The Obama campaign targets young children to nag parents and grandparents

The Obama campaign targets young children to

 nag parents and grandparents

Thomas Lifson

Using tactics that would get any maker of sugary cereal in trouble, the Obama campaign shamelessly targets immature minds, and incites them to manipulate their elders into voting for the Obama.  Dr. Slogan’s Prescriptions has the details:  


The site offers many handy instructions for young Sen. Obama supporters, helping them to form the pragmatic attitude they would absolutely need in the Obama led nation. The quote is worth reading in full (for the full text the site refers to this article):
The one thing most grandparents have in common is that they have the most wonderful grandchildren in the world – so clever, so handsome, so pretty, ever so precious. Even if you are still unsure of your path in life, and even if your parents and friends occasionally wonder about you, your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you.

That is your weapon! “Precious” needs to get on the phone and say, “Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It’s about my future. It’s about the world I will be living in. It’s about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!”
Put some urgency in your voice. Sound very disappointed in them if they give you excuses. Come back again, even harder. “This is about my future – my ability to get a good job, to live a healthy life, to have the same (or even more) opportunities than you had to succeed. I have never felt more strongly about anything. I am begging you to vote for Barack Obama. I need you to do this for me!”

This is just a sample script. You know what it takes to get to them.


Dr. Slogan comments:


When it comes to commercial advertisement, government bodies such as FDC and FDA have been going after marketers who target children age 12 and under. Yes, it’s exactly the same age group that Sen. Obama targets so explicitly. Just last year FDC along with its European counterpart pushed Masterfoods to stop marketing of its products (e.g. Snickers, Milky Way and Twix) to kids. Apparently, from the government’s perspective, kids age 12 and under are not mature enough to figure out whether Snickers are good or bad for their health, and thus can be misled by advertising. But of course, figuring out where a presidential candidate stands on taxes, abortion, education and national security is much easier. So why would the government have any problem with that?


Obama’s Alinsky Jujitsu

Obama’s Alinsky Jujitsu

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

If I were the least bit prone to gratuitous sympathy, I would be tempted now to feel quite sorry for Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Poor, poor woman.  She was quite nearly brought to all-out tears yesterday in New Hampshire, as she soliloquized over the sad state of her drooping campaign and how completely personal this is for her. 

Barack Obama seems to have effortlessly achieved voter adoration, fresher, younger, more at ease within his own skin than she will ever be. He would appear to be as much a natural as her own Bill. It may appear to a great many observers that Barrack Obama is just one incredibly audacious, even lucky, albeit frighteningly charismatic dude.


These personal qualities are not the sole reason he is where he is, and I suspect the wily Mrs. Clinton knows this full well. I suspect it must bother her that Obama also appears to have mastered the playbook used by her own political teacher, the legendary amoral guru of left wing activism, Saul Alinksy.


Hillary has met not only her match in Alinsky tactics, she has met the master of bloodless socialist revolution, in my opinion.


Obama’s Alinsky Lessons


Barack Obama had just graduated from Columbia and was looking for a job.  Some white leftists were looking for someone who could recruit in a black neighborhood in the south side of Chicago.


Obama answered a help-wanted ad for a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago.  Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, very accustomed to a vagabond existence, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community.


Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to “rub raw the sores of discontent,” in Alinsky’s words.


One of Obama’s early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to an Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, about Obama:


“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”
The agitator’s job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the “realization” that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent “self-interest” in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.


In these methods, euphemistically labeled “community organizing,” Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere.


Is it any wonder, then, that Obama’s Alinsky Jujitsu is making mincemeat of the woman who merely interviewed Alinsky, wrote about him, and spent the next 30 years in corporate law and in the lap of taxpayer-funded luxury in government mansions?


Obama Not Starry-Eyed Like His Followers


Alinsky considered himself a realist above all, the ultimate pragmatist.  As a confirmed atheist, Alinsky believed that the here and now is all there is, and therefore had no qualms about assorted versions of morality in the pursuit of worldly power.  He didn’t coddle his radical acolytes or encourage their bourgeois distinctions between good and evil when it came to transferring power from the Haves to the Have Nots.  Alinsky saw the already formed church communities as being the perfect springboards for agitation and creating bonds for demanding goods and services.


When Obama first undertook his agitating work in Chicago’s South Side poor neighborhoods, he was un-churched.  Yet his office was in a Church and most of the folks he needed to agitate and organize were Church people — pastors and congregants — who took their churches and their church-going very seriously.  So, this became a problem for the young agnostic, who had been exposed to very little religion in his life.  Again and again, he was asked by pastors and church ladies, “Where do you go to Church, young man?”  It was a question he dodged for a while, but finally he relented and joined a church.


Not just any church, but a huge black nationalist church with a pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who unabashedly preaches a “black” gospel.  Rolling Stone Magazine ran with a story on Obama and his church, entitled, “Destiny’s Child,” which included this excerpt from one of Rev. Wright’s sermons: 


“Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college,” he intones.
“Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!”
“We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!”
The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: “And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S**T!”
This doesn’t sound like any church in which I’ve ever worshipped, but perhaps I have led a sheltered life.  Reverend Wright, whom Obama called his spiritual mentor and still claims is his sounding board, has taken trips abroad with none other than Louis Farrakhan. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan received the “Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright,Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer” Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala at the the United Church of Christ. Wright was even reported to be a former Muslim. One might be led to wonder if this “church” isn’t all it makes itself out to be.


Among some of the black nationalist signs hanging in this church are a list of admonishments to black solidarity, called the “Black Value System,” and a sort of moral code calling for the “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.”  I don’t recall the Ten Commandments or anything at all in the Gospel about race, so this seems a bit strange.     


But Obama isn’t starry-eyed when it comes to protecting himself from the possibility of bad press regarding his church affiliation.  When he was preparing to announce his campaign for the Presidency in February, he called his minister, Reverend Wright, the night before and disinvited him to stand on the podium in front of all the cameras.  Rather than face questions, he simply eliminated the target, a perfect Alinsky action meant to forestall an enemy reaction.


Hillary should have known what she was up against when she read up on how Obama won his state senate seat in Illinois. 


Obama had returned to Chicago and practiced civil rights law for 3 years, when he spied an opportunity to run for the state senate.  A longtime, widely-revered matron of the civil rights movement named Alice Palmer had held the seat for a number of years, but she announced that she wanted to run for Congress.  So, Obama seized the opportunity and proclaimed his intention to run for Alice’s open seat. 


Well, Alice lost the congressional race and decided that she wanted to hang onto that hard-won state senate seat.  Most of the community leaders tried to persuade Obama to withdraw and wait his turn; he was a newcomer after all. 


Instead Obama performed his first real act of political jujitsu.  He sent his aides to the courthouse to carefully examine all of Alice Palmer’s signatures to see if enough could be disallowed to knock her off the ballot altogether.  And indeed, some of Alice’s signatures were fake.  The aides also found enough other fake signatures on opponents’ ballot initiatives to knock them off the ballot as well. 


By the time Barack Obama walked handily into his state senate seat, everyone there knew him as “the man who knocked off Alice Palmer.”  Quite a feat indeed for the newcomer, the young whippersnapper with the odd name.


Perhaps Hillary will win some states and stay in the game a while longer, but I fear this knight with his adoring, fawning followers is just too slick for her and ole Bill, and he seems to know how to play Alinsky ends-and-means hardball without actually breaking the law.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She welcomes your comments at     

No Friend Of Israel

No Friend Of Israel

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election ’08: Barack Obama tells Israel’s supporters he’s on their side. But he’s using the playbook of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian terrorist who said one thing to the West and another to the radicals who supported him.

Read More: Election 2008 | Middle East & North Africa


As far as we know, Obama never met or publicly supported Arafat. But in 2003 he did attend a farewell party for an Arafat associate. Peter Wallsten reported in April in the Los Angeles Times that Obama was at an event held as a tribute for Rashid Khalidi, an “internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights” who was leaving Chicago for a job in New York.

Khalidi has not been accused of terrorism. But it’s alleged that he has links to the Palestine Liberation Organization, which has a terrorist pedigree, and he does hold some rather virulent views on Israel, calling it a racist state.

While he has publicly opposed attacking Israeli civilians, Khalidi does, according to accounts of a speech he made to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, have a different view of “the ones who are armed, the ones who are (Israeli) soldiers, the ones who are in occupation” of Palestinian lands, because “that’s resistance.”

Whether the Khalidi farewell was a “Jew-bash,” as one blog labeled it, is not evident, as the video that Wallsten was apparently working from won’t be released to the public.

But Wallsten revealed enough by writing that Obama was a “frequent dinner companion” of Khalidi and has been present at events, such as the farewell party for Khalidi, “where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.”

At that function, one speaker said that if Palestinians cannot secure their own land, “then you will never see a day of peace.” Another, Wallsten wrote, “likened ‘Zionist settlers on the West Bank’ to Osama bin Laden.”

This is the sort of company that Obama keeps. It’s no surprise, though, because Obama has surrounded himself with racist, anti-American ministers (Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger), an unrepentant terrorist (Bill Ayers, who has links to Khalidi through a foundation he and Obama worked on together), radical groups (ACORN, the New Party) and a convicted felon (Tony Rezko).

In addition to dining often with him, Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama’s failed 2000 congressional campaign. He knows the Illinois senator well enough to say that he’s “the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause.”

This should be enough for Obama supporters who stand behind Israel to rethink their vote. Those concerned about honesty and integrity should do the same, since Obama has sworn to be a friend of Israel.

Obama’s deception reminds us of the way that Arafat tolerated Israel when talking to the Western media, but had the tongue of a terrorist when speaking in Arabic to radical Palestinian elements. Arafat said what he needed to say to keep his position of power. Obama will say anything to get elected, and then do another to achieve his goal of cutting off oxygen to Israel, the only freely elected government and U.S. friend in the region, outside of the newly formed Iraq.


Obama And Frank: A Farewell To Arms

Obama And Frank: A Farewell To Arms

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Defense: How will Barack Obama and friends fund their plan to spread Joe the Plumber’s wealth? They intend to beat our swords into welfare checks, leaving America exposed to its mortal enemies.

IBD Series: Obama vs. McCain — The Great Divide


In a revealing meeting with the editorial board of the Southcoast (Mass.) Standard-Times last week, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., called for a 25% cut in military spending, saying: “We don’t need all these fancy new weapons.” Judging from his past comments, Obama seems to agree. He says we should talk to our enemies. Obama, Frank and the Democratic caucus would have us speak softly and carry no stick at all.

The irony here is that this call to disarm is coming from the party of Franklin Roosevelt, who called the United States the “arsenal of democracy.” Obama is a far cry from Harry Truman or the Jack Kennedy who said that only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt will we be certain beyond doubt they will never be employed.

It’s “fancy new weapons” that now provide a rudimentary amount of protection against ballistic missile attack both here and abroad. What olive branch does Obama suppose will protect against Iraq’s Shahab missiles, once they’re armed with nuclear warheads?

In a video presentation to the far-left group Caucus for Priorities, Obama revealed just where Frank’s 25% cut might come from. “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” he said. “I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.”

So forget about national missile defense or responding to a realistic assessment of our enemies’ intentions and capabilities.

In July, when Iran conducted tests of missiles capable of reaching Israel, Obama called for “aggressive diplomacy” and said Iran “must suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behavior.” Wow, that’s telling them.

John McCain said Iran’s tests showed that we need effective missile defense “now and in the future,” including the planned missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland. Rather than unilateral disarmament, McCain has also said: “We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending ourselves and our allies.”

Caucus for Priorities is a campaign of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Its mission is to “change U.S. budget priorities to reflect a national commitment to education, healthcare, energy independence, job training and deficit reduction — at no additional taxpayer expense — by eliminating funding for unneeded Cold War-era weapons systems.”

That will certainly deter a rearming and expansionist Russia, an ambitious China and a dangerous Iran. If Obama wins, the “obsolete Cold War weapons” to be done away with, to Russian and Chinese glee, include the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22 Raptor to replace our aging F-15s, the wings of which are literally falling off. The Raptor can fly to and from Iranian nuclear facilities undetected should the need arise, as it very well may at some point.

Frank, Obama and the Caucus for Priorities would eliminate two Air Force fighter wings. Our already depleted Navy would eliminate an aircraft carrier group as both China and Russia are building them. Gone too would be the Virginia-class attack submarine and the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class destroyer.

Unfortunately, people in Beijing, Moscow and Tehran will be defining our needs for us. And as our enemies turn out everything from ballistic missile submarines to anti-satellite weapons, we’d do well to remember that providing for national defense is in the U.S. Constitution and that job training is not.

Caucus for Priorities says its goal is to “redirect 15% of the Pentagon’s discretionary budget away from obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger, deficit reduction.”

To which we and John McCain say that the greatest social service a government can perform for its people is to keep them alive and free.

Media’s Presidential Bias and Decline

Media’s Presidential Bias and Decline

Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why


Oct. 24, 2008 —


The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer,” because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I’m cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living — and when I knew her, scary — grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I’ve spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist,” you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there’s always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word “said” — muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. — to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.

But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can’t achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty — especially in ourselves.

Reporting Bias

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.

Sure, being a child of the ’60s I saw a lot of subjective “New” Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from “real” reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.

I’d spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else’s work — not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I’d always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense & indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes — and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who’d managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation’s leading newspapers, many of whom I’d written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith — and I know the day and place where it happened — was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I’d already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story & but it never happened.


The Presidential Campaign

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather — not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake — but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far — such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain’s daughter’s MySpace friends — can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side — or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer — when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?


Joe the Plumber

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it’s because we don’t understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide — especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes & and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain’s. That’s what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I’m still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren’t those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don’t see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn’t; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.


Bad Editors

Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you’ve spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power & only to discover that you’re presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn’t have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you’ll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe — and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway — all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself — an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it’s all for the good of the country &

This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News.

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation’s best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation’s first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world’s largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling “Virtual Corporation.” Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, “The New Heroes.” He has been the “Silicon Insider” columnist since 2000.


Distrbute The Wealth

BHO Admits He’s a Socialist

Obama 2001: Scrap the Constitution, spread the wealth

Obama 2001: Scrap the Constitution, spread the wealth

All I can say is “Wow.”

If McCain had known of this tape a few weeks ago, the chance to hammer Obama into submission would have been possible. Now, with just 8 days to election, he must work fast to exploit the shocking admissions made by Obama that 1) he believes that the Warren Court did not “break free from the essential constraints” found in the Constitution in order to redistribute wealth to the Black poor; and 2) he believes in “redistributive change” for America.

Here’s the video of Obama’s interview on Public Radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001:

Boehner Hits Obama On ?redistributive Change?

Boehner Hits Obama On ?redistributive Change?

Oct 27, 2008

(The Politico) Add John Boehner to the list of Republicans pouncing on seven-year-old comments from Barack Obama, in which the Democratic nominee discusses “redistributive change” in the context of Supreme Court decisions.

Both Boehner and John McCain have been trying to pin the “socialist” label on Obama in the waning days of the campaign—suggesting that Obama wants to raise taxes to pay for expanded social welfare programs.

“As disturbing as Barack Obama’s comments about ‘redistribution of wealth’ are, what’s worse is that seven years later his rhetoric is the same,” Boehner said Monday in a statement.

“Obama still wants to ‘redistribute’ our tax dollars and ‘spread the wealth around,’ giving money to people who don’t pay taxes rather than growing our economy for everybody.”

The Obama campaign immediately pushed back, arguing that the Right is deliberately misinterpreting a narrow legal argument Obama was making about decades-old court cases.

“This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report and John McCain,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

“In this seven year old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all.”

Obama-Pelosi-Reid Is Picture Markets Won’t Like: Amity Shlaes

Obama-Pelosi-Reid Is Picture Markets Won’t Like: Amity Shlaes

Commentary by Amity Shlaes


Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) — Obama, OK. Obama-Pelosi-Reid? A nightmare for markets. McCain-Pelosi-Reid? OK. McCain and Republican majorities in both House and Senate? Another nightmare.

That at least is the analysis of Eric Singer of Congressional Effect Fund, a new mutual fund. As noted in an earlier column, Singer got into the index business after he found that the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index performs two or three times better when Congress is out of session than when at least one of the two chambers is at work.

That difference, Singer discovered, wasn’t because of political party — a laboring Republican Congress was also problematic. The poor performance, rather, reflects market anxiety that the House and Senate generate when they pass a new regulation or revise laws already on the books. Simple congressional workday chatter about possible changes is also negative, according to the Singer data.

“Even talk is not cheap,” he says.

This past August, with Congress safely on holiday, markets were still weird. That set Singer to wondering anew.

He noted that there were years, such as 1998, in the middle of Congress’s Republican reassertion, when markets did great even when lawmakers were at their posts.

Combing his data back to 1965, Singer found a second trend. A split Washington, in which at least one of the two chambers is led by a party other than the president’s, points to a better total return for the S&P 500 than a unified Washington in which the presidency, House and Senate are controlled by one party.

Clinton Constrained

Having Democrat Bill Clinton in the White House in 1998 constrained congressional Republicans, or the other way around.

Singer found that the average annual total return for the S&P 500 when Washington is a one-party town is 9.4 percent. The average performance for the index when Washington is split is 10.6 percent.

The distinction becomes clearer when you adjust for inflation. Singer used the annual average of the daily gold price as a deflator rather than a year-over-year number because he wanted to screen for the volatility of commodities. Singer found that in periods of a unified Washington, the S&P 500 averages real losses of 7.8 percent. A split Washington, by contrast, racks up a real gain averaging 8.7 percent. That 16- plus point spread is the quantification of the peril of a powerful Washington.

These numbers also suggest that inflation tends to be worse in unified years. This makes sense — when Washington is mightier, one fashion in which it uses its power is minting money, consequences be damned. A Federal Reserve chairman who must report to only one party, instead of two, has fewer rounds to make when he seeks support for the Fed’s actions.

Drama Days

The Singer method also captures the drama of 1980. Washington was all Democratic, though it was clear even in the spring that Ronald Reagan might win the presidency.

The market reacted by rising in anticipation of a change. The price of gold reacted by falling late in the year. One might argue that this reflected the market’s faith that Reagan would spend less than President Jimmy Carter. But the change in gold prices may also have been the result of political division within the Democratic Party.

The new Fed chairman, Paul Volcker — a Democrat who today is advising Senator Barack Obama in the race for president against John McCain — started applying the brakes at the Fed. By exercising monetary restraint, a trait identified at the time with the Republican Party, Volcker — with backing from Carter – – provided a counterweight to free spenders of either party.

Hurting Returns

An all-Republican Washington can hurt real total returns, too. In 2005, the S&P gain of 4.9 percent was more than erased by the 8.5 percent increase in the price of gold. In 2006, gold was up about 36 percent but the S&P climbed only 16 percent, a net 20 percent loss.

The scholars who look at this sort of thing all have slightly different takes on it. Some quibble, for example, with Singer’s choice of gold as a measure of inflation. But recent events confirm the validity of the gold meter. The consumer price index shows an increase of only 2.5 percent between December 2005 and December 2006 — quite a contrast with that 36 percent increase in gold for the year. Today’s markets suggest that gold did a better job than the CPI of predicting bubbles.

In Singer’s data we see early discounting for this year’s stock price collapse.

It’s been said of numbers that if you torture them enough they will admit to anything. This year Congress and the White House were held by different parties, and we still managed to have our historic crash.

Getting Ready

Markets, which don’t care whose campaign they ruin, may also be bracing for an all-Democratic Washington. Consumers may also be spending less not only because of the market turmoil but also because they believe a government dominated by Democrats may, in the future, allow them to keep less of their earnings.

This would fit in with the late Milton Friedman‘s permanent-income hypothesis. Singer is now studying market performance when a single party holds not only the White House and Congress, but also a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. With each passing day that, too, looks like a number worth crunching.

(Amity Shlaes, a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Amity Shlaes at