The Ad I Want to See

I saw the text for a great proposed ad. John McCain should use this ad — preferably just ahead of Barack Obama's planned informercial. Here's the ad's proposed text:

Hi, I'm John McCain. You won't be seeing a 30-minute ad from my campaign tonight for a very simple reason. I kept my word. Both Barack Obama and I both promised you we would accept public financing and abide by the limitations associated with it. I kept my word, Obama broke his promise to you, the American people. You are going to hear a lot of promises from Obama tonight. He will promise a middle class tax cut. He made the same promise to the voters in Illinois when he ran for the Senate, that he would propose a middle class tax cut. He broke his word, and instead voted 94 times for tax increases, including tax increases on anyone making over $42,000. So when you hear Obama make his promises tonight, keep in mind that he has a history of making promises during the campaign, but after the election he doesn't keep them. I am proud of my history of keeping promises. I think the citizens of this great country deserve a President they can trust - one who tells you the truth during the campaign and keeps his promises after the election.

Thank you Rich Lowry.

Most Profligate Congress Ever

The Republican-led Congress of 2001-2006 has taken a lot of grief for their wasteful spending. And rightly so. Five of their first six budgets (for 2002-2006) increased spending year-over-year by from 6% to 8%. They finally started getting themselves under control for the 2007 budget, which increased outlays by less than 3%.

Then, suddenly, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were in charge. Their Congress this year is known for doing nothing. But last year, they did manage to accomplish something — they managed to more than triple the outlays rate of increase over that of the last year of the Republican Congress. Tom Blumer has the year-over-year comparisons. Here's the chart

but what Blumer says should be read, too.

What Is Obama Hiding?

I saw the claims, but I didn't give them any credence. After all, similar claims had been made about Barry Goldwater (because he was born in Arizona before it was a state) and John McCain (because he was born in a U.S. military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone). I figured it was unlikely there was anything to the claims that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen, and ineligible to run for president — especially since there was an image of a Certificate of Live Birth posted on the Obama campaign web site.

But then it turned out there were at least two different Certificate versions out there, apparently both from the Obama campaign. That meant at least one had to be a forgery. Because of that, there began to be demands that Obama authorize the release of official documents to prove his eligibility. When Obama refused, lawsuits started getting filed in state and federal courts to force the documents' release — and they weren't getting immediately dismissed. And Obama continues to fight those lawsuits, fighting to avoid the release of his birth records — even interrupting his campaign to appear in court in Hawaii last week as part of this effort. (While there, he also visited his grandmother, who was released from the hospital a couple of weeks ago.)

When John McCain's eligibility was questioned because of his birth outside the (at the time) 48 states (in the Panama Canal Zone), his immediate response was to release the documents that demonstrated the falsity of the accusations. That's a complete contrast to Obama's response. Why? It's not like this is taking up any time from McCain's staff -- they've ignored this from the beginning. It's only taking up time and effort from Obama's staff and the DNC staff. Obama could end this any time by allowing the release of the documents. Why doesn't he?

I'm still trying to figure out what Obama is hiding here. I can only think it must be something that's really important to him, or he wouldn't be spending so much time & effort & money to keep it hidden. And I don't see that any legitimate purpose is served by Obama acting like a dirty Chicago machine politician. (Yes, I know that statement is repetitive and redundant.)

Guess we'll see what happens. But I'm left wondering.
What is Obama hiding?

Biden Asks Support for Obama

ABC News reports on its Political Radar about what vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) said on Sunday to supporters in Seattle (which he also reportedly said at another venue the day before).

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Let me translate that from Washington politicalese into human language: Biden is saying the election of Obama to the presidency will mean our adversaries will attack us within six months. And he's saying we won't like Obama's response — which is to say the response will be wrong. Another way to say the same thing is that Obama will embolden our enemies and push us to the brink of disaster — and then he will probably fumble the ball.

That all seems to be a set of very good reasons to vote for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) rather than Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). That may be why Biden has no public events scheduled between now and the election. The Democrats' biggest fear at the moment may be Joe Biden's next speaking engagement.

Separately, there seems to be a lot more stuff happening today. I can't get to all of it yet. Watch for these upcoming items Real Soon Now:

• Barry's court date
• Did Jeff blow it?

What's Bad for America

I heard the keynote speeches at the Alfred E. Smith Benefit Dinner last Thursday night by both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. Both gave good speeches — I thought McCain's was better and more humorous, but both were good.

Thinking about it later, I remembered one of Obama's lines. I couldn't find it in the partial transcripts I ran across, but it was something like this: "With our nation's economy in such chaos, John McCain has said that, if the election is about the economy, he'll lose. So let's talk about the economy."

That fits in with what I've seen in Congress over the last several years. It's not that the Democrats' leadership in our Democrat-controlled Congress is actively trying to hurt the U.S. economy — I think — but they will do absolutely anything to make sure anything to make sure any bad news is blamed on anybody but them — preferably on George Bush.

But the behavior of the economy is also notable. Most of the economic damage during the Bush Administration has been in the last two years, since the Democrats took over Congress. Here's just one example, from early August.



That's not saying the Republicans are blameless. They certainly didn't get the job done when they had control of Congress, either, though some of that was due to Democrat obstructionism. And it can be argued that many elements of the economic cycles may be out of the control of Congresses and Presidents. Even so, it's worth keeping in mind while listening to the evening news that

        What's bad for the country is good for the Democrats

UPDATE: This post was originally published on October 19. It was deleted and re-published to get rid of comment spam. Comment moderation has been activated.

Dishonest & Dishonorable

The "non-partisan Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)" issued a "report card" on members of Congress, supposedly based on key votes affecting Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. But it seems a bit weird:

• "Baghdad Jim" McDermott, Maxine Waters, and Dennis Kucinich got As
• Obama and Biden got Bs
• McCain got a D, one of the four worst senatorial grades

Something seems seriously out of kilter.

Now I think we know what it is. It turns out a founder of IAVA is a senior Obama campaign aide (Phil Carter, Veterans Director, Obama for America). Thus, IAVA is revealed as another example of astroturfing — a campaign sockpuppet masquerading as a grassroots organization.

There it is: Obama and his campaign staff, dishonest and dishonorable. Again. (Or is that still?) I am definitely very offended.

Bill Whittle, Again

People respond — appropriately — to the conditions they are faced with. Different basic conditions produce different basic responses. That's why I've found people from different parts of this country sometimes have a hard time understanding each other. Going across countries and continents gives the same problem, only moreso.

Bill Whittle has found the same thing. His "Cowboys and Secret Agents" is a must read. Really.

My Own Thoughts, Written by Another

It's rare to open a national publication and see my own thoughts — expanded and better written than I have done them, but still my own thoughts. That's especially true in the political realm. But that has happened this month. Twice — both by the same author, Bill Whittle. He echoed what I have written to friends and in a posting (in preparation) when he wrote that, prior to this month,

all we had was a grim determination to vote against a dangerous, socialized vision of the future. We were portrayed — largely accurately — as old, tired, out-of-touch, out of ideas, out of candidates . . . too white, too male, too square. It doesn’t matter how true or false that caricature was. That was the narrative, and there was enough of it that fit.

And then the earthquake came.

In his second column, he shows the further development of his thoughts (and mine). He notes "the power of the mythmakers in Hollywood, the power of the information peddlers in the media, the corrosive power of America-hating professors on every campus in America". And he continues, using imagery reminiscent of one of his prior essays,

against all that we find an old warrior — a paladin if ever there was one — an old, beat-up warhorse standing up in defense of his city one last time.

And beside him: a wonder.

A common person ... just a regular mom who goes to work, does a difficult job with intelligence and energy and grace and every-day competence and then puts it away to go home and have dinner with the family.

Against all of that stand these two.

No wonder they must be destroyed.

What is there about John McCain and Sarah Palin that produces such hope and enthusiasm on one side, and such fear and rage on the other? That it has is undeniable. The change at the campaign offices has been described as "like a switch being thrown." And there are a lot of folks who never make campaign contributions, who now have. As for the other side, no one can deny the extreme level of the attacks being made against McCain and, especially, Palin. The question is WHY? I've been groping for an answer; I think Whittle found it:

I think the magic of Sarah Palin speaks to a belief that so many of us share ... — the idea that, given nothing but classic American values like hard work, integrity, and tough-minded optimism you can actually do what happens in the movies: become Leader of the Free World, the President of the United States of America.

In other words, Sarah Palin and John McCain exemplify what our people are all about, and have been since our nation was founded.

There's a lot more in Bill Whittle's two columns. Do yourself a favor and go read them both.

Never Forget

The Acceptance Speeches

Yes, I know this is a bit late. Nevertheless, ....

I watched the acceptance speech by Senator Barack Obama from Invesco Field. Nothing I heard was unexpected. (Of course, I'm one of those odd ducks who has been paying attention to the political campaigns for many months.) [Update: Even NPR's Juan Williams said Obama's acceptance speech was flat and lifeless.] I didn't see Senator Joe Biden's acceptance speech, but the press reports tell me it, too, was more of the same.

The next week's acceptance speeches were different. Some of that was because Governor Sarah Palin was a (relatively) unknown quantity, so whatever she said would not be "more of the same". Even so, she did an excellent job. I've seen a number of media analysts saying her speech really didn't/wouldn't "play" outside the hall, and all I can say is they must have been watching someone else. What I saw was well captured by Thomas Lifson:

Sarah Barracuda is turning into Barack Obama's worst nightmare. Her digs at the Democrat candidate were slyly funny, and placed him back in the position of an elitist. She has the potential to be Reagan in a dress. A younger Margaret Thatcher who is also a beautiful woman. No wonder the liberal media is trying to destroy her before they go bankrupt.

And then there's Senator John McCain, not exactly known as a stirring or polished speaker. His speech was more of a "stem-winder" than I remember him giving — ever — and I grew up in Arizona. I felt he did in that speech exactly what he needed to do.

There have been a few things happening since those speeches. Press reports suggest growing crowds and increasing contributions for the McCain-Palin ticket, and reduced crowds and contributions for the Obama-Biden ticket. And then there's Senator Joe Biden's reported reaction to the selection of Governor Sarah Palin for the VP spot on the Republican ticket, that she was only a governor — and of such a small state. (I don't know how he can say Alaska is small — it has the same number of electoral votes as Biden's state of Delaware.) I liked the reaction from New Mexico's Representative Heather Wilson last Saturday:

Memo to Senator Biden: Anchorage has public parks bigger than Delaware.

It's going to be an interesting campaign.

The Palin Pick

John McCain selected Alaska governor Sarah Palin to be the Republican candidate for Vice President. Everyone, including the entire press corps, was taken by surprise. That sent enough of them off searching up information about Governor Palin that the Alaska state web servers were crashed.

The Obama campaign responded quickly. Spokesman Bill Burton said “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.” We had two reactions when we heard the statement:

1. The statement sounds like a clear admission that Barack Obama will lose and Sarah Palin will be the Vice President of the United States.
2. Yes, Wasilla is a town of about 9,000 people. But that's 9,000 Alaskans, that proved to be a rough-and-tumble training ground for hardball politics. Would you like to go up against 9,000 like her?

Further, it seemed this description is more than a bit disingenuous. Especially when it is put in the form that showed up a Jonathan Martin piece in the Politico website: “Palin, 44, is less than two years removed from being mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, has no military or foreign policy experience in a time of grave international threat” This statement is dishonest in several respects.

The two years referred to are the two years she has been serving as governor. Those two years were separated from her time as Wasilla mayor by four years, during which she spearheaded ethics efforts that brought about the the resignation and punishment of her own party chairman. And to reach the governor's chair, she had to unseat the incumbent Republican governor (and former U.S. Senator) and beat a former governor while her own party sought her defeat.

"No military experience"? She is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. That means she commands the forces responsible for a good part of the U.S. missile defense. It means her air forces are involved in intercepting the Russian Bear bombers that have been flying along our coasts the past six months or so. It means her troops have been deployed to Iraq, as a result of which she has been to Iraq at least as many times as Barack Obama (and not as part of a campaign!) and visited wounded soldiers at Landstuhl, Germany. She also commands the Alaska State Defense Force. As an e-mailer told Uncle Jimbo, "She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is."

"No foreign policy experience"? She's been leading negotiations with the Canadian government and Canadian companies over the natural gas pipeline project. I have no doubt she's also had some fairly regular contact with the government of the other country that borders her state — Russia — including over those Bear bombers.

Of course, we will have to wait and see how she works out as a vice presidential candidate. But for such a newcomer on the national political scene, she sure seems to have a surprisingly strong record in the national security area and as a reformer.

Navy Petty Officer Mike Monsoor

A good friend (a retired Army colonel) sent this to me. It's worth spreading as much as we can.

PO2 (EOD2) Mike Monsoor, a Navy EOD Technician, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for jumping on a grenade in Iraq, giving his life to save his fellow SEALs.

During Mike's funeral in San Diego, as his coffin was being moved from the hearse to the grave site at Ft. Rosecrans National Cemetery, SEALs were lined up on both sides of the pallbearers route forming a column of twos, with the coffin moving up the center. As Mike's coffin passed, each SEAL, having removed his gold Trident from his uniform, slapped it down embedding the Trident in the wooden coffin.

The slaps were audible from across the cemetery; by the time the coffin arrived grave side, it looked as though it had a gold inlay from all the Tridents pinned to it. This was a fitting send-off for a warrior hero.

This should be front-page news instead of the crap we see every day.

Since the media won't make this news, we choose to make it news by posting it for you guys. I am proud of our military and the men and women who serve in it. They represent the highest and finest values of this country.

The media almost never reports this type thing. Please pass it on to a few of your friends...

God bless the men and women in our Military.

An Engineer Says 'Enough'

James Taranto ran an item on Thomas Friedman's bizarre views on government regulation. He called the item Gas Heads to $19.84 a Gallon. The final sentence in that piece said

Such a massive exercise of government control over the economy is "cost effective" only in the sense that ignorance is strength and slavery is freedom.

He got a comment in response from reader Bruce Anderson (it's here — scroll down to "An Engineer Says 'Enough'") that I think deserves wider distribution. Bruce's comment is

Have you noticed that the people shouting loudest to make developing oil fields impossible, to tax gasoline to astronomical levels, and to have government subsidized "Manhattan Projects" to create the breakthroughs in solar, wind, waves, bio-mass, etc., are the same people who did not take the math, science and engineering courses in college? Despite their profound ignorance in these subjects, they are sure that creating enough pain will cause those of us who did grind away in these fields for all these years to suddenly have that amazing insight which will let us repeal the third law of thermodynamics. Their core belief is that genius comes forth when misery is piled sufficiently high. Why don't we announce the oil industry is going to build offshore "tire inflation" platforms and put some "auto tune-up centers" in ANWR for good measure, and just go about our business, with these airheads never the wiser?

There is a definite frustration inherent in technical decisions being made by the technically illiterate.

How Well McCain Did at Saddleback

It's been a week since the double interview at Saddleback, but Mark Hemingway's evaluation the next day is still the most accurate and succinct:

He did so well that the only way that the Obama campaign and the netroots can spin his performance is to accuse him of cheating and making up his life story.

The arrogance of the Left amazes me! They believe they are the elite, better than their opponents. Because they're better, they think the only way their opponents can beat them is by cheating. It's the only way they can comprehend it.

This degree of arrogance still amazes me — and I've been running into it from these people for 40 years!

Unbelievable!

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation” (Barack Obama, 6/3/08)

“There are things that you can do individually though to save energy; making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.” (Barack Obama, Springfield, MO, 7/30/08) (“It’s probably not the best idea to take automotive advice from a limousine liberal.”)

“A poll last week revealed that 40% of Americans believe that Republicans are in control of Congress.” (Paul Weyrich, "Congressional Irresponsibility", 8/05/08)

"Jimmy Carter ended single-digit inflation. Maybe Obamanomics will end single-digit unemployment." (comment, Mark Van Zandt, Wall Street Journal online, 7/30/08)

“Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'”

Nancy Pelosi, Tyrant (2)

As Politico very gently puts it, Nancy Pelosi is "encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill." I heard a Democrat Party operative on Hannity & Colmes this evening trying to spin that in words like "Ours is a 'big tent' party, and Speaker Pelosi was just expressing that it's appropriate for all our different points of view to be expressed."

Sorry, but I have to call BS on the operative's spin. Still, there are a couple of possible interpretations of the Pelosi advice. The one that's closer to the operative's spin is

Pelosi recognizes that a lot of her minions are vulnerable on this issue. Because of this vulnerability, they will be allowed to express their disagreement on this issue without being punished by the Speaker.

The less charitable interpretation is

Pelosi recognizes that a lot of her minions are vulnerable on this issue. Because of this vulnerability, they are being encouraged to say anything necessary to get re-elected so they can protect Pelosi's obstructionist agenda.

Personally, I don't think either option reflects at all well on Speaker Pelosi and her "Marie Antoinette" political strategy.

It appears Speaker Pelosi doesn't care what happens to the country and its people, so long as she (and maybe her party) can benefit. This is not just an assumption. Politico notes that "Even as they face heat from constituents during the August break, Democrats say they aren’t going to cave in to popular pressure." And "“There is no crisis on our side of the aisle,” a top House Democratic leadership aide said. “We have a plan, and we will stick to it.”" Translation: "We have our plan, and we don't care what you rubes think or say."

Meanwhile, President Bush reportedly believes there is no chance the Democrat Congress will take any action this year. That's apparently why the White House won't call Congress back into special session to deal with the energy issue. Personally, I think that's the wrong strategy. There was no chance the Republican Congress would take any action when Harry Truman called them back into special session in 1948. But Truman called them back anyway, they demonstrated their unwillingness to put the country's interests ahead of their own, and Truman spent the rest of the campaign headlining the "Do-Nothing Republican Congress" — and won re-election as a result. The Pelosi Congress makes the one in 1948 look activist. Based on their record so far, if called back, the Pelosi Congress would help sign its own death warrant.

Terror Attacks in India

India has an illegal alien problem. They're mostly from Pakistan and Bangladesh. They come to India because they need to, because there is a LOT more opportunity in India than in their home countries.

But as guests, they stink! They expect Indian society to adapt to them rather than the other way around. They expect in India — as a matter of right — the same sort of deference for their religion and their ways that they would have in their home countries. It offends them that they are expected to respect the rights of others who don't share their religion, their sect. And it offends them that their Indian co-religionists do respect those rights.

And so these illegal alien racial and religious bigots take actions — again — to try to provoke attacks against their co-religionists — again. That's what appears to be behind the series of explosions in Bangalore and Ahmadabad a week ago. The illegal aliens, in other attacks, have identified their intent to "demolish the faith (Hinduism)" of the "infidels of India". And the style of the attacks was similar to that used in Iraq and elsewhere by al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups.

Yes, it's clear bigotry was the basis for the attacks. Both states targeted have elected, by large majorities, governments run by the Hindu nationalist BJP (the Bharatiya Janata Party). They were apparently targeted because the BJP governments can't be pushed around by these bigots the way many of the other state governments can.

The specifics of the attacks? I captured more about the Bangalore attacks (nine explosions, one dead, blogger reports here and here, NDTV reports here, here, and here, the last noting that Bangalore's IT sector now will get a lot more national security support) than about the Ahmadabad attacks (22 explosions, 42 dead). The Bangalore explosions were all, or nearly all, about the size of a pair of hand grenades. The Ahmadabad explosions included the first use of a car bomb in India. Similar attempts were made in Surat, where at least 19 bombs were found and disarmed. The cars used for the car bombs in both Ahmadabad and Surat were stolen where the attacks were apparently planned, in Mumbai. Additional unexploded bombs were found in both Bangalore and Ahmadabad, including on city buses and in/near shopping malls. And, as in Jaipur in May, among the later bombs was at least one at a hospital where victims of the earlier explosions would have been taken.

These people are barbarians. They must be stopped. They must be stopped because, as I have said before,

These extremists are not attacking only the US and its interests, or just the West and its interests — these extremists are attacking anyone and anything that is not Islamist, in their extremist version. The American press needs to recognize this, and report on these terrorist atrocities. And we all need to pay attention because, when these extremists have the ability, they will attack us, too.

Nancy Pelosi, Tyrant

Nancy Pelosi must be so proud! She managed to browbeat, bully, bludgeon, and bribe just enough of her underlings to win by just one (213-212) the vote to adjourn the House of Representatives for five weeks. Thus, she achieved her goal of making sure the House had no debate, had no vote, and took no action on anything that might help alleviate the current energy crisis.

This time the Republicans aren't taking it lying down. Even though Pelosi's minions shut off the lights and microphones, and ejected reporters from the areas where they normally interviewed Congressmen,

"This is the people's House," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.). "This is not Pelosi's politiburo."

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

"You're not covering this, are you?" complained one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans "morons" for staying on the floor.

Update: The Capitol Police are now trying to kick reporters out of the press gallery above the floor, meaning we can't watch the Republicans anymore. But Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is now in the gallery talking to reporters, so the cops have held off for a minute. Clearly, Democrats don't want Republicans getting any press for this episode.

This is what the future may look like.

Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the dimly lit chamber is a "vision of the future by the Democrat Party: The lights are out, there's no power, and the air conditioning is gonna go off soon."

If Pelosi et al. have their way, this is the future of the country.

Sixty years ago, President Harry Truman ran against the "do-nothing Republican Congress" — and won. But that do-nothing Congress was positively activist compared with this Congress. This Congress, for what I've read is the first time ever, has reached this point in the year without either house having passed even one appropriations bill. If appropriations bills are not passed, there will be no money for government operations and the government will have to shut down.

And why is that? Apparently, because Pelosi and her Senate partner Harry Reid are so dead set on preventing any discussion of or vote on any proposal to end the Congressional ban on domestic energy development (refinery construction, offshore drilling, oil shale, nuclear energy, etc.) that they are willing to have their underlings shut down the appropriations process if that's what it takes to prevent any debate and vote on these issues. (That's why the appropriations committees have been shut down for weeks.) San Fran Nan's excuse?

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

A free translation: Pelosi is so convinced she is right and everybody else is wrong that she is willing to shut down the government rather than allow a debate and vote she knows she will lose. Also that Pelosi and her friends want energy prices (especially gasoline prices) to go up — a lot — as a means of inducing conservation. And the economy — and the country — be damned.

The Media Is Not Biased For Obama

I've been hearing a lot of complaints this week that the networks and major newspapers are biased in favor of Barack Obama over his opponent John McCain. Cited as particular evidence of this bias is the fact that all three network news anchors went along on Barack Obama's international travels.

Some network apologists have said this is not evidence of bias at all. They do admit, though, that it is unprecedented coverage for a presidential candidate. They say Obama's trip is being covered in a manner more like a presidential trip.

These statements are wrong. The networks and the major newspapers are not giving Obama's trip "presidential trip coverage." Presidential trips don't get this kind of coverage. The three network anchors didn't go on trips with any of our presidents. At most, they sent senior reporters.

But the fact that Charles Gibson, Brian Williams, and Katie Couric all went with Barack Obama on his photo op tour doesn't mean they're biased. They're not biased — they're part of Obama's campaign staff.

Obama vs. the Generals

President George Bush has taken a huge amount of heat for “not listening to the generals.” So how come presidential wanna-be Barack Obama is getting a pass when he says what General Petraeus and others say doesn't matter, and that he's going to pursue his withdrawal strategy regardless of what the military experts say? And he says, knowing that the surge has worked, he'd still vote against it.

Separately, a “senior Obama advisor” speaking on background (so he wouldn't be named and publicly embarrassed) said of Obama's upcoming Berlin speech “It is not going to be a political speech.” He went on to say “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.” It was left to a reporter to point out “But he is not president of the United States.” (Let me guess — that reporter was not from the New York Times or any of the three major networks.)

I think both of these incidents speak volumes about the arrogance and assumptions of the Obama campaign. As I heard this afternoon, perhaps President Obama's advisors should check in with the people advising President Dewey. They might get some good pointers.