Election Update

Lots and lots of election updates for you, so I'll try to sum up as briefly as possible.  First, to Pennsylvania...

Hillary won the primary by about 10 points, as expected.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, this was the absolute worst scenario.  Not only is there still no clear nominee, there is still no way either candidate can win.  Those calling for Hillary to bow out are now silenced.  There were some immediate effects from the primary - Hillary's fundraising spiked, getting her out of debt and back on track; the dreaded Bradley Effect -- people unwilling to tell pollsters they would oppose a black man, while voting against him -- becoming reality, thus causing great uncertainty for how much support can be expected from blue states in November; the question of why he can't close the deal against Hillary becoming more pronounced.

With the PA results in, there are some strange scenarios being thrown around.  For example, Clinton could win the popular vote while Obama wins the pledged delegate count.  Hillary is certainly the one with the momentum now, and can rightly point out the fact that of the states that will be in play in November, she won almost all of them.  She won most of the states with large populations, including Texas, California, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (many by a comfortable margin), which will be key in November.  She can also show that Obama's inability to put her away shows that he isn't a lock to beat McCain, especially considering his recent flubs in live debates.  She can also rightly say that whereas Obama won the caucuses, she won the primaries, which include far more people and are a much more accurate forecast of the November general election.  These are not insignificant arguments.  Also at issue are Michigan and Florida.  Karl Rove suggested last week (sorry, I couldn't find a link) that Hillary is more than likely going to start pushing to 'count every vote', even though both states were justly punished for breaking DNC election rules.  If those two states are added in, Hillary suddenly becomes the leader in terms of both the popular vote and pledged delegate count.

Part of the problem is that the Democrat system tries to be eminently 'fair' to the candidates, allocating percentages of delegates according to percentages of votes.  While the Republican system (where most states are winner-take-all) has its faults, too, the Democrat system has two fundamental flaws that are both biting the Dems this year.  First, the fairness factor, which has allowed the Dem race to drag out in such a damaging fashion.  Second, the superdelegates.  The system was designed to allow the elites at the top of the party to make the ultimate decision in case the stupid rubes (i.e. voters) make the 'wrong' choice.  In this case, with two prime minorities pitted directly against each other in this race, the stupid rubes can't help but make a 'wrong' choice, so the superdelegates are going to supremely offend one or the other.  They're stuck, and they know it.  That's why they're paralyzed.  For those of us on the other side of the aisle, it is a heckuva lot of fun to watch.

All of these things are part of the reason that some consider this a Democrat party civil war.  As such, the top party leaders are debating about whether or not they need to get involved and dictate the nominee in some fashion.

So, there's the aftermath of the PA primary.  Now, on to other election stuff...

Larry Kudlow illuminates Barack Obama's absolute cluelessness when it comes to economic policy:

But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

In fact, in America's largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama's plan, together they'll also be slammed by Obama's cap-gains tax increase.

David Limbaugh warns against Obamautopia, outlining precisely how naive Obama is with his fluffy talk and lofty promises. 

McCain is content to let the Democrats keep slugging each other while he raises money, though he's causing some raging controversy of his own (more on that in a separate post).

Here's some new audio of Obama's terrorist friends.  If a man is known by the company he keeps, this is very, very bad for Obama.  Speaking of Obama and his terrorist friends, if you have any questions about just how connected they are, check it out here.  Even aside from the terrorism thing, Obama's friend Bill Ayers is actively corrupting the youth of America as a professor, which could ultimately be a bigger problem for the country than the bombs that he admitted planting.

Still, terrorists aren't the only unsavory folks Obama continues to be friendly with.  He also continues to appoint definite anti-Israel advisers to top positions.  The latest is Joseph Cirincione, Obama's senior aide for nuclear proliferation.  This guy believes Israel is the cause of much of the Middle East tension, and is pushing to disarm Israel.  Is anyone else seeing a problem with that?

Selwyn Duke opens the floodgates of Obama's hidden vileness in a column that needs to be read by everyone who values human life.  He  tells the true story about Obama's pro-abortion position that is so extreme that even pro-choicers recoil (brace yourself):

In 2002, President Bush signed into law a bill titled the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" (BAIPA).  This law was necessary because, believe it or not, infants were being born alive during attempted abortions and then, ancient Spartan style, left to die.  Jill Stanek wrote about this last year, saying:

"As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide."

The act was so vile that even staunch abortion advocates would not oppose BAIPA. Stanek tells us that it passed the Senate by unanimous vote, garnering the support of senators Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton.  She then pointed out:

"The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme."

But the state version of BAIPA failed for years in Illinois.  Any guesses as to why?  Stanek goes on to explain:

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

This one issue -- all the associations with racist hate-mongers and terrorists, and his incompetence on any number of policy issues aside -- should be reason enough for Obama to be soundly rejected.  Am I wrong in thinking this is the same thing as murder?  Regardless of what you believe about abortion, these are live, healthy, born babies being left alone to die!!!

This is Barack Obama, Democrat candidate for President of the United States of America.

Do you want him as your leader?

There's my two cents.