Psychiatry defines a delusion as “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact”.  That is the perfect definition for what is happening to the far left (in which, I of course include MSNBC).

Over the weekend, an MSNBC host, Alex Witt, was incredulous that the mere election of Barack Obama was not enough to stop the dispicable attacks in Mumbai.  The correspondent she was talking to agreed with her.  The exchange, via Newsbusters:

ALEX WITT: You know, John, and it’s interesting because there are many who had such an optimistic and hopeful opinion of things, and you certainly can’t expect things to change [snaps fingers] on a dime overnight, but there are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.

JOHN YANG: He’s — it’s a rude awakening, a very, sort of, sober reminder of what he’s going to be facing in just a few weeks. And there is some concern also, there had been some concern, that during this period, during this, the transition period, between Election Day and Inauguration Day, that the enemies of the United States, those who don’t care for the United States no matter who’s leading it, would try and test the United States, would try to take advantage of this period, and I think that may be one thing that we’re seeing right now.

WITT: Okay, John Yang there in Chicago, following President-elect Barack Obama’s Thanksgiving Day dinner having been interrupted by all of this news from Mumbai. John, thank you very much.

I realize that I do not live in a perfect world, but I always hope that I live in a world where people are confronted with their mistakes and shortcomings and are able to learn from it.  You have crowned Barack Obama as leader of the free world based on this?!?  The assumption that he would warm the cockles of the hearts of our enemies?

First off, who on Earth has been predicting a lull in terror attacks?  Both attacks on the World Trade Center occurred within several months of a new president taking over, Clinton in February of 1993 and Bush in 2001.  And foreign terrorist attacks have also come during election cycles (Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005).  Anyone who was predicting calm and a winter of love is either not paying attention or, well, delusional.

Secondly, who are these people that are this disconnected with reality?  In the unlikely event any of you happen across this blog on the way to Daily Kos, let me explain something to you: al Qaeda does not care who we elect as president, they want us all dead.  All of us.  Not just the George Bushs and the John McCains, the John Boltons and Condi Rices, but the Barack Obamas, the Hillary Clintons, the Sashas and the Malias as well.  They want every single one of us killed.  Your liberal sensibilities are as meaningless to them as an ant’s menstrual cycle is to you.

If they could, they would come into your house at night, slit your children’s throat and hack off your head with your own kitchen knives.  The only reason that they have not yet is because 2,284,698 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been kicking their ass for seven years.

I had the great misfortune to watch an outstanding Giant game on a crap network yesterday, CBS.  During the game, the network aired a plug for an upcoming 60 Minutes interview with Barack Obama.  This is what the voiceover said:  “[tick tick tick] Now that he’s been elected, Barack Obama shares his plans for the country.”

Now, maybe it’s a Freudian slip (you know, when you say one thing, but you mean your mother), but this is a wonderful summary of the media of 2008.  Now that they’ve made history and elected the least qualified candidate ever to run for president, they’re curious about what his plans may be.  You can’t make this stuff up.

At least I can take refuge in my Giants.  They have saved an otehrwise miserable year.  Of course, in January, I’m sure some of their wins will be “redistributed” to Detroit.  Spread the wealth and all.

As I and others have pointed out, the polls are suspect.  Most polls that have Obama up by more than the margin of error assume there are far more Democrats that will vote than in any prior election.  The polls suggest that Obama wins the Democrats, McCain wins the Republicans and they split independents.  The only way for Obama to be leading, then, is for there to be more Democrats than Republicans.

This is important because the poll’s “horse race” number (i.e., who voters will vote for) is adjusted to fit this model. For example, if you poll 100 people and 45 say Obama and 44 say McCain, that may or may not be the reported result.  If, out of those 100 people, let’s say 30 identified themselves as Democrats and 30 were Republicans and 40 were independents.  If you believe there are more Democrats than Republicans, you weight the poll, meaning the 30 Democrats get counted more than the 30 Republicans.

Historically, there have been about 3-5% more Democrats than Republicans.  But many polls this year are assuming far more of a difference than that.  The ridiculous Pew poll that has Obama up by 15% is the perfect example.  Below is a chart of the party identification for the last 20 years of Pew Polls.

So Pew is telling us that it adjusted its actual results to reflect the “fact” that there are 15% more Democrats than Republicans, even though the historical average differential is 4%, and the maximum differential over the last 20 years was 9% (1987).  In fact, even the difference between the minimum percentage of Republicans (25% in 2007) and the maximum percentage of Democrats (35% in 1987) is only 10%, only 2/3rds of the alleged difference this year.

I wondered what would happen if we used Pew’s 20 year average and reworked the poll.  I assumed Democrats go for Obama 90-1 over McCain and Republicans go for McCain 90-1 over Obama (9% are undecided in this poll), and Independents go 47% for Obama and 44% for McCain (these are the numbers that give us the 53% to 38% lead for Obama).  Let’s also lump in “others” with Independents so we have 100%.

If we now re-weight the polls to be 33% Democrat, 29% Republican and 38% Independent (or other), Obama leads 48% to 43%.  A 5 point lead, nearly within the polls 3.5% margin of error.  A far cry from the quoted 15%.

It occurs to me that we have two scenarios brewing, neither of which are good. The first is that Obama wins next Tuesday.  As I pointed out earlier, this is the texbook definition of a parade of horribles. The second option is, with Obama with a (Real Clear Politics average) lead of 6-10% going into election week, Obama loses.

Why is this bad? Because instead of the horrors of four more years of Jimmy Carter, we will have four more years of “You stole the election” along with heaping helpings of “you racist bastards.”

One of the really frustrating things about McCain is that he never seems to follow through on the political points, nor does he defend himself adequately against false attacks.  Last night’s debate certainly provided a few counter examples, but here is what McCain should have said:

Ayers
Obama says he was 8 years old when Ayers tried to kill innocent people with nail bombs.  McCain should fire back, “really?  Well I was three when Hitler invaded Poland, but I never had him over for afternoon tea.”  It wouldn’t hurt to add “you sanctimonious bastard,” once in a while either.

Healthcare
Obama and Biden like to point out that the average cost of healthcare is $12,000 and McCain wants to tax it, and replace it with a $5000 tax credit.  Obama even said last night that “For the first time in history, you will be taxing people’s health care benefits.  By the way, the average policy costs about $12,000. So if you’ve got $5,000 and it’s going to cost you $12,000, that’s a loss for you.”

McCain should say “Is that the kind of backwards drunken donkey math they teach at Harvard now?  My plan would tax $12,000, true, but the taxpayer receives a $5000 tax credit.  Let me say that slowly tax credit. Unlike you, I do not favor a 100% tax bracket, so the taxes on $12,000, even at the highest tax bracket would be less than $4,000.  My plan would give taxpayers a net tax decrease of at least $1,000.”

Negative Ads
McCain keeps saying that the ads would not be so negative if Obama would have agreed to the townhall debates.  Fair enough, but this is getting old and it’s pretty thin to begin with.  Instead, McCain should say, “Look, I’m sorry if you cannot take criticism well.  I know you’re unaccustomed to it, as the media has given you a free ride over the past two years.  Now, I may lose this election, but the American people need to know who it is they are electing.  If the media won’t address these issues of character, judgment and whom you chose to associate with, I have to.  Today there is a story in the Washington Post claiming that AT&T and Verizon did favors for me by putting up cell towers on my ranch.  Are you kidding?  Obama has acknowledged ties to ACORN, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Antonin Rezko, William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, and these people are investigating cell phone towers in Arizona.  If you’re going to be president, Senator, you need to grow a pair.”

Daily Danet is proud to report that racism is now dead.

The final blow was dealt this morning by Barney Frank (D-Fannie Mae).  The lifetime congressman from Massachusettstan claimed that Republican criticism of the utter lack of regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was racist.  “You see, this is clearly an acknowledgment that racism is meaningless,” explained noted race expert Dr. Avery Thingewesai.  “His point here is that, by criticizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Republicans are attacking poor people who cannot afford housing.  In Mr. Frank’s mind, this is the same as attacking Black people.  Clearly, it’s Mr. Frank who is the racist, but that’s beside the point.”  Dr. Thingewesai explained that if a white, openly gay and racist Congressman can cry racism, racism must be meaningless.  “It truly is the end of an era.”

Other contributing factors include the Associated Press’s accusation that Governor Palin’s criticism of Senator Barack Obama’s ties to unrepenetant terrorist William Ayers (who is white) “carry a racial tinge.”  Dr. Thingewesai explained “you see, the only one who is of any race other than white in that equation is Barack Obama.  The AP is clearly implying that any attack on Barack Obama must, therefore, be racist.  How else would you explain the linking of him to a white man as ‘carry[ing] a racial tinge’?”  The statement makes no sense unless “every attack on Barack Obama is, by it’s nature, assumed to be racist.”

Dr. Thingewesai also noted ciritcism of Gwen Ifill as another factor undermining the impact of charges of racism.  “Here you have a woman who has written a book that, if one side wins, she will benefit financially and professionally.  This is the legal and technical definition of bias.  If she were a witness in a trial, her bias would be clear as a matter of law.  And yet, somehoe it is racist to raise the topic.  Again, racism is now meaningless.”

Senator Barack Obama raised eyebrows today when he said that the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempt to “reinvent themselves” as mavericks was “You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.“  Many feel the freshman Senator was making a thinly veiled reference to Senator McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin.

The McCain campaign quickly objected to the veiled allusion and to the underlying argument.  “First of all, if you want to talk pork, you’ll need to review the records of Senators Obama and Biden.  McCain Palin is virtually pork free.  Second, as for a candidate with a paper thin résumé who has never gone up against his own party on any subject to claim Senator McCain and Governor Palin are just all talk, well, that’s the pot calling the kettle a closet Muslim.”

[In an alternative world, perhaps with an Ayn Rand School of Journalism...]

Democratic presidential nominee and Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) has been forced to defend the vetting of his vice presidential running mate, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).  The Biden campaign, who has refused to release confidential information regarding the vetting process, has been hammered by allegations that the former community organizer was not properly vetted by the Biden campaign.  “Joe Biden really wanted a more centrist candidate, like John Edwards, but was forced at the last minute to pick the relatively unknown Obama,” claimed one Democrat with close ties to the campaign.

These continued problems come amid further revelations regarding the freshman Senator Obama’s personal life.  Daily Kos has reported, since last Friday, of “peculiarities” regarding the Obama’s eldest daughter, Malia.  Dips!t69, an anonymous blogger on the site, has uncovered evidence that Michele Obama was known to have been unfaithful to her husband, especially during the time Malia was conceived.

Dips!t69 also claims to have a credit card receipt showing that, exactly nine months before Malia was born, Barack Obama was in Detroit while his wife Michelle was in Chicago.  In addition, facial recognition software has been used to show that Malia only has an 85% chance of being related to Barack Obama.The Biden campaign has repeatedly refused to provide DNA samples of the two Obamas to conclusively disprove the rumors.

Regarding the vetting process, a Biden spokesperson has said that “Michelle’s infidelity was widely known in Chicago.”  Senator Obama also faces criticism for accepting the vice presidential nomination.  “He has two young daughters at home.  Can he really manage being a loving father with the duties of vice president,” noted columnist E.J. Dionne.

Since the announcement of Obama as the vice presidential pick, the Biden campaign has tried to fend off rumors that Obama was picked only because of his race.  “The Biden camp only picked Obama as a desperate effort to attract Colin Powell supporters.”  Former Secretary of State Powell ultimately lost a close Republican primary fight with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  “It’s clear that Barack Obama is only where he is because of his skin color.”  Indeed, according to Eleanor Clift, the announcement was met with laguhter in most newsrooms across the country.

The Biden campaign contends that Obama is a “strong liberal, with socially liberal views,” who was picked to bolster Biden’s liberal base.  In his acceptance speach, however, Senator Obama made explicit reference to Colin Powell and his “historic campaign.”  Some critics viewed this as an overt attempt to solicit Black voters.  Governor Palin and her vice presidential nominee, John McCain, have both denounced any inquiry into the Obama family’s “private matter.”  Palin picked a far more experienced running mate in John McCain to bolster her already impressive credentials.

I suppose if you’re that far in the tank for Obama, the ends justify the means.  But I wonder what the “mainstream” media would say if:

• The media hounded Hillary about whether Chelsea had ever had an abortion or if she was pregnant now.
• A reporter asked Barack Obama how he planned to teach Malia and Sasha the birds and the bees and at what age.
• The Washington Post did an expose on how hard it was to raise children and asked whether Nancy Pelosi was going to be too busy with her five kids to be Speaker of the House.  Or whether Arnold Schwarzenegger should run for governor with four young children.
• Daily Kos ran an anonymous, unsourced story saying Joe Biden wasn’t really the father of his youngest son.
• The media began investigating the background of the boy who wrote Malia a Valentine’s card.
• Michele Obama was asked, not about her comments on behalf of the campaign, but to explain a 25 year-old DUI.
• Barack Obama’s social security number, home phone number and past and present address were all released publicly by the McCain campaign.  Twice.

All of those things just happened to Sarah Palin and her family.  There is clearly sexism and ideological bias in the media. Anyone who doesn’t see it now is not paying attention.

Here now are my suggested slogans for the Obama - Biden Campaign:

1. “Obama - Biden: Nothing says Change™ like a 65-year old white guy with 35 years in Washington.”
2. “Obama - Biden: This is not the Hope and Change I once knew.”
3. “Obama - Biden: Together, we have Joe Biden’s experience.”
4. “Obama - Biden: No childish worldview left behind.”
5. “Obama - Biden: At least Delaware will see some Change.™”
6. “Obama - Biden: Joe Biden’s crazy ideas have found a silky smooth voice.”
7. “Obama - Biden: We promise it’ll be a team effort.”
8. “Obama - Biden: Because McCain’s VP has almost as little experience as Obama.”
9. “Obama - Biden: Hope and Change®, Now with Attack Dog™ Technology”
10. “Obama - Biden: Smooth & Dreamy meets Sour and Crunchy.”

The media and John McCain are finally starting to turn against poor Barack Obama.  Even Obama admits it, warning that, what Bush and McCain “[are] going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Obama said.  “You know, `he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name,’ you know, `he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.‘”

McCain and ABC’s Jake Trapper have rightly pointed out that this is Obama playing the race card.  No person speaking on behalf of Senator McCain or President Bush has even remotely mocked or referred to Obama’s appearance, skin color, the phonetics of his name or his racial history.  What they have done is criticized his woeful lack of experience.

Not one to ever stick to a statement, when questioned, the Obama campaigned feigned surprise, claiming, incredulously, that Obama was not saying anything about race:

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said “What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington,” Gibbs said. “There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn’t come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race.”

Really? There are 8 U.S. presidents on currently circulated currency.  Only two of them have more than 10 years of political experience in washington (and only then if you count Jefferson’s Ambassadorship to France as time he spent as a “Washington insider”):

Arguably, the $2 bill and the silver half dollar are not even in common circulation.  I have excluded military service, as I don’t think anyone could reasonably call Washington, Ike, Grant (or their equivalent in General Patreaus) “Washington insiders” simply because they commanded the military in war time.

Of course, the flip side of the coin is that, if Obama (God forbid), is elected president, he will have served 4 years in the Senate, making him more of a Washington insider than any president on currency (other than JFK and Thomas Jefferson).