Obama makes Joe the Plumber ‘scared’ for nation

Obama makes Joe the Plumber ‘scared’ for nation

Joe the Plumber all but came out of the water closet for Sen. John McCain on Friday, saying his famous exchange with Sen. Barack Obama made him “scared for America” and that he doesn’t trust the Democratic presidential candidate on taxes.

The plumber, aka Joe Wurzelbacher, burst into the headlines after he buttonholed Mr. Obama less than two weeks ago during a campaign stop in his Holland, Ohio, neighborhood and quizzed him about his tax policy. On Friday, he said that he wasn’t impressed by the Illinois senator in their encounter.

“When I was face to face with him, my honest first impression was that I expected something more. I had heard so much about ‘his presence’ in the media that I was surprised to find that he seemed very average,” Mr. Wurzelbacher wrote in a live online chat on The Washington Times Web site.

“My gut feeling as he answered my questions? I was scared for America,” he wrote in response to a reader who asked “When you were face to face with Obama, what were you thinking and how did it feel?”

Mr. Wurzelbacher, arguably the world’s most famous plumber, has become a cornerstone of Mr. McCains Republican campaign, which had embarked on a statewide blitz across Florida in a series of “Joe the Plumber” events aimed at blue-collar workers.

On the trail Friday, the nominee repeatedly cited Joe the Plumber, telling supporters that if Mr. Obama is elected, the middle class is “going to be put through the wringer.”

The plumber, who again refused to endorse a nominee explicitly, said he learned about the tour “on the news only this morning.” He said no one from either campaign “has asked me to join them. I’m out to stick up for the regular folks.”

Even though Mr. Obama promises to give Mr. Wurzelbacher at least a $1,000 tax refund if elected president, the blue-collar worker worries that Mr. Obama will break his word and back off his promise to give a tax break to every worker making less than $250,000 a year.

“What worries me is that he is deciding that $250k is rich right now, but what’s to stop him from changing his mind?” Mr. Wurzelbacher said Friday in a live online chat on The Washington Times Web site.

“As we all know, politicians change their minds at the drop of a poll. Personally, I think it will have to go lower. How else will he pay for all he wants big government to do?” he said.

During his brief discussion with Mr. Obama on Oct. 11, the candidate told the plumber, who had said he hoped to own his own company some day, that it was his intention to, as president, “spread the wealth around.”

Mr. McCain has called the pledge socialist, and Mr. Wurzelbacher said Americans simply don’t want that.

“Whether or not his tax plan, as he states it today, would help me, it still comes down to principles. I don’t want someone else’s hard-earned money. How can you be sure they’re not going to change their minds and decide you make too much money and want to take more of it to ‘spread’ to someone else,” the plumber wrote.

Mr. Wurzelbacher said he strongly supports the “fair tax,” which would repeal federal income taxes established in the 16th Amendment of the Constitution and replace them with a progressive national sales tax.

“I like the principles of it, and especially the idea of doing away with the IRS. That being said, I’m a big proponent of the flat tax, which I believe would have the same effect and is just as fair. We all have to pay taxes for the defense of our country and certain basic government protections for the people. I would be interested in supporting and presenting either tax reforms to Middle America,” he said.

He also said Friday he would consider running for Congress in 2010, challenging longtime Rep. Marcy Kaptur in the Toledo-area district.

“I’ll tell you what, we’d definitely be in one heck of a fight,” Mr. Wurzelbacher said during an appearance on the Laura Ingraham show Friday. “But, you know, I’d be up for it.”

Obama Does Not Regret “Spread the Wealth” Comment

Fred Thompson Warns Of An Obama Presidency – With Video

Obama advisor praises Iran in Globe op-ed

Obama advisor praises Iran in Globe op-ed

Ed Lasky

Well, is it that hard to believe in this day and age that a major American newspaper offers up an op-ed filled with praise for Iran? This would be today’s Boston Globe in an op-ed written by Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley, both of whom work for the liberal minded Center for American Progress.

By the way, the fact that Korb has been identified as a key foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama is completely unmentioned – a major journalistic lapse but not  a surprising one by the New York Times-owned Boston Globe.

Korb and Conley look upon Iranian efforts to help topple the Taliban as proof of the potential for Iran to work with America in bringing about some sort of Pax Persia in the region. This is a fallacy. Iran opposed the Taliban because the Taliban – a Sunni extremist group – hated the Shiite Persians that were on its border and hated the Shiites within Afghanistan. The Taliban murdered Iranian regime officials. The downfall of the Taliban was in the interest of the regime and their help when America sought to oust the Taliban was based strictly on self-interest. In the diplomatic realm, nations don’t have permanent friends, they have permanent interests. The interests of the Iranian  regime is regional hegemony and the acquisition of nuclear bombs.
Korb and Conley blame Bush for failure to reach out to the Iranians. This argument falls flat. In fact, various Bush officials have sought to reach out to the regime (as even the op-ed mentions in passing) but have been rebuffed – as have a long line of other Presidents who have tried to establish relations with the Iranians.  This is a fact that the op-ed ignores.
The op-ed also seems to blame Bush for the progress of the Iranian nuclear program. This is absurd. The program did not start under Bush (and was actually temporarily put on hold in the wake of our invasion of Iraq) but had its origins going back to the 1980s. The program has progressed apace – under Democratic and Republican Presidents. We have sought, along with the United Nations and our European allies, to work with the Iranians to curb their nuclear program in return for various “carrots” offered to them. The result? Rebuff after rebuff, as the centrifuges spin away.
What is especially striking in this op-ed is the complete silence regarding the nature of the Iranian regime. One would hope that a foreign policy expert close to Barack Obama would at least recognize how important it is to consider the nature of a regime when advocating diplomatic outreach. Where is the recognition that the regime is -and has long been-designated  as the number one terror-sponsoring nation in the world (as Bill Clinton so designated Iran)? Where is the recognition that Iran has been helping kill Americans in Iraq and has done so in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, or the awareness that Iranian proxies have killed innocent Argentineans, Lebanese, Israelis and for that matter Iranians (a regime that hangs children and gays and brutalizes women wins praise from Korb and Conley?).
That little matter of denying the Holocaust while openly boasting of plans to bring about another one? The theological and apocalyptic musings of its leaders (not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), the talk of halos and apocalypse spoken by Ahmadinejad from the podium of the United Nations to bring about the return of the missing Imam? Sheer piffle, not worth mentioning.
We will see more of these efforts to burnish Iran in the days ahead. The Iran lobby is stepping up efforts in Washington. The Persian red carpet is being rolled out.
Welcome to the future of our foreign relations under Barack Obama. Much like his campaign, it involves dreams and fantasy.

Great News: Barney Frank says Dems will cut defense, raise taxes, and spend lots of money

Great News: Barney Frank says Dems will cut

defense, raise taxes, and spend lots of money

Rick Moran
Well, you can’t say they didn’t warn us ahead of time:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrats will push for a stimulus package after the November election, and called for a package reducing defense spending by 25 percent while saying Congress will “eventually” raise taxes.

Frank told the editorial board of the SouthCoast Standard-Times that he wanted to reduce defense spending by a quarter, meaning the United States would have to withdraw from Iraq sooner.

“The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection,” he said. “It’s extraordinary.”

Frank also said the post-election stimulus package will focus on spending for building projects, extending unemployment benefits, and further supporting states’ healthcare costs. “We’ll have to raise taxes ultimately,” Frank said. “Not now, but eventually.” Frank told the Standard-Times that if Democrats cannot secure the votes they need in November, they will try again in January, when they will likely have stronger majorities in the House and Senate.

B-B-B-B-ut we thought Obama was going to CUT taxes for “95% of Americans?”


Meanwhile, that 25% cut in defense spending means, oh, about $115 billion stripped during a time of war. No word on when the Dems are going to raise the white flag and leave Afghanistan – but that is almost certainly in the cards. But don’t worry. Before long, they will run out of enemies to surrender to. Then they will have start surrendering to each other.

Love that stimulating “stimulus package,” don’t you? We’re running a half trillion deficit and the Dems want to throw more money at us. That’s in addition to our “tax cut” that will no doubt be grabbed back in about 6 months when the government begins to collapse under the weight of additional debt piled on by the liberals.

Barack Obama: Change you can drink hemlock to.

The Depraved World of Jihadi Child Porn

The Depraved World of Jihadi Child Porn

By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | 10/24/2008


Besides their well-known penchant for anti-Semitism, misogyny and nihilistic violence, Muslim extremists are also gaining a disturbing reputation among British security agencies as collectors of child pornography.

According to a report on The Times website last week, police in Great Britain are discovering that their investigations into Muslim terrorism are leading them into the depraved world of child sexual exploitation. The reverse is also occurring with child protection officers encountering people who are “preparing to carry out terrorist acts.”

At one time, the link between the two deviant behaviours was considered so strong that security officials considered establishing an anti-terrorism project involving child welfare experts, but never followed through because Scotland Yard’s hands were too full with other terrorist investigations.

But demand is growing in Great Britain for the setting up of such a task force that could help security agencies understand the terrorist mindset and prevent future attacks.

“This is an important development,” said Labor MP Andrew Dinsmore. “We have to do more than just police work. It needs child protection, criminological and psychological work. It could become a very important weapon in the fight against terrorism.”

Police say they are already noticing a similarity in methods Muslim terrorists and paedophiles use in manipulating and grooming young people for their corrupt purposes. This usually involves introducing them to their deviant behaviour and then convincing them over time that it is normal.

British security personnel first became aware of a connection between Muslim extremism and child pornography in 2006. When investigating the terrorist connections of an east end London mosque preacher, Abdul Makim Khalisadar, a former primary school assistant, the 26-year-old’s DNA was found to match that of an unsolved rape case of a woman. Upon his arrest, police discovered Khalisadar also had a large amount of hardcore child pornography material on his computer.

In the same year, police made a similar discovery after raiding a suspected Muslim terrorist’s home, looking for a chemical bomb. While no explosive device was found, police did discover 44 “indecent” pictures of children on the 23-year-old man’s home computer and cell phone. Child porn, The Times reports, has been found “during investigations into some of the most advanced suspected plots.”

European security officials first discovered child porn images in a Muslim extremist’s possession when they raided a mosque in Milan, Italy, in 2001. Embedded in the disturbing images, though, they found hidden messages sent by fellow Islamists, causing Italian security agents to believe the terrorists were copying a clandestine method paedophiles use in communicating with one another. At that time, police believed this form of communications camouflage (called steganography) accounted for the child porn’s presence in the mosque.

But other, less doubtful, cases have cropped up since then. When arrested, Abdelkader Ayachine, a suspected Muslim terrorist currently awaiting trial in Spain, possessed almost 40,000 child pornographic movies and images, a number far exceeding any need for encoded communications. Ayachine was connected to the Casablanca bombing terrorist group that killed 45 people in 2003 and stands accused in the Spanish court of inciting jihad and recruiting fighters for the Iraq war. Prosecutors say his child pornography collection consisted mainly of “minors having sex, among themselves and with adults.”

Muslim extremists’ attraction to child pornography has been attributed to cultural factors. An Italian magistrate involved in the Milan mosque case said possession of child porn by Islamists did not necessarily indicate paedophilic tendencies, but rather was the result of cultural differences. Girls, he stated, often become wives in the Muslim world at age 11 and 12.

The Islamists’ interest in boys as sex objects is generally owed to their beliefs and social milieu. Their strict religious convictions do not allow them to be with a woman outside their own families, let alone touch one, before marriage. Moreover, in some Muslim countries, males can’t even catch a glimpse of the demonized female form because of the body-encompassing clothing she is forced to wear. In such a gender segregated environment, homosexual behavior develops, especially towards boys.

Even the Taliban, which executed homosexuals when it ruled Afghanistan, could not eradicate the sexploitation of boys, even in its own ranks. Among the 30 commands it issued to its fighters, Rule No. 19 forbid them from taking young boys without facial hair into their barracks. After the Taliban regime fell, a Fox news report indicated pederasty in Afghanistan returned to its previous place as an accepted social norm.

Sexual exploitation of boys in Muslim countries also has a long history. The Asia Times columnist, Spengler (an anonymous pseudonym), wrote in his column, Sufism, Sodomy and Satan, that, in the High Middle Ages, Sufism, Islam’s mystic branch, “is the only case in which a mainstream current of a major world religion preached pederasty as a path to spiritual enlightenment.” He then cites a German historian who claims this Sufi practice “persisted in many Islamic countries until very recent times.” The 2007 movie, The Kite Runner, located in Afghanistan, showed a “last vestige” of Sufism’s pederast side when dancing boys appeared in female dress.

Perhpas not altogether insignificant in this grotesque phenomenon is that the Koran itself promises to put pre-pubescent boys at the service of jihadi martyrs not interested in the female virgins awaiting them in paradise. The boys will be like “scattered pearls” of “perpetual freshness” (Suras 52:24, 56:17, 76:19).

The consequences of Islamist misogyny, gender segregation and sexual abuse of Muslim boys are far-reaching. Besides growing up to be sexual deviants who collect child pornography and may victimize other children, such sexually traumatized Muslim boys are predisposed to become involved in terrorism as a way of expressing their sexual rage. It therefore comes as no surprise that one anti-terror source told the Times: “A way of finding who the extremists and terrorists are is to go through the child porn sites.”

Stephen Brown is a contributing editor at Frontpagemag.com. He has a graduate degree in Russian and Eastern European history. Email him at alsolzh@hotmail.com

What passes for an informed Obama supporter

How ‘Joe the Plumber’ Could Cost Obama the Election

How ‘Joe the Plumber’ Could Cost Obama the Election

October 24, 2008 – by Fred J. Eckert

Isn’t it interesting? It took a plumber to flush out Barack Obama’s economic philosophy and make Americans realize that the Democratic candidate’s ideas on taxes don’t hold water.

Samuel Joseph “Joe” Wurzelbacher, the suddenly famous 34-year-old plumber from suburban Toledo, Ohio, who asked Obama a simple but apparently inconvenient question about tax policy, could possibly end up having the same game-changing effect on the 2008 elections that Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth had on the 2006 elections.

Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth?

How quickly they forget!

S. R. Sidarth, as he prefers to be called, is the person most likely responsible for ending the presidential ambitions of a rising Republican star and flipping the U.S. Senate from Republican to Democrat, thereby making Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader.

Senator George Allen (R-VA) turned near-certain re-election victory into defeat when at a campaign rally he pointed to 20-year-old college student of Asian Indian descent (Sidarth) who was following him around the state with a video camera while working for his opponent and said [1] to the crowd: “Let’s give a welcome to “macaca” here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.”

The rest of that campaign became as much about Allen vs. that young student as it was about Allen vs. Jim Webb, now Senator Webb. “Macaca,” it turns out, is a word used in Europe to refer to a dark-skinned person as a monkey. To make things worse, the dark-skinned student Allen asked his supporters to “welcome to America” happened to have been born and raised in Virginia. Allen first claimed that he did not realize the word was offensive and didn’t even know what it meant — but then began apologizing with ever-increasing intensity. Allen’s lead plunged, he never recovered his bearings, and he ended up losing the race he had been on track to win.

What the public saw in that exchange was an average citizen being insulted, belittled, mocked, and bullied for doing nothing more than merely differ with a political candidate in a perfectly civil manner — and it repelled voters.

Remind you of anything going on now?

Like S. R. Sidarth before him, average citizen “Joe the Plumber,” as the media dubbed him, is also being insulted, belittled, mocked, and bullied by powerful political figures. But note the astonishing difference this time around. Instead of rallying to the side of the victim, the mainstream media is instead rushing to the aid of the bullies, gleefully joining the Democrats in insulting and mocking the victim.

What we are witnessing is something that has become a predictable pattern whenever any person emerges as a perceived serious threat to the Democrats and the left in general. If they lack facts and sound arguments for making a case against that person, there is an attempt to discredit and destroy, with a blistering barrage of belittlements, without regard to whether any of it is factual. It is a deliberate strategy that they turn to again and again. Sadly, more often than not, it works. You can sum up this strategy is one word: Smear.

The reason they so often get away with it is because they can depend on the mainstream media either to turn a blind eye or even actively participate as an ally in their smears. Such blatant media bias does serious damage to political discourse and injures the public interest. It is also turning those who work in journalism into the equivalent of the used-car salesman caricature.

The smear strategy works best when the barrage of belittlements and false accusations are unloaded quickly and the target receives little or no opportunity for rebuttal before the public’s attention moves on to other things. Small wonder that such smears are referred to as “drive-bys.”

But the great risk in such a smear strategy is that it carries with it the potential to backfire — if it lingers and becomes too obvious.

This happened weeks before the last presidential election when CBS News tried to peddle [2] fraudulent documents to the American people discrediting the National Guard service of President Bush and ended up instead inadvertently assisting his re-election.

And it happened recently when the Democrats and their media allies went to [3] outrageous extremes in trying to discredit and belittle Senator McCain’s pick of Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The unintended consequence of their conduct was to make her the candidate in this year’s race that voters most want to see and hear. Thus, her convention speech outdrew Obama’s media-ballyhooed address, her debate appearance shattered viewing records, and even her appearance on Saturday Night Live broke records.

The joint venture by the Obama campaign and its media cheerleaders to insult, belittle, bully, and smear “Joe the Plumber” may go down as the biggest blunder of the 2008 president campaign because it could make the difference in this year’s presidential election — just as the ‘macaca’ treatment of S. R. Sidarth made the difference in who was elected to the Senate in Virginia two years ago.

Imagine the potential backlash when not only the candidate and his running mate and their surrogates mock and belittle an average Joe, but on top of that the media park themselves on his doorstep and proceed to launch a full scale attack against him to aid and abet those who are smearing him.

It is truly mindboggling. What did Samuel Joseph “Joe” Wurzelbacher do? He politely asked Barack Obama questions about his tax policies, no more.

Obama came into Joe’s neighborhood to meet some middle class voters and discuss issues with them. It was a typical political photo-op stunt — nothing wrong with that. One of the persons with whom Obama happened to speak was Joe. He was pleasant and respectful throughout their discussion, as was Obama. At the end both men smiled and shook hands and Obama said, “Thanks for the question. I appreciate it.”

So what’s the big deal? Why the campaign against “Joe the Plumber”? As we know, Barack Obama inadvertently let down his guard and stated his economic philosophy more clearly than he had ever before – which smacked of socialistic redistribution of wealth: “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone,” Obama remarked to Joe.

Obama’s off the cuff “spread the wealth around” remark was recorded on video and soon viewed by millions on YouTube. Suddenly, millions of Americans became worried about what an Obama presidency might really mean.

What is so incredible here — and so very revealing — is that the Obama campaign and its media co-conspirators have beem twisting the facts to claim that what is significant about Obama’s conversation with “Joe the Plumber” is not what Obama said, but rather who he said it to.

This is beyond ridiculous. It doesn’t matter to whom the remarks were addressed. The point is that Obama made them.

So attention is deflected from Obama’s economic views by trying to make Joe the issue.

“How many plumbers do you know who make a quarter million dollars a year?” [4] Obama shouted at a campaign rally, as if that mattered.  Joe, by the way, never said he made that much; what he said to Obama was that he would like to someday buy a business that might put him in that league. “It is a dream that I have,” he later stated.

“I don’t have any ‘Joe the Plumbers’ in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year,” Joe Biden told campaign crowds.

Who cares? What’s his point? Perhaps plumbers doing that well are leery about living in the same neighborhood with a U.S. Senator who thinks plumbers are incapable of achieving such success and believes that if they do, he and Obama should be able to take a considerable portion of that money away from them and give it to whomever they wish?

Not willing to risk leaving campaigning for the Democrats solely in the hands of the Democrats, the media rushed in with barrels blazing.

In a article that began “The strange tale of Joe the Plumber…,” the New York Times reported that “under the glare of the ensuing media spotlight, reporters found that Mr. Wurzelbacher did not actually have a plumbing license, and that he actually owed some back taxes.”

Stop the presses! Asking a candidate a question and people not liking the candidate’s answer makes the plumber guy “a strange tale”?

Is it not possible to be working as a plumber before obtaining your plumbing license? Yes, it is. Isn’t Joe Wurzelbacher working as a plumber under his boss who has a plumbing license? Yes — that’s common practice. Shouldn’t the New York Times know this? Or do you suppose they do but think they are being cute in pulling a fast one on their readers?

Does Joe owe some back taxes? Yes. Does that fact put his question and Obama’s answer in any different light? No. More people have viewed media coverage about Joe’s small tax lien than about the much greater tax liens [5] owed by the treasurer of Obama’s campaign, Martin Nesbitt, and his companies. You decide if that might be a possible sign of media bias.

It took but a day for the “glare of the ensuing media spotlight” to shine on what the mainstream media perceives as the shortcomings of Joe Wurzelbacher and reveal the details of their investigations.

Yet it took them nearly a year before they reluctantly covered, attempted to rationalize, and then quickly dropped references to the lunatic ratings of Obama’s self-described spiritual mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And they have yet to work up any real curiosity regarding the facts about the characters that Obama counts among his friends and allies.

No, what really matters, the Democrats would have us believe, is that the man who asked Barack Obama a question which Obama now wishes he had ducked, owes a bit over $1,000 in back taxes and is, like so many other plumbers, currently working under the plumbing license of his supervising boss.

So let’s all pretend this is a huge scandal and try to make it sound that way. Which is exactly what NBC correspondent David Gregory did.

“His first name is actually Samuel,” Gregory revealed to the world. “Joseph is his middle name.” Horrors! The man goes by the nickname for his middle name! Then Gregory also dropped another big bomb on Joe: “He doesn’t have a plumbing license although he claims he doesn’t need it when he works for other people in Ohio.” No, Mr. Gregory, he explained that he does not need one when he works under the supervision of his boss who is licensed.

At MSNBC, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, two characters who seem determined to do for the field of journalism what Frank and Jesse James once did for the frontier banking system, each acted as If they were uncovering a huge scandal as well — breathlessly proclaimed in roughly these words: “His name isn’t really Joe and he isn’t a plumber.”

Again, he is a plumber, he is not the only person in America who goes by his middle name rather than his given first name, and it is not a felony offense to do that. It may be shocking to the folks working in the NBC/MSNBC division of the Obama campaign that neither F. Scott Fitzgerald nor J. Paul Getty went by his first name.

“There’s a report that he doesn’t have the proper license,” gushed yet another MSNBC reporter. None of them bothered to explain how it was that Joe could go to work the next day as a plumber, probably because they did not think to ask or wish to know.

“Joe the Liar,” leftist “comedian” Bill Maher railed on CNN’s Larry King Live.

On NBC’s The View, one of the talking empty heads ridiculed Joe for having “a fantasy” about someday having his own business. A dream? An aspiration? Nope, someone who asked an inconvenient question cannot possibly be someone who might be able to someday achieve his dream of operating his own business.

Newsweek joined in mocking Joe and even picked up on the idea of knocking the McCain campaign for failing to more thoroughly “vet” Joe – implying that Joe was really a McCain campaign plant and the Obama campaign had helped them out by picking Joe’s neighborhood.

“The real picture is now emerging,” [6] proclaimed one MSNBC journalist. Joe, he told viewers, is “a phony” and what he said about his tax bracket was “utter fiction” and, besides, he is “not an independent voter” and, guess what, his 2006 tax return shows that he earned “only around $40,000.”

Joe spoke no “utter fiction” about his tax bracket since he never mentioned it in his discussion with candidate Obama. As for the innuendo that he misrepresented himself as an independent voter, neither Joe nor Obama made any reference to Joe’s political affiliation. And what public purpose is served by the media digging up and reporting the income of this private citizen — and why do they do so with smirks on their faces?

“Joe the Plumber” just happened to ask a question and the inadvertently revealing answer put tax policy back in the forefront of the presidential race. That’s a lot better for Republicans than it is for Democrats, and that is why the Democrats are angry at him.

The sorry spectacle of the Obama campaign and the mainstream media engaging in a joint effort to wage a smear campaign against private citizen Joe Wurzelbacher for committing the offense of asking a question that their candidate answered in a way that revealed his true beliefs and intentions might be the eye-opener that changes the outcome on November 4th.

Lending credence to such a possibility is the fact that it has happened before, even when the average citizen involved was subjected to nowhere near the abuse that has been heaped upon Joe Wurzelbacher.

Not only did that similar “macaca” incident change the Virginia Senate race two years ago, but a mini “Joe the Plumber” sort of incident may have caused the greatest presidential election upset of the 20th century.

It occurred in the election of 1948 when Governor Thomas E. Dewey was coasting to victory late in the race. Back in that day of “whistle-stop” campaigning, in which presidential candidates delivered speeches from the rear platform of a train, the rear platform of the train from which Dewey was speaking suddenly moved backwards for a few seconds. It caused no harm — except ultimately to Dewey, who reacted by saying into the microphone: “That’s the first lunatic I’ve had for an engineer. He probably ought to be shot at sunrise.”

Insulting, belittling, and mocking an average citizen derailed a front-running candidate in 1948 and in 2006. There is always the possibility — and hope — that history could repeat itself in 2008.


We’re now 11 days out from Election Day and I wanted to give you an important campaign update.

An Associated Press headline said the other day that this race is “All even in the homestretch.” All indicators point to this race coming down to the wire, so it’s extremely important to reach out to undecided voters – the key to winning this election. The election is in your hands and I’m asking you to make the case to undecided voters for John McCain and Sarah Palin. Here’s what you should tell them… 

Instead of spreading wealth around, John McCain and Sarah Palin will spread opportunity.

Recently in Ohio, Senator Obama finally broke down and famously told “Joe the Plumber” that his economic plan is to, “spread the wealth around.” Joe is working hard to realize the American dream, as are millions of other people who work hard, pay taxes and dream of owning a small business one day. Barack Obama will raise taxes on hardworking Americans to give a government handout to the 40% of Americans who pay no income taxes.

Thanks to “Joe the Plumber,” voters are starting to see the clear difference between John McCain and Barack Obama on taxes. Joe’s story is your story … the story of hard work and the American dream. “Joe the Plumber” isn’t just one man in Ohio … it’s every person in America with hopes, dreams and the desire to work hard with the opportunity to succeed.

John McCain and Sarah Palin have an economic plan that celebrates the American dream of opportunity, not government giveaways. In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. That’s why their economic plan – Jobs for America – is so important for the American people in this time of economic crisis.

While Barack Obama is ready to “spread the wealth around,” John McCain has a plan to get our economy moving so everyone has access to good jobs, a quality education and the opportunity to succeed.

John McCain and Sarah Palin don’t just talk about change … they deliver.

This election is certainly about change – there’s no doubt about it. But that’s why we’re talking to voters about the difference between lower taxes and the opportunity to work hard for the American dream … or higher taxes and government giveaways with Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

You can trust John McCain and Sarah Palin because they are the real deal; reformers with a record who stand by their words and will always put their country first.

Time and time again this team of mavericks has stood up, taken on tough issues and delivered. They’re the real deal. They have a clear record that can deliver results, not just rhetoric that delivers votes.

In the last 11 days of this campaign, we want voters to hear the story of “Joe the Plumber” to understand the important differences between John McCain and Barack Obama. Please take a minute today to watch videos submitted to our “I’m Joe the Plumber” video contest to see how people all across America recognize that they too are Joe the Plumber. Then forward this message to your friends with a personal message about why you’re like Joe the Plumber and why you are supporting John McCain and Sarah Palin on Election Day.

Rick Davis
Campaign Manager, McCain-Palin 2008

Get a load of this receipt!