Independent Voters: What I don't understand

Dear independent voters,

Please enlighten me: What I simply don't understand is why you are thinking about voting for Barack Obama.

If you were someone on the left, someone who thinks bigger government is better government, someone who thinks "spreading the wealth" is a good idea, someone who thinks Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are the best thing since sliced bread: OK, I get it, you and Senator Obama share the same ideology. You hold common values and policy positions. Knock yourself out with an Obama vote.

But if you are independent?

OK, let's start with McCain. If you are an independent, why wouldn't McCain be your guy? This is a Senator who's keystone pieces of legislation are named in the form McCain-Democrat. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, etc., etc.

As a conservative I still cringe at about 30% of the things that come out of McCain's mouth because so much of his policy positions are distinctly un-conservative. I've railed against McCain right here on this blog, and if he were to win the presidency, I'm sure I'd so again. I only support McCain because's he's the least anti-conservative candidate who has a reasonable chance of winning.

McCain originally earned the title of "Maverick" as a pejorative because he so often took the offensive against Republican people and positions. He is the very definition of a "moderate" politician.

So, maybe you don't like his choice of Palin. But you should. She, like you, has an independent streak. She took on members of her own party. She formed an administration that consisted of Independents, Republicans, and Democrats. If you want a "Washinton outsider", well, there is exactly one person out of both tickets that meets that requirement - and it's Sarah Palin.

What is more, it was you, the independents, that made McCain the frontrunner for the GOP presidential choice. McCain won the New Hampshire primary but didn't come in first among self described Republicans. He also took the South Carolina primary, but again, didn't come in first among self described Republicans. It was you, the independent voters, that picked McCain for the Republican party.

But now you're putting your support behind Obama?! This confuses me in so many ways.

For starters, don't you realize how liberal he is?

I've always imagined "independent voters" as a bunch that are sick of politicians lying to them, doing whatever shady things they can to win, promising change and reform and bipartisanship and then governing from the ideological extremes.

But Barack Obama is that kind of politician. And I think you could claim he is the very worst of that kind of politician because of the degree to which he tries to cover up the fact he is that kind of politician.

OK, so maybe that flies in the face of the conventional wisdom and the media's Obama narrative: So, please, hear me out on this.

First all, for all his talk about a "new politics", Obama has happily engaged in "old" dirty trick politics when it's been to his political advantage.

Obama has also routinely falsely make things up out of whole cloth when it's been to his political advantage. Put most starkly - he has no problem lying to you. And, given his history of breaking pledges, Senator Obama's word certainly doesn't seem very trustworthy.

As if making things up and saying false statements weren't bad enough, Obama also has no problem leveling hypocritical attacks against his opponents.

And how do you get, as an independent voter, get past Obama's thug-like attempts to silence his critics?

Finally, there are all the (overplayed) Obama connections. I don't want to get deep into these, but please take a serious moment to consider the following: Would you be comfortable sitting through Rev. Wright's sermons? Would you be comfortable attending a political event hosted by William Ayers? Would you be comfortable having Tony Rezko spending $625,000 to help you complete a deal on a house?

None of those seem to me like situations independent voters would be comfortable with.


Barack Obama can deliver an amazing speech and has run a tremendously well executed campaign to make people believe he is a "post-partisan" moderate fighting to bring hope and change. But he's not. He is simply a typical liberal politician using the worse kinds of political techniques of hypocrisy, spreading falsehoods, and intimidation to try to bring a distinctly non-moderate agenda to Presidency.

I ask again - if you are an independent voter supporting Barack Obama... why?

For the record, Obama has repeatily attempted to silence his critics

I know many staunch libertarian voters will conciencously decide to not cast their vote for McCain in November because of McCain-Feingold. It is one of several reasons I've waivered between voting for McCain or no one (and by "no one" I mean "probably Bob Barr").

Anyone concerned about free speech should certainly not vote for Obama though.

Throughout his campaign, Obama has resorted to heavy handed ("thug" seems like an apt description) tactics to silence the speech of those he disagrees with - often invoking government agencies to do this work for him.

To start things off, it's worth taking note that during the primary, apparently, Pro-Hillary Clinton Blogspot/Blogger-based blogs and Facebook accounts regularly were taken offline.

Now maybe that wasn't the result of official Obama-Campaign actions. But the all of the following were:

1. The Obama campaign launched an all out attack on journalist Stanley Kurtz. First they started with a smear campaign, calling Kurtz "slimy," a "smear merchant", and a "character assassin". Then, by way of an "Obama Action Wire" they tried to strong arm WGN radio in Chicago from allowing Kurtz to make an appearance on a talk radio show.

2. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Obama campaign threatened radio stations with legal action if they didn't stop playing an NRA ad. The rather chilling text of the legal letter Obama's legal team sent included:

For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement.

...

Because you need not air this advertisement, your station bears responsibility for its content when you do grant access. See Felix v. Westinghouse Radio Stations, 186 F.2d 1, 6 (3rd Cir.), cert denied, 314 U.S. 909 (1950).

Moreover, you have a duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising" Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.C.2d 623 (1961).

Failure to prevent the airing of "false and misleading advertising" may be "probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility." Cosmopolitan Broad. Corp. v. FCC, 581 F.2d 917, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

Some freedom of speech that allows!


3. The Obama campaign tried to use the Department of Justice to silence the American Issues Project from running an ad about Ayers, and even went after AIP's top donor.

4. Just days ago, Obama again is trying to use the Department of Justice to silence critics. This time it's against politicians who dared to criticize ACORN.

5. In Missouri, the Obama campaign attempted to assemble "The Barack Obama Truth Squad" - a collection of sheriffs and prosecutors who would target anyone the campaign deemed to be spreading false information about Obama. These actions led Missouri goveernor Matt Blunt to release a statement with the following:

[...] and Obama, and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill, have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson's thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.

Anyone who cares about free speech and dissent should be seriously concerned about an Obama presidency.

Probably the biggest threat to free speech looming in front of us would be bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. In fairness, Obama has released a statement saying he does not favor "reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters." In the same statement though, he calls for more government involvement in media ("Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets").

It's also really hard for me to imagine a President Obama vetoing a Fairness Doctrine bill from the Congress after he's voted down the line with his Democratic Senate colleauges 97% of the time.

And what's more, how important would the Fairness Doctrine even be if Obama is using the DOJ to go after those he disagrees with as he is today?

Barack the Bully, Part 2

Another night, another "Obama Action Wire":

The Obama campaign continues it's attempts to silence their opposition using intimidation, only tonight it was with David Freddoso instead of Stanley Kurtz.

This is nasty, heavy-handed, and un-American.

Silencing critics through intimidation is change, but it's not change I can believe in.

The campaign that cried smear

From a post at NRO by Guy Benson on the William Ayers / Stanley Kurtz / WGN debacle:

It didn't take long to discover that the Obama campaign—which had declined invitations to join the show for its duration to offer rebuttals to Kurtz's points—had sent an "Obama Action Wire" e-mail to its supporters, encouraging them to deluge the station with complaints.

Why? Because, naturally, Kurtz is a "right-wing hatchet man," a "smear merchant" and a "slimy character assassin" who is perpetrating one of the "most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack."

...

Team Obama is fast becoming the campaign that cried "smear." They labeled the National Right to Life committee "liars" for providing evidence of some unpleasant facts about their candidate's record on a series of infanticide votes. This tendency to lash out and engage in baseless name-calling not only smacks of desperation; it also may foreshadow an Obama presidency's strategy in handling unfavorable media reports and sources.

For more information about Obama (incorrectly) labeling (slandering?) National Right to Life as liars, see here. I may come back to post about that whole thing later.

But, for now, here's some thoughts on the William Ayers / Stanley Kurtz / WGN debacle.

For those that are normal people (not political junkies) who don't know the back story, allow me to explain by quote Wikipedia:

During the 2008 election cycle, [Kurtz] has published several journalistic pieces detailing the relationships between Barack Obama and various Chicago church leaders such as ... radical Weather Underground Organization William Ayers. In August 2008 Kurtz attempted to obtain the University of Illinois at Chicago's Annenberg records detailing the professional relationship between Obama and Ayers. ... Kurtz's reporting became the subject of an "Obama Action Wire" issued by Barack Obama's campaign. This release, issued in advance of Kurtz's appearance on the popular Chicago radio show, "Extension 720 with Milt Rosenberg," instructed Obama supporters to call WGN radio prior to his appearance and ask them not to allow Kurtz to on the air, and to call into the show "Us[ing] the talking points above" and "report back on your call". Zack Christenson, executive producer of "Extension 720 with Milt Rosenburg," told the Chicago Tribune that the Obama campaign was asked to have someone appear on the show, and declined the request

Let me boil that down. Kurtz did research about Obama's relationship with William Ayers. Kurtz was scheduled to share his research on a radio talk show, and despite being invited to appear on the show, Obama's response was to use his supporters to try to intimidate the radio station into not having Kurtz as a guest.

Right now there are a sizeable number on the left that are getting worked up over (non-verified) claims that Sarah Palin tried to get books banned. Allow me to submit that anyone who's getting worked up over that but isn't equally worked over Obama's actual and verifiable attempt to silence the speech of someone he disagrees with is a major hypocrite. And Obama's actions here should give everyone pause. This is how Obama deals with criticism and opposition - by trying to intimidate them into silence?

And this isn't the first time Obama has used intimidation tactics to try to silence people from speaking about his connections to Ayers. What follows below is, literally, the "ad Obama doesn't want you to see". How badly does he not want you to see it? Well, he's trying to pressure advertisers - and use the Justice Department - to block TV stations from airing it.

Also, please note that it this ad is not "slanderous", nor can you dismiss it by calling it false. Supporting references for each statement of the ad are shown as the ad goes along.

(Side note: I do continue to dislike negative ads and non-issues-based ads - of which this certainly is one, and I had some hesitation posting it here. But I dislike the fact that Obama's trying to bully people from being able to speak freely much much more. If Obama continues to intimidate people out of showing ads he disagrees with, I'll continue to show those ads here on my blog.)

Final thought: Silencing critics through intimidation = "change you can believe in"?