Yesterday, scoopthis.org reported that the battleground poll narrowed Obama’s lead to just 1 point above McCain which puts him well within not only the poll’s stated margin of error, but in signifigant danger of actually losing the election since polls tend to err on the side of Democrats in the first place.

Today, the AP Poll shows Obama with a mere 1% lead over McCain. A deeper look into the poll reveals some interesting details. When asked how ‘definite’ their voting preference was, 88% of Obama Supporters responded "yes" which was exactly equal to McCain supporters. While both candidates had the exact same number of "definite" voters, the remaining 12% of their supporters differed in their commitment. For Obama, 8% of his supports said they’d "probably vote for him" and 4% said "they could change their mind." On McCain’s side, 10 to 11% said "probably" when asked about their commitment while only 2% said they "could change their mind."

According to page 10 of the poll, more respondents thought the economy would get "a lot worse" under Obama compared to McCain. Even more of the respondents thought their taxes would go up under Obama (page 12).

Even more significant is that 71% thought McCain is qualified to be President while only 46% said the same of Barrack Obama. Yet, somehow we’re supposed to believe Obama commands a huge lead over McCain even though more than half the country won’t even say he’s qualified to be president! This is an astounding thing the media is trying to feed us when reports continue to suggest that Obama will most definitely win.

In being consistent with our other analysis of political polls, it is important to understand the demographic that took this poll. First, unlike many polls scoopthis.org has covered, this poll actually interviewed an equal number of liberals, conservative, and moderates. Most polls interview more liberals and moderates than conservatives which may explain Obama’s commanding lead in them in addition to their rampant inaccuracy when it comes to actually reflecting election outcomes as we’ve seen in the past two presidential elections. Another significant difference between this and other polls is that they actually called cell phone numbers in addition to land line numbers. This is significant because there is a growing segment of the population who do not have a landline and we speculate that a move to include that demographic in a political poll would not only reflect a more accurate sample of the voting public, it also might give McCain a boost since more affluent voters tend to lean Republican than poor voters who don’t qualify for or can’t afford a cell phone.

What this poll shows as that this election will be a nail biter to the very end and anything could happen on November 4th.

Statement On Obama Campaign’s Letter To Justice Department On Voter Fraud

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, McCain-Palin 2008 Spokesman Ben Porritt issued the following statement in response to the Obama campaign’s letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

"After a week of shifting stories and clumsy corrections regarding Barack Obama’s connections to ACORN, the Obama campaign resorted to their now-customary heavy handed tactic of attempting to criminalize political discourse. Today’s outrageous letter to Attorney General Mukasey and Special Prosecutor Dannehy at the Justice Department asking for a special prosecutor to investigate Senator McCain and Governor Palin’s public statements about ACORN’s record of fraudulent voter registrations (including in this week’s Presidential debate) is absurd. It is a typical time-worn Washington attempt to criminalize political differences. For someone who promises ‘change,’ it is certainly only more of the same.

"The letter’s request that the Department of Justice investigate ‘recent partisan Republican activities throughout the country’ is almost a parody of the Obama campaign’s attempt to intimidate their political opponents. In case Sen. Obama’s lawyer did not notice, we are in the midst of a political campaign, not a coronation, and the alleged criminal activity he calls ‘recent partisan Republican activities’ are what the rest of us call campaign speeches and debates. All of this is unfortunately reminiscent of the Obama campaign’s recent creation of a ‘truth squad’ of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs to ‘target’ people who criticize Sen. Obama. Rest assured that, despite these threats, the McCain-Palin campaign will continue to address the serious issue of voter registration fraud by ACORN and other partisan groups, and compliance by states with the Help America Vote Act’s requirement of matching new voter registrations with state data bases to prevent voter fraud." LINK

It seems I’m not the only one that sees Obama as the undemocratic fascist that he really is. I looked at the letter for myself and what McCain is saying is all too accurate. In it, the Obama campaign calls investigating voter fraud "an abuse of law enforcement." The letter also goes into the so-called controversial attorney firings a while back where Att. Gen Gonzales fired corrupt federal prosecutors who would not investigate voter fraud. The Democrats didn’t like that one bit.

With these recent Acorn scams coming to light across the country in the form of hundreds of thousands of false registrations in just Ohio alone, we really start to see why the Democrats were so upset about Bush’s firings of attorneys who refused to help prosecute voter fraud. We also see why they oppose things like having to show a photo ID when you vote since it makes it much harder to vote under a fake registration. These are indeed scary times we live in.

Additional Reading: Obama Demands Department of Justice Block Free Speech: demanding "criminal charges" against those who say things he does not like.

The above comment, from Michele Obama on Larry King Live last night in response to Obama’s friendship with Terrorist Bill Ayers. Notice also, how she didn’t deny the association. Another contradiction in a long string of gaffs with their responses to connections with Ayers.

What she neglected to mention was that on 9/11/2001, her husband’s terrorist friend was quoted in this new york times article saying ‘I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.” This was at a time when Obama was still associating with him despite the fact that he was a terrorist.

I think that Americans do care about whether or not a candidate for president associates with an unrepentant terrorist (and communist to boot) that should be in prison. Perhaps the Obamas are a bit "out of touch" with "mainstream America." I mean, they don’t exactly own "seven houses" (just a multi-million dollar one paid for by a convicted felon) but they do think that we don’t care whether someone is a murderer or not.

During Tuesday’s Presidential Debate, the biggest "gaff" of them all was that McCain didn’t go on the offensive against Obama despite many clear openings to do so. It was a major gaff because it gives a glimpse into the kind of President McCain would be: weak.

Like Bush, McCain will never go on the offensive if even to defend himself against the ruthless and often unfounded attacks from the left including those attacks from the likes of Obama. It will result in a low approval rating just like Bush’s and it will further damage the Republican brand which will in turn, further reduce the chances of selling conservatism as a core American Value.

I’m now predicting that short of some miracle, Obama will win this election. On the bright side, the Democrats will be in control of all three branches of government which means they’ll actually have to start taking responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming someone else. 2 to 4 years of them mucking things up will result in another 20 year resurgence of real conservatism in response. Obama could inadvertently give conservatism the boost that it has not had since Newt Gingrich’s "Contract with America."

Conservatism and principal has been asleep for the past 8 years and it will awaken anew after the failed economic and foreign policies of Jimmy Carter, re-manifest themselves in a 4 year Obama administration. If Obama’s policies don’t cause Republicans to stand up and grow a pair, nothing will. I look forward to the election of 2012.

 

I love it!

In light of Obama’s recent ad attacking McCain for not using the daily spam receptacle we call email (largely due to POW injuries preventing him from using a keyboard), Scoopthis feels that it is time to put things into perspective. Today, we take a look at Obama’s stance and intentions on three important issues all of which are far more relevant to the presidency than being able to get the latest scam letter from Nigeria: The War, The Economy, and fighting corruption.

On the war:

Some say that Obama’s downfall began with his trip overseas as a “citizen of the world” and as the presumptive President of the United States of America. The people saying this really have no idea of the “October Surprise” in store for Obama as a result of that trip nor the extent to which he has yet to fall.

It has been brought to the attention of Scoopthis that during Obama’s trip to Iraq, he begged the Iraqi leaders to delay negotiations for troop withdrawal in light of the fact that there would, 6 months later, be a “new administration.”

According to an article in the New York Post yesterday, Iraq’s foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari had this to say about Obama’s visit to Iraq:

“[Obama] asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.”

In this case, Obama wanted credit for any troop withdrawals since that was his campaign promise. It simply wouldn’t do for George Bush to beat him to the punch, merely based upon the realities on the ground of political consolidation and security successes brought by the troop surge, which Obama was of course, against. What’s more is that Obama’s attempt at representing the United States to a foreign country is illegal. Ah, but we know that democrats get a pass when they break the law… just ask Charlie Rangle, William Jefferson, or Nancy Pelosi. But I digress away from the real point which is Obama’s desire to run a war based upon politics rather than strategy or the best interests of our military.

Comparatively, on the recommendations of his commanders as well as the desires of the rapidly politically consolidating leadership of Iraq, and not career motivated politicians, Bush ordered the very withdrawals that Obama wanted delayed. It is even believed that due to successes, a time table for total withdrawal, due to victory, could occur even before Obama’s flip/flop suggestion that troops would remain to the end of his first administration. Unlike Obama, Bush has always advocated for the best interests of his country as he saw them, regardless of the political consequences.

This issue is but a scratch on the surface of the political expediency that will govern an Obama Administration’s foreign policy.

——————–

UPDATE 09/18/2008

Scoopthis has just confirmed that Barak Obama made the following statement to the New York Times prior his trip to Iraq which confirmed his intent to talk about delaying negotiations between the US an Iraq:

“My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next adminsitration, whether it’s my administration or Senator McCain’s administration. The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.”

Ironically, the above quote was brought to our attention by one of our more liberal posters who was attempting to somehow defend Obama’s actions.

Perhaps even more damning, is Obama Spokeswoman Wendy Morgi’s response to the allegations in this . While attempting to deny the charges, and I quote:

“In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office.”

What a denial that was!

Scoopthis believes that Obama should add “Breaking the Law” by Judas Priest to his I-POD short list. I sincerely hope that the McCain camp milks this scandal until it’s dry. We could use a landslide.

——————-

On the Economy

To examine how Obama might govern the economy, we need look no further than the people he’s currently relying on for economic advice and some of the characters contributing to his campaign. Let’s take a look at his funding sources and advisors, shall we?

Consider this: while Obama blames George W Bush for the economic crisis, he ranks second, behind Hillary Clinton, in campaign contributions from the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers.

Or how about two of his key economic advisers being former CEOs of the now failed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? If the fact that he’s relying on advice from two of the most corrupt and failed CEOs in American history doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what will.

Do I even need to mention that the Glass-Steagle Act, which was designed to prevent the very banking collapses occuring today, was repealed in 1999 by none other than President Bill Clinton? Ah, but that would be suggesting that a Democrat and not Bush, was responsible for all of this rampant deregulation we keep hearing Obama talking about. But even if the left won’t acknowledge that the democrats were responsible for this mortgage crises, their buddies at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and now, Lehman brothers knew which party to thank via campaign contributions, for their reaping/raping the benefits of deregulation at the expense of taxpayers.

From campaign contributions, to these failed and now government rescued companies, to Obama’s economic advisers, it kind of shed’s light on why McCain and not Obama, is the one calling for these investment firms to be investigated. Which brings us to our next point…

On Corruption and Integrity

Let’s start with pork, shall we? Direct from a weekly standard blog, a list of Obama’s record on pork-barrel spending:

Against three amendments to kill three pork-barrel projects and redirect the money to housing for victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Against an amendment to shift transportation funds from bike paths and to structurally deficient bridges.

Against an amendment to cut the $100 million taxpayer subsidy for the 2008 party political conventions.

Against an amendment to express the sense of the Senate that there is a moral obligation to offset the cost of new spending.

Against an amendment to shift unspent Department of Agriculture funds to farm assistance.

Against an amendment to kill the Advanced Technology Program — regarded by many as a classic example of corporate welfare.

Failed to vote on an amendment to kill John Murtha’s pork-barrel NDIC and spend the money on counter-drug intelligence.

Failed to vote on an amendment to prioritize Sacramento flood protection over more sand for San Diego beaches.

Failed to vote on an amendment to prioritize UN assistance for life-saving programs over those demonstrated to be corrupt.

Against an amendment to cut 6 out of 600 earmarks from an appropriations bill, and use the $1.6 million in savings to increase funding for solving civil rights crimes.

Against an amendment to eliminate all pork-barrel projects until Congress provides health care for all American children.

Against an amendment to express the sense of the Senate that the cost of new spending should be offset.

Against an amendment to require Congress to re-assess the America Competes Act after four years.

(Right Back At You, Obama)

In fact, in 2007, Obama had a score from the Council Against Government waste of a mere “10%” attributing to the fact that he voted for 90% of the pork laden measures introduced in 2007. By Comparison, John McCain scored 100% which means he didn’t vote for a single pork laden measure in 2007! Astounding, isn’t it? “The Candidate of ‘Change’ indeed, if by ‘change’ you mean more government corruption and waste!

And this is without even getting into Tony Rezco, Obama’s resume/experience lies, or his ties to the terrorist Bill Ayers. Again, we’re merely scratching the surface here.

So while Obama claims that he will “change Washington” and insists on running “against Bush” even though Bush isn’t running, those who are paying close attention to the world of reality know that despite his skill at using an IPOD, Obama is a corrupt liberal who’s record reflects incompetence, inexperience, and an outright lack of understanding on the matters of leadership and running a multi-trillion dollar federal government operation.

In Obama’s recent ad, he makes fun of McCain for not knowing how to send an email:

As it turns out, John McCain can’t do a lot of things on a computer but it’s not because he’s “computer illiterate.” A quote from the Boston Globe in 2000:

“McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.”

It’s kind of hard to send email or do anything on a computer when you can’t “[type] on a keyboard.” I wonder how ole Internet savvy Obama will try to explain why his people didn’t think to use Google to find out “why” McCain doesn’t do things like emails.

I’m sure he’ll deny that he meant anything by it, refuse to apologize, while still confirming that he was wrong by pulling the ad.

The above video was not created by Scoopthis but Scoopthis fully endorses the message it contains.

This is one of the most powerful and inciteful Op-editorials I have read regarding American Politics in a very long time and I encourage scoopthis readers to read the article in its entirety. Below is the first three paragraphs of the editorial followed by a link to the Asia America Times to view the rest. I bolded an excerpt in the third paragraph that I liked the most.

How Obama lost the election
By Spengler
DENVER - Senator Barack Obama’s acceptance speech last week seemed vastly different from the stands of this city’s Invesco Stadium than it did to the 40 million who saw it on television. Melancholy hung like thick smog over the reserved seats where I sat with Democratic Party staffers. The crowd, of course, cheered mechanically at the tag lines, flourished placards, and even rose for the obligatory wave around the stadium. But its mood was sour. The air carried the acrid smell of defeat, and the crowd took shallow breaths. Even the appearance of R&B great Stevie Wonder failed to get the blood pumping.

The speech itself dragged on for three-quarters of an hour. As David S Broder wrote in the Washington Post: "[Obama's] recital of a long list of domestic promises could have been delivered by any Democratic nominee from Walter Mondale to John Kerry. There was no theme music to the speech and really no phrase or sentence that is likely to linger in the memory of any listener. The thing I never expected did in fact occur: Al Gore, the famously wooden former vice president, gave a more lively and convincing speech than Obama did."

On television, Obama’s spectacle might have looked like The Ten Commandments, but inside the stadium it felt like Night of the Living Dead. The longer the candidate spoke, and the more money he promised to spend on alternative energy, preschool education, universal health care, and other components of the Democratic pinata, the lower the party professionals slouched into their seats…. more of the article at the Asia America Times Online