways that robbed several attacks of their force and made him appear, dare I say it…wait for it, wait….erratic.

Another dynamic which I don’t think helps him in how he comes across is that he doesn’t like Obama and believes him to be an upstart, untested pup and poseur who has the audacity to offer himself in opposition to McCain as though he were an equal (I suspect Hillary felt the same). That feeling is there and it colors the way McCain debates Obama and causes him to be dismissive of Obama’s rebuttals in a shorthand way, instead of absorbing them and then systematically dismantling his arguments. He doesn’t think he should have to. The problem is, he does, because the base accepts the shorthand explanations, moderates and independents don’t and he can’t win with the base alone.

A better performance for McCain. Problem was, Obama brought his best debate game tonight and if Obama’s lackluster performance in debates #1 and #2 were regarded as Obama wins based on the polling afterwards, I predict this one will poll as an Obama blowout over the next several days.

Join Us for Obama vs. McCain: Round III Live Blog Tonight at 9:00 - w/Video

Texas Supreme Court Covers McCain's Flank

Hat Tip Freedom Files

"....t Bob Barr has sued Texas to get John McCain and Barack Obama taken off the ballot. You see, according to Texas election code, they needed to file by August 25th. Well, the verdict is in, and the court has rejected Mr Barr's lawsuit.

This is the entire summation of their decision:

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Orders Pronounced September 23, 2008

MISCELLANEOUS

THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS DENIED:

08-0761 IN RE BOB BARR, WAYNE ALLEN ROOT, AND THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF TEXAS

That's it. No explanation. Just denied.

Yeah, He Said It

Obama's reply during Charlie Gibson's interview when asked about the fact that McCain didn't mention Ayers during the debate

“[H]e wasn’t willing to say it to my face”

Thoughts Out Loud

From the post debate comments at Hot Air

Only God can win this for McCain our country now.

JellyToast on October 7, 2008 at 11:54 PM

If God were to take a direct hand in this election, I doubt it would be to get McCain elected. God tends to think waaayyyy outside the box.

full disclsoure: the rest of the quote was about how McCain would die, Palin would finish and Romney would be her running mate. I just like the phrasing of the part above.

Our Take on the Debate: Nothing Changes

The format was a kludgey hybrid that was constraining. Brokaw completely sucked as a moderator. I mean you don't need to let him moderate anything else. He asked more questions than the voters did, and his questions were largely stupid. I didn’t really think Obama won so much as he didn’t lose. I thought Obama was better on foreign policy than on the domestic issues in this debate and in the first and I found him a mad muddle and mishmash talking about domestic policy. He had some real passion on foreign policy and was much more coherent on that point. He was scattered and unfocused on domestic issues and failed to concisely make his point. They should have someone in debate prep wire him up and shock him every time he does not answer a question succinctly.

The hot little number I call Mrs. Political Season left the room to go watch something else on TV because it was a snoozer, but she thought McCain made his answers with more clarity and I had to agree that Obama had great difficulty being anything close to succinct most of the time.

McCain and Obama both were off base on Georgia and Russia. We are most certainly headed for another cold war and the idea of Georgia in NATO is ridiculous. NATO is a decrepit military alliance and the EU is not going to pay the price to change that. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq mean we don’t have the resources to project force into that region in a meaningful way and we won’t have the support of Germany, where they have decided they will not be caught between the West and Russia in another cold war conflict.

McCain didn’t score a major hit or get a gamechanger moment, so he didn’t win it. But he didn’t lose it either. All in all, I think nothing changes from this, and the McCain campaign will have to rely on the fear and smear strategy to break and potentially reverse Obama’s momentum.

Exit comment: Its a punk move to have your running mate and every surrogate you claim calling out Obama as a terrorist sympathizer in the media and on the stump every day, but you don’t have the balls to bring that in the debate?

Live Blogging the Debate

Signs of Disarray?

Jack Waldvogel, Chairman of the Emmet County GOP in Michigan was on POTUS O8 this morning.  He talked about his disappointment that the McCain campaign had pulled out of Michigan.  He said that he certainly supported the decision, if in terms of resources and facts on the ground it was necessary, but that the way it was handled was very poor.  State leaders were given no notice and he really though announcing it via a major press release was a very bad move, noting that he's heard the Obama campaign has pulled out of several states, but without making major announcements about it. 

When Al Ribeiro, the former McCain MI campaign director sent out an email of explanation, he got a blistering response from Waldvogel:

"If you are going to end visits to the state by McCain/ Palin, do it," urged Jack Waldvogel, Chairman of the Emmet County GOP in a message obtained by Politico.  "Just don't formally announce that you are 'pulling out' of Michigan, and then come back two days later asking the base core of support to 'keep working.'  What a slap in the face to all the thousands of people who have been energized by the addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket. I've been involved in County Party politics and organization for 40 years, and this is the biggest dumbass stunt I have ever seen."
Waldvogel added later in the message: "He has given up on our State? What a total and complete crock of crap. Again, I think McCain owes the Republicans and the People of Michigan a HUGE APOLOGY. SOON!"

The major complaint is not that they pulled out, but the cavalier way they handled communicating that message to the MI GOP.  It smacks of a rushed though process without much attention to detail.  Is this disheveled  retreat under fire in MI a sign of a coming near term collapse in the McCain campaign?

Asked if he thought Obama would win Michigan, Waldvogel replied "yes, I'm afraid so".

Oh What A Relief

The Biden- Palin Debate is receding into the rearview mirror and the republican party and McCain campaigns are breathing a sigh of relief. Frankly, so am I. After the the many cringe worthy moments from the Couric interview that became the gift that keeps on giving, I was not looking forward to a 90 minute cringefest. It would have been too painful for me. The muscles that power the cringe reflex can only take so much punishment.

Palin did herself a solid and pulled her political future out of the crapper. Too bad her performance (in every sense of the word) is unlikely to do the same for McCain's campaign.

The Jaundiced Eye of a Citizen or Kill the Bailout

Earlier this evening, Senators McCain and Obama voted for the Paulson bailout plan in the Senate, a plan essentially unchanged in its primary offensiveness from what Paulson originally proposed. We oppose the bailout. Intervention is necessary, but this is not the right solution set. Someone on POTUS 08 likened it to a fleet of ships on a lake. Some of them are sinking, and the response is to blow up the dam and drain the lake. The plan itself is the wrong solution and worse still, it is a wrong solution that will be implemented by the administration with some meddling by Congress, both of whom in the aggregate are a bunch of bumbling cretins.

Hunter @ Daily Kos captures my own sense of outrage well:

".....what this week has demonstrated more than anything else is that I, at least, have absolutely zero trust left that members of congress or the administration or the talking heads on the cable channels will ever, if left to their own devices, do the right thing.

I have lost absolutely all faith that any politician, anywhere, under any circumstances, when faced with the immediate presence of a lobbyist for the corporate world but only the vague, abstract premise of a public to be served, would make the right choice.

The underlying problem -- and you can think back on that lovely Bush administration interpretation of the "signing statement," for an example here -- is that whatever this $700 billion dollar bill looks like, it's going to be implemented in practice by some of the most corrupt and incompetent jackasses ever to grace the halls of power. We're talking about nearly a trillion dollars of money we don't have, which we are going to be indebted for into the far-distant future, to do nothing but patch the most immediate structural flaw of a market that, even when the flaw is patched, will be only barely functional."

This bailout is a sham solution to solve the self inflicted money problems of Wall Street firms unwilling to live with the consequences of their actions. Yes, there is a problem within the financial system, but there are prudent interventions to address that problem that do not carry the risks and pitfalls of the Bush-Paulson plan. We, the public, are being conned via the use of a false sense of emergency and crisis. Our legislators are being stampeded into providing a taxpayer funded windfall to the financial sector and they are either to stupid, too corrupt and bought off, or both to resist the siren call of Paulson and the lobbyists to pass this abomination of a bill. That goes for McCain and Obama too.

The American public knows its getting screwed. We've been communicating that to our legislators, but too many of them, aided by complicit media conglomerates, have decided that the public is too stupid to understand the problem. The fact is that our instincts that are screaming "this is BS" are right on the money. Call your legislators in the House and tell them don't pass the Paulson plan. Call your Senators and thank them if they voted no and to complain if they voted yes.

Be Bold Obama. Oppose the Bailout

Obama is playing it safe on the bailout bill, but how long can you play it coy before you start looking like the empty suit your detractors call you?  It seems to me that its a win to now bring forward your own plan for fixing this problem. The Obama strategy right now appears to be to run out the clock while McCain bleeds from his own self inflicted baillout grandstanding wounds.  If you assume that the economy is not going to melt down imminently, and I don't think it is, then there is no reason for Obama not to put forward other solutions.

Hat tip to Race42008 who bring us this from Mark Levin;

"From an economic perspective, if the problem is liquidity and credit, there simply is no need for the federal government to assume massive amounts of debt on its book by assuming loans in anticipation that their holders or borrowers will default. This seems to me like a brand new expanse of government power that is not justified (if it ever is) by the arguments made on its behalf."

"But the Soviet-style, top-down five year plan a la Paulson’s proposal, and to a significant extent the proposal that was voted down yesterday, could easily do more damage to both the economy and our governmental structure."

Dave G, on the same site hits the nail on the head for me

"It’s been 24 hours since the bailout failed and still no Hoovervilles. Someone on this site who understands economics needs to seriously explain to me why this thing is even needed, and why what Levin is proposing regarding liquidity and credit won’t suffice. Because to my untrained economic eye, it seems that the bailout panic has a lot to do with a few people trying to get the rest of us to bail them out of bad risks they took, and very little to do with the health of our national or global economy."

I completely concur. So Obama has an opportunity to show a little independence from his party, show some leadership and put the brainpower on display. 

I don't think we're gonna see that.  I think Obama is going to play it cagey and safe and milk McCain's missteps for the maximum mileage he can.  If you assume that a Paulson style bailout is necessary, then this can be regarded as the cynical strategy of a politician. If you assume that Obama is betting that the economic crisis has in fact been overblown and we will not go into meltdown on some immediate basis,  its a shrewd bet that he has time to play it out and let McCain and the republicans continue to absorb the punishment they are taking.  Considering that most of main street America don't want this thing and are shouting it down, its a safe bet.

Republicans are fighting back with a major push on the sins of the democrats in not reigning in Fannie and Freddie. But 32 days is not necessarily enough time to lay the blame for the bailout on the democrats.  Look for this line of attack to be pursued heavily in the next presidential debate and expect VP Palin to come armed with it on Thursday.  Obama had better have answers to deflect those attacks if he wants to prevent McCain for gaining ground on him with the issue.

McCain Dead Wrong on Reagan

Our thought: For a man who has lived through so much history, you'd think he'd get his representation of Reagan right.

h/t The Hill's Pundits Blog (Brent Budowsky)

When McCain said during the debate that Ronald Reagan refused to negotiate with the Soviets until Gorbachev has instituted reforms, McCain had the facts and the truth exactly backwards. Shortly after the attempted assassination of Reagan — shortly after he assumed office — Reagan wrote a personal plea to Leonid Brezhnev calling for a new era of reconciliation and hoping for diplomatic negotiations to achieve it.

I am linking here a story from Time magazine that includes the first draft of the letter Reagan wrote to Brezhnev, in his own handwriting, with his plea for negotiations.

John McCain simply does not know what he is talking about. In fact, not only did Reagan write to Brezhnev in his own handwriting, not only did Reagan send a final version of the letter that was released in 1990, Reagan said, famously, that he wanted diplomacy to improve relations but Soviet leaders kept dying on him before he could achieve it.

Dwight Eisenhower believed in negotiating with adversaries. Nixon believed it. Ford believed it. Even George W. Bush has come to believe it. But John McCain stands alone, radically out of touch with every Republican and Democratic president since World War II, isolated and wrong.

That is bad enough, but to so grossly and falsely misrepresent Ronald Reagan on a matter so important only proves that loud talk, angry threats, name-calling, bellicose rhetoric and misinformation are no substitute in a president for sound judgment, common sense, strategic vision and an accurate knowledge of history.

McCain was dead wrong about Reagan and that is a mistake no president should make.

Obama vs. McCain - Mississipi Burning

The Debate: Things to Watch For

h/t Diva in NASCAR Nation

Things to Watch For:

1. Whether or not Senator Obama comes out of the gates strong-a strong start should set him up for a solid performance;
2. Whether he employs the “Uncle Fred Test:” is what he is presenting easily understood by my Uncle Fred, or his own grandmother. That is, short, succinct answers, with both depth and breadth-no big words, no run-on answers, the KISS method;
3. The impact of the last 48 hours on Senator McCain-his game-altering move didn’t seem to alter much, so how will he handle the evening; and finally
4. Ratings in the Rust Belt and NASCAR Nation: it’s Friday night, so large numbers of swing-state voters will be at a high school football game. The message will be lost on those who need to hear it the most!

Political Season's Obama - McCain Debate Prediction

I'm going to go out on a little bit of a limb here and predict that Obama will not merely hold his own, but will win this debate decisively.

Don't think so? Tell me why I'm wrong.