Funny that we even need to have this debate. How can the abject failure of like systems in other nations not simply be enough for any American to think that we should forego what has been proposed. The reason that Americans haven't done so is that you don't much hear of these failures. We, as conservatives do but we have our ear to the critical ground provided by our favorite pundits. However, if you are less inclined to be in the daily political debate, you are not going to hear much of these failures. You do hear much of what Obama has to say.

Before I tackle another issue or two regarding other ramification of the proposal. In a recent speech, President Obama noted:

"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans," (source)

I think that perhaps one thing in such a statement has not been addressed with this that we've heard from the now President that he'd also said frequently as a candidate, that is to say; why on earth do we want our government competing against the private sector? We've noted the result that it will gut the industry to the 'benefit' of the government system but what we haven't done is conceptually pointed out that under any circumstances that the government should never compete with the private sector.

While the health insurer industry is big and has lots of money. What they don't have is a trillion dollar budget with the unlimited capacity to spend on whatever it thinks is important. The government has no constraints. No matter the amount of money in a big corporation, it will always fail against the government if the government wants to make it fail, every time.

What we haven't done is pointed out that the government has chosen an industry to fail and is looking vote on taking it down. Think that the industry is evil? What if your industry is targeted? Perhaps the mobile phone industry, a favorite whipping post of the left? If they decide you are going down for the 'benefit of the people', you're going down.

Obama can suggest that it will be along side other choices but putting it along side the others will make them fail.

What of the cost of the program, that unlimited budget that cost to the American taxpayer. We're led to believe that it will not be a difficulty at all. According to Obama:

"I know there are some who believe that reform is too expensive, but I can assure you that doing nothing will cost us far more in the coming years," Obama said. "Our deficits will be higher. Our premiums will go up. Our wages will be lower, our jobs will be fewer and our businesses will suffer."

First, why hasn't anyone called Obama on the massive straw man argument? Have not any conservative leaders not been educated enough in debate to recognize that it would be easy to kneecap the argument if you pull away the garbage that is not at all related to the discussion. Did anyone notice that he gave a fictitious set of circumstances that materially has noting to do with it? Wages lowering? Jobs fewer? Whether or not such a thing would happen, it has nothing to do with the governmental cost of the proposed plan.

Has anyone noticed that it's not overly hard to debate the Great Orator given 30 seconds to think about any one thing?

Still, he says nothing about the cost. In speaking of the Canadian system, we've been told that it take only 10% of GDP versus U.S. healthcare, which comprises over 15%. There is a key difference between these statistics. One of them is managed by private, for profit corporations that do not incur wasted expenses. They are programs that normally cost the user about $20 a month. The statistic from Canada is one that represents cost to the government. That 10% of GDP is over half of the Canadian Federal budget. In fiscal year 2006, the estimated cost was 148 billion dollars against a 248 billion dollar budget.

This is why the Obama canard is put forth. It is, as has been de rigueur for the Obama Administration, a use of smoke and mirrors. He never did address the problem of cost. He used what is oft charged of the Republicans, fear. He painted a bleak picture to which he is the savior with the divine answer.

We are told that the Canadian system works, in supporting the system recently, the Denver Post recruited a Canadian to defend the system. Her are some gems from the article (source):

- In answering the charge that Canadian care decides when you get care, the writer said this:
"If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost."

Did you know that if you have a non-life threatening issue requiring an MRI, the wait might be well over a year due to the woeful availability for MRI clinics? So, if your not dying, good luck. My late wife had some issues that were not life threatening but living with the symptoms she had, 14 months would not have been acceptable. You can have, just not right away. I should note that while the charge that insurers can refuse them, my wife had a very rare malady that was an orphan disease. She had plenty MRI's. I call the charge of the writer, baloney.

- Regarding a similar issue:
"However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists."

Why is there a shortage? If the system chases good care providers out, what's the use of having the ability to pay for it? If I have a million dollars on a desert island, I have little more than kindling.

- Further on that point:
"If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care."

Why aren't they available at home but available in the States. Remember the disparity in the spending in GDP between Canada the U.S.? That 4%+ difference? Might those fancy machine and services that we have that they don't. Having that ability is going to incur a cost. I might point out that no one is complaining about it either.

With my wife, I had to pay thousands of dollars in additional expenses out of pocket. Sounds like lots. Her care cost hhundreds of thousands of dollars. Since she passed of something not related and the treatments were effective and quickly done, I was willing to pay a mere $3000 out of pocket. Yes, I could have it all paid for but I think I got quite a deal. Perhaps we might be willing to pay for that expertise. I am.

...Oh, I should point out that the writer was a Canadian Clinical Psychologist. Apparently that's the best the Post could do.

I think that we need to be very certain of ourselves that if we push against this movement with what small house of cards Obama and the Democrats have placed this debate upon and with the level of evidence that can overcome it, that winning the Healthcare debate should be easy. It's not yet but I'm hard put to find someone trying terribly hard in our leadership.

With the heated debate surrounding President Obama's recent convocation speech at Notre Dame, the abortion debate has a new life. I should admit that I am less a cultural conservative and more a fiscal conservative but one thing gets me is when a politician ducks answers and tries to hoodwink the populace. If you recall during the campaign, Obama was dismissive of the late term issue. So, we now have this new debate presented to us. I see this as an opportunity.

With President elevating the debate by forcing himself upon Notre Dame (instead of bowing out), it is likely that this become an opportunity. That is if we can get on message and effectively shout down another plank of the liberal not-so-hidden agenda.

During his speech at the graduation ceremony, the President said this:
"...when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."

As you'll note, while the statement is wrapped in evenhanded rhetoric, the zinger Obama often inserts at the end of statements is there. That is to say that we need to find common ground.

I don't know that Abortion has common ground. Obama is calling to negotiate. Well, he already has Roe v. Wade and a Supreme Court Justice to be named, what more does he want? I would assert that no more 'common ground' be acceded in this debate.

Still, Obama want to appear to be sensible. He then noted:
" (lets) make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women,"

In other words, business as usual.

With all the cards in the liberal hand, what more could Obama possibly want. I'd assume it to be whatever Planned Parenthood wants. My guess but I assume I would not be far off. President Obama seems to want to set the agenda and this is perhaps the point.

He needs a shout down. It needs to be pointed out that Obama is neither reasonable nor willing to find common ground. When comes to Abortion, he has been unbending to the point of lying. Thus the need to make sure that the agenda is not set by him but by conservatives.

The real situation is that conservatives have been labelled as nutty when it comes to abortion and some of the more radical activist types have not made it easy fro conservatives to make a political and social point. However, I think we have a chance now to make the point of how radical the left is on the issue.

It is imperative that we do. Obama is setting up the court for just this debate and we need to be sure that the populace has not stomach for any more movement on abortion. This is the chance to expose what radicalism has been done by liberals.

...and Obama himself.

To knock him back on his feet, I suggest we revisit the Illinois State vote(s) on the matter. You know, that thing Obama was so dismissive of during the campaign. It was Jill Stanek that first brought this to the fore. However, I found myself less that overwhelmed by the thoroughness of the evidence regarding the vote. God bless her for doing so, though. While the most damaging things were discussed, it was never made as an airtight case.

Below I assembled what I believe is an airtight case that I feel needs to be broadcast far and wide. If you agree, take this or whatever iteration of it you see fit and make it known that this is the President's approach to the abortion debate.

A vigorous debate in the hands of Obama is more akin to a vigorous beating. To that I say, refute this -

Obama's voting and history on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Act:

The issue hinges on one key point in this issue, how was the amended bill handled when in his Health and Human Services Committee when he was chair?

The first thing is to set Senator Obama's position on the issue. While several press sources exist for his position on the original 2001 bill, below is a quote from FactCheck.org (a nonpartisan, nonprofit and part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center). The actual quote was from a CBN interview:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

Senator Obama Quote:
"I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion."

This quote was in response to an original bill submitted to the Illinois Legislature 92nd General Assembly in 2001. The issue Senator Obama originally took up was the verbiage from the Illinois bill was different that the bill submitted federally. This is correct, the text was different. the Senator's fear was that it would open up the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade. Irrespective of opinions on Roe v. Wade, he was likely right about the interpretation of the 2001 bill (SB1095) . See the original text below: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV....

Text of the 2001 Illinois Act:
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
25 fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
(note: the text in italics is where text in the 2001 bill differs from the federal bill)

Text of the Federal Bill:
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive' as defined in this section.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including born-alive infant.'.

As you can see, the bills do differ and leave room for interpretation. Again, while personal opinion of Roe v. Wade is subject to a personal interpretation, the difference does show why Senator Obama had an issue and as a Pro-Choice advocate, would be against the act as originally submitted. It provide intellectual consistency in his vote and subsequent statements regarding how he would support a bill with the federal verbiage.

Where the conflict begins is how the 2003 submitted bill (SB1082) in the 93rd General Assembly was handled. The first step is to clarify the path that the 2003 bill took:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID...

Bill Tracking History:
2/19/2003 Senate Filed with Secretary by Sen. Richard J. Winkel, Jr.
2/19/2003 Senate First Reading
2/19/2003 Senate Referred to Rules
2/26/2003 Senate Assigned to Health & Human Services
3/6/2003 Senate Postponed - Health & Human Services
3/11/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Filed with Secretary by Sen. Richard J. Winkel, Jr.
3/11/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Referred to Rules
3/12/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Rules Refers to Health & Human Services
3/13/2003 Senate Held in Health & Human Services
3/14/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Rules
3/14/2003 Senate Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Rules
1/11/2005 Senate Session Sine Die

You'll see the first few steps of the Illinois Senate Body. The submitted bill had the original text from the 2001 bill but with the intent of amending it. You'll also note that the bill was sent to the Rules Committee whose function in this stage of a bill is to be sure that the bill does not violate any procedural items. The bill was handed to the Health and Human Services Committee a few days after submission to Rules from the Senate. This is all procedural and never disputed by any party.

Once the 3/11 review of the document occurs, this is the point at which the issue presents itself. What occurred. To come to the end of the pathway, you'll note that the bill never left the committee as it had been designation 'Sine Die' due to the end of the 93rd Congressional session.

What did occur?

As you'll note in the bill tracking, on 3/11 verbiage was submitted by Sen. Richard Winkel to amend the original 2001 text to that of the federal bill. I won't repost the original verbiage again but it was exactly as the 2001 bill. This was the starting point and the text would be amended from that original text. What, then, was the amendment to the bill. Below is the Amendment verbiage:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam...

SB1082 Amendment Verbiage:
Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by
3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:
4 "(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal
6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this
8 Section.".

In removing the previous text and replacing it, as the directly above Amendment does, the Illinois bill now becomes ostensibly the same bill as the federal bill (the text in the 2001 bill posted earlier). Recalling that Senator Obama advised he would have voted for the 2001 bill were it to have been like the federal bill.

Since this never made it out of the Senator Obama chaired Health and Human services committee; how did that occur?

The suggestion is that Senator Obama had actually voted for the Amended bill. This answer is only part of the story. When the Amended bill was proposed, it must first be voted as to allow the bill to add the amended language. Once the language is approved, then the bill, in total and amended, is voted on as to whether to pass the bill to the At-Large Senate floor.

The Senate Committee Action Report: 1) An up or down vote on adding the verbiage denoted by the motion 'DP #1' in the CA (Committee Action) column to the left. As the expanded legend shows, this is a call for a 'Do Pass' vote on Amendment#1 and thus DP#1 as the Committee Action. The resulting vote was 10-0 in favor of adding the amended verbiage (note that Committee member Iris Martinez was not available for the vote).

2) The next action was the Final Action of the bill (in the column to the right). Essentially, will it pass out of the Committee to the Senate At-Large. Again, as the expanded legend shows, this is a vote call to see if it will pass from the Committee with Amendment#1 now as part of the bill and thus DPA (Do Pass as Amended) as the Final Action.The result of this vote was substantially different. The result was 6 to 4. The majority 6 votes were against passing the bill from committee as amended. You'll note that Senator Obama was one of the 6 Senators to vote 'No' to pass as amended and that the vote was specifically a party line vote.

To the assertion by Senator Obama that he would vote for a bill that was like the federal bill, he specifically did not do so in committee and a committee that he was a chair of.

The bill essentially died in committee under rule 3-9(a) which states that if a bill exceed its preset approval deadline, that it is to be re-referred to the Rules Committee. However, the bill was held, then sent to the rules committee. (reference Illinois legislative rules: http://www.ilga.gov/senate/95thSenateRules.pdf pg 20)

It should also be noted that the committees report the bills that were passed to the Senate At-Large. From the 3/13 transcript (the actual reported day of the vote results that SB1082 was not reported as passed in committee:http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans93/09300019.pdf

Senate Health and Human Serviced Committee 'Do Pass, as Amended' reporting:
Senator Obama, Chairperson of the Committee on Health and Human Services, reports Senate Bills 127, 167, 199,371, 376, 467, 633, 810, 882, 1031, 1045, 1064, 1081, 1190, 1198, 1202, 1331, 1332, 1364, 1366, 1418, 1430, 1492, 1523, 1542, 1543, 1548, 1589 and 1882 Do Pass, and Senate Bills 263, 306, 359, 377, 378, 402, 459, 460, 552, 809, 1033, 1079, 1109, 1156, 1414, 1417 and 1649 Do Pass, as Amended

This is the history and sourced process from the issue of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Act and is essentially showing that Senator Obama had not done as he represented. Whether you agree or disagree with his position on this issue, it is important to note that how he and his campaign are presenting his position is not in sync with the above sourced and specified history.

Senator Obama stated that he would have voted for federal act driven bill verbiage but when presented with that opportunity, that is not what he had done and not what he has publicly disclosed.

President Obama is a chicken. Just a downright scaredy-cat, chicken. I'm not much for resorting to name calling but after having endured all the silliness that was the press coverage of the last eight years, I think I'm entitled. Why is the new President a chicken? Well, in his wont to manage his message, he's created rules for how the press is to be handled. Whatever Hope and Change means, it doesn't conceptually include transparency. Well, just ducky, if you'll pardon the mixed fowl metaphors.

During a recent event; you know, something as so benign as a Presidential re-swearing in,'Forty Four' did not allow really any independent press to cover the event. By independent, I mean to say, any press. If there's any one thing the press loves, it's being left out. So much so that the..."Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse refused to distribute photos taken by the White House of the new president on his first day in the Oval Office because of the dispute". (1)  Perhaps trouble in paradise? I doubt it. It's akin to a new couple having just moved in together. It will probably be o.k. and if you were to ask Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: ' "We think it was done in a way that was upfront and transparent," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a briefing when questioned why video cameras were not present.' (1) Well then, I feel better, how 'bout you? Nothing like a shot of 'trust me' to wash down the bitter pill of exclusion.

Still, it begs the question as to what's going to happen in the new Obama White House? In a kinder Presidency, Forty Four will be sure that not only will he think in terms of economic use of resources but will also be sure that press questioning will not be wasteful either. Read forth: In a recent press conference on behalf of the then Office of the President Elect, he was noted as saying to a reporters question: "Let me just cut you off because I don't want you to waste your question" (2) The question was about the Blagojevich deal. Understandably, the Federal investigators did say they didn't want Obama's folks to talk too much about this. However, it appears that when called on something uncomfortable, our new President wants to just cut the press off. It's alright if you're trying to help them. Conversely, I think it's o.k. to have the press go ahead and ask questions even if you can't answer them. Isn't that how it works now? The press asks the question and the politician dodges. It's tried and true.

Just remember that our President will manage the press and the questions it can ask because it's for their and our own good. A known theme from the campaign.

Lest we be worried, NBC Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker had this to say: "Our job is to hold him to account," Whitaker said, adding that he thinks "we're going to have to get tougher." (3) Now I feel like we have a real bull dog in the corner going after Obama. How could I not well with confidence? This stated from a man whose network decided that impartiality was optional and said so on the network's cable counterpart. That counterpart that not only left impartiality behind but became an active supporter of the person to which they just vowed that they would 'get tougher'. Doing so, I assume, will net a result of Valentines Day being just a card and the flowers now be forgone? To the extent that I find Mr. Whitaker's assertion credible, I remember Nixon telling us he was not a crook. Comparison be drawn...

What of the Obama press position? I recall that our new Commander in Chief had similar issues with the press before he even garnered the nomination. A lesson learned, keep the press at arms length. The reality is, President Obama saw what occurred to Forty Three and does not want the same. I don't much have confidence in the press with regard to political impartiality but I do have enough understanding of their vanity to know that if the President continues to throw little doggy biscuits of news items, the press will turn on him awfully quick. The press is considerably more vain than it is partisan.

It's an interesting dichotomy. They love him but President Obama knows that the press is circling and he wishes to manage that. It was o.k. so long as they were all united in the ouster of any Republican as a President but those were the good old days. Now the press has a sense of payback and none are coming. It's a cute error of a freshman Senator, which is ostensibly what Obama is. It shows that he is, well, chicken. He knows he is not up for the direct attack of the press. Forty Three wasn't either. The only material difference between the two is that Bush did not attempt to portray himself as a messiah with hallow-like visages abounding.

Obama owes the press and they know it. Obama is afraid that he will not fair well and in the face of a press certain to turn critical if he does not open up. Still, he knows that he is not up to speed and does not have the knowledge to meet the press demands. So, he coils to the safety if a managed message and heads to the chicken coup that is the Oval Office.

Right now, in the midst of the honeymoon, the press is allowing that. Then again, bull dogs used to be mean but now are cuddly if a bit ugly. Comparison be drawn.

 

(1) Associated Press (2009, January 23). Journalists spar with Obama

    over access issues. Retrieved January 26,2009 from , Web site:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28808756/

(2) Breitbart (2008, December 16). Irritated Obama Lectures Chicago

   Reporter: ‘Don’t Waste Your Question’. Retrieved January 26,

  2009 from , Web site: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=242723

(3) York, B (2008, December 16). Irritated "Let Me Just Cut You Off,

  Because I Don't Want You To Waste Your Question". Retrieved

  January 26, 2009 from , Web site:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmNmMGYzZTE1MzRjNmRlY2MzNzZlNGY2YTg4MWNjMzI=

I'm not posting any late breaking news but you may have heard that Barack Obama got asked some difficult questions about his personal affiliations and statements during a debate this last Wednesday, April 16th. I was stunned at the sheer gall that the Good Senator was getting the old what for. It has no historical precedent and is an anathema to our political process! Well, that's what I've been hearing not just through the Wild West of Blogs but from editors and columnists alike. It was sheerly an outrage. The temerity of Msr.'s Gibson and Stephanopolous to not re-ask the same questions vetted in the last nearly dozen and a half debates. Perhaps these gentleman opted out of the liberal media play book and chose to ask questions that he been percolating in the minds of the electorate as of late. Still, shocking that such a thing could have occurred and that the so-called 'moderators' have stepped past the boundary of the previous acceptable behaviors from the fine journalists we've come to rely on for unbiased and rhetorically devoid coverage.

...or so it goes in every liberal blog and editorial pages this last week; feigned outrage. What of that outrage? You know, that there wasn't focus 'on the issues' but that the moderators chose to grill Senator Obama about some simmering questions. Have the trusted press always been so even handed and focused on the serious problems of the day? Not really.

Will Bunch of the Philly Daily Press said, as he wrote his post mortem opinion in an open letter to Gibson and Stephanapolous: " It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnessed, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking." (1) I don't know about you but I think the only time I got shaky hands is when I asked a girl out.  I can't see me feeling the same way about a debate that I do about the romantic aspects of the fairer sex. I like my politics but if the wife is feelin' frisky...What Bunch typifies in this fine, small statement is that after a free-for-all during the last eight years unimpeded by needing to hide liberal bias and unfettered by a deaf eared populace; that the gander does, in fact, get it after the goose and it's kind of a drag.

Mr. Bunch went further to suggest that the line of questioning was 'trivial'. I think he has shortened his capacity to remember or has placed a filter within his consciousness to sift out the stuff of his press compatriots from elections past.

As we all know, Senator Obama has been taken to task on his affiliation with Reverend Wright, to which he answered "Reverend Wright is somebody who made controversial statements but they were not of the sort that we saw that offended so many Americans. And that's why I specifically said that these comments were objectionable; they're not comments that I believe in."(2) The comments are bad but the man that spoke them and believes them is still an alright dude in his book.

That isn't so much the point but that our leftward pundits and journalists think it steps away from the issues. They're right. Still, I don't recollect they cared when it wasn't a Democrat. At the center of this is the Illinois Senator's association through a few decades of church going. In addition how stupid he must think we are to believe that he heard nothing of the like to the offending comments, when these distracted journalists had a chance to point out the folly of the now President Bush stopping at Bob Jones University for a single speech in 2000, it was seemingly egregious and quite a story at least for a single short stop. This would be versus a few decades of Obama's deaf ear-ness to his Pastor. The Press wrote on Bush for a month exemplified by stories on February 4th (3) in the New York Times and February 27 with CNN (4).

In the universe of a liberal journalist, a Republican speaking to a group for a few hours at a location that did, in fact, have a history of questionable policies was worth a month of coverage. Even though Bush had no real long term association. Conversely, a Democrat spends 20 years at a church with a caustic and historically public pastor (whose statements were known to spill to questionable topics), that we should be ashamed that we are not focused on 'the issues'. So, just to keep a record, 2 hours Republican time equals 20 years of Democrat time when it comes to ill associations versus the amount of time we can talk about it.

Shucks, forgot, we can't talk about Obama's judgment lapses at all.

 During the Debate, the subject of Weather Underground activist, William Ayers came up. Just so that you understand, his group bombed government building and the result was much damage and the death of one police officer. Effectively, Ayers killed someone. Mr. Obama's response is to state "And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."(2)

True, the acts were 40 years ago but the association was not, these recent decisions were not of an eight year old child. Barack decided to engage in activities, albeit pretty benign, with a known domestic terrorist and murderer. Why the 'eight year old' bit mattered in the debate, I'm not sure.

If I decided Charlie Manson was my buddy now, would that make my judgment better? You know Charlie had people killed 35 odd years ago, so that means I made good decision today to hang with Chuck. Adult decisions, not that of a child. It matters little that Obama and Ayers didn't do much together, that they served on boards and Mr. Ayers raised some money for the campaign is still close enough for concern with Obama's judgment.

To be told that a few decades ago should not be relevant, I assume that we would have heard little in 2004 about the National Guard. That, and Dan Rather would still have his job. I seem to remember we heard ad nausea about the National Guard service of Bush. I believe that was a few decades ago that occurred. Correct?

The issue with Obama is that he might be a newer, friendlier snake oil salesman. In the Debate, he noted: "And that's why we decided we weren't going to take...money from federal registered lobbyists, that we were not going to be subject to special- interest influence"(2) Except that he has about $3.5million in his coffers from Lobbyists.(5) Senator Obama really just has a truth problem.  But this is a digression.

Still, the outrage that Obama be questioned at all.

On everyones favorite even handed PAC, MoveOn.org, the team over there posted a petition with text titled Enough Distractions: "Editor & Publisher called this week's ABC presidential debate 'perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.'...Moderators George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about--gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channelling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously...Enough is enough. The public needs the media to stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year."(6)

'Seriously', they assert. It's the kind of word insertion used when you try to convinced your other 15 year old friends of something they won't believe. Very professional. Just like spelling 'channeling' with two 'L's'...They'd like us to take them seriously but I'm certain that I won't until they learn how to use Spell Check. I am being kind of petty but, seriously...I mean, with all the 'Roveian' distractions, how are we going to elect Obama? I think that MoveOn suffers from situational inconsistencies. We cannot now speak to these distractions of Senator Obama lest we vere from the path of serious issues. Seriously.

Unless 2004 is the exception year. Remember we talked about the National Guard issues earlier?  From MoveOn.org regarding their reaction to the John Kerry 'Swiftboating': ""The MoveOn response -- airing in the same four markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, and on CNN and Fox News -- begins by attacking President Bush's military record..."George Bush used his father to get into the National Guard, and when the chips were down, went missing,"(7)

I assume this was an important issue in 2004. If I recall from early in this writing, we should not be focusing on stuff from 30 to 40 years ago. I guess that's the new rule for 2008. I didn't get my 'Liberal Guide to Politics and Elections' yet. I shouldn't have allowed myself to fall off the mailing list. I missed all the big changes.

That we cannot ask difficult questions of the man bestowed with the virtues of Senator Obama is really antithetical to the process we've seen come to fruition during the Bush years. The reality is, this stuff goes back to the earliest days of our great nation. It was even worse then. To act as though a few questions is going to derail issues is naive. It's also been the greatest exposure of media bias I've seen. It's not that people would complain that this stuff does sidestep actual issues. I agree. It's that we not have gotten a conscience about when when it is Senator Obama. Not the assassination of Bush over the last eight years, that would not raise the bar enough. It's that it is now, I assert 'one of them'. A real liberal and he was popular.

The reaction to the debate was childish.

My hands are shaking now. Must be low blood sugar. I'm pretty hungry. Seriously.

(1) Bunch, W. (2008, April 17). An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapolous. Retrieved from Web site: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/An_open_letter_to_Charlie_Gibson_and_George_Stephanopoulous

(2) (2008, April 16) Democratic Debate in Philadelphia. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html

(3) (2000, February 4). THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE CHALLENGER; Bradley Blasts Bush for Talk At Bob Jones U. Retreived April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E3DA103FF937A35751C0A9669C8B63

(4) (2000, February 27). Bush expresses regret over Bob Jones U. appearance, while Bradley and Gore stump in Seattle. Retreived April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/27/campaign.wrap/

(5) (2008, April 17) Obama tied to lobbyists, but boasts of not taking money. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm

(6) (2008, April) Enough Distractions. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from Web site: http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?rc=homepage

(7) Kurtz, H. (2004, August 17) MoveOn.org's Swift Response to Anti-Kerry Ad. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from Web site:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6381-2004Aug16.html