Comment on the election

Mark Alexander of PatriotPost.us offers this summary of the election made by a fellow conservative he knows:

"It's been tough, fellow Patriots; tough to stomach the idea that more than half of my fellow citizens who vote, have booted a genuine American hero to the curb for a rudderless charlatan. What a sad indictment on our citizenry that some are so eager to overlook his myriad flaws -- his radical roots, his extreme liberalism, his utter lack of experience or achievement. Barack Obama is the antithesis of King's dream: He's a man judged by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character. If it's God's will that Barack Obama is our next president, then so be it. We Patriots will pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and wade back to the war front, intent on liberty or death."

Well said.

Vote!

Well, election day is here. No matter what happens, we can at least be relieved that the political ads and phone calls are over, right?

Seriously, though, I hope you all have or will get out and vote. Don't be discouraged by polls that count out one candidate or try to make you think your vote won't matter.

When you're watching the returns tonight on TV, keep in mind that most of the news organizations will use exit polls to call states for one candidate even if hardly any votes are counted (and, in my opinion, they will be more likely to make premature calls for Obama since they are doing everything they can to drag him over the finish line). Since that is the case, this is important news:

Rasmussen asked voters how likely they were to answer exit pollster's questions. The results indicate more willingness on the part of Democrats to talk to the pollsters.

Reviewing Fox News/Rasmussen Reports data from key battleground states raises a couple red flags about the use of early exit polling data to predict a winner. Understanding this data from polling conducted last Sunday night may save some a repeat of 2004’s heartache.

The bottom line is that in every state we polled--Colorado, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia-- Democrats are a lot more eager to take exit polls than Republicans.

In five of the six states, a majority of Democrats say they would be Very Likely to participate in the exit polling process. At the same time, in five of the six states, fewer than 40% of Republicans would be willing to do the same.

In every state, Republicans are at least twice as likely as Democrats to say that they are not at all willing to take an exit poll.

Unaffiliated voters tend to align more closely to Republicans in all six states in both willingness and unwillingness to participate in exit polls.

This is even more important for west coast readers--don't let early returns in the east keep you away from the polls. You need to go vote for state and local issues, even if the presidential race seems like it might already be decided. And given that the exit polls are pretty suspect, you shouldn't assume the presidential race is already decided just because the news organizations said so.

Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!

Just Tell Us The Truth!

If you are a Christian, you need to watch this video before you cast your vote! And please send this to all of those you know who also care about what God cares about!

One Vote

Louis Farrakhan Declares Barack Obama The Messiah

Here’s a long version of his sermon

The Tape--Obama and the PLO

From Texas Rainmaker--but you can find the story on almost any right-wing blog:

Shameful and disgusting.

John McCain’s presidential campaign Tuesday accused the Los Angeles Times of “intentionally suppressing” a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist.

Apparently it was newsworthy enough to spawn an article in the paper, so we have to wonder what’s on the tape that is so newsworthy the paper (who has endorsed Barack Obama) does not want the world seeing before the election.

Maybe because the man Obama was heaping praise upon was a spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and served on the PLO “guidance committee”…
Mr. Khalidi was at that time “a director of the Palestinian press agency.” That would be Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija, or WAFA, the PLO press agency, where Mr. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, was chief English-language editor in 1976-82. Mr. Friedman quotes Mr. Khalidi in his official capacity saying that the Israelis are out to “crush the P.L.O.” … he served on the PLO “guidance committee” at the Madrid conference, along with such figures as Faisal Husseini, Hanan Ashrawi and Sari Nusseibeh.

And yet the L.A. Times has a video of Obama praising Khalidi and refuses to release it. Makes you wonder just what they’re trying to hide for their endorsed candidate.

That's a specific instance of media bias--but there's a general trend too. Here are some results from a recent Pew study of major media coverage of McCain and Obama over the six weeks between the conventions and the final debate (Sept. 3-Oct. 16):

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.

I'm pretty convinced that the media are pulling out all the stops to push their chosen candidate over the finish line. Don't let them discourage you--they will probably be even more negative about McCain over this final weekend. I wouldn't be surprised to see polls showing a big Obama lead after they've been tightening all week. Just remember what the media bias is, take it all with a HUGE grain of salt, and go vote!

Good News from Iraq

This will probably get lost in the election news, but there is great progress to report from Iraq:

October is on track to be the first month in which no U.S. troops have died in combat in Baghdad...

The news comes in a week in which the troops have already made headlines. Their latest milestone? Two days ago, the U.S. military had handed over control of yet another province to the people of Iraq. This is the 13th of the country's 18 provinces to be placed back in Iraqi control, a sign of the tremendous dedication of the men and women of our military.

Remember, Obama opposed the surge and even said that he still wouldn't have supported it, even knowing in hindsight that it worked. McCain was an early supporter of the surge and helped push Bush into doing it. I think what it says about their foreign policy judgment is pretty clear.

Joe Biden: "Mark My Words" . . . if Obama wins

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

Obama to Joe the Plumber: "spread the wealth around"

Charles Krauthammer: The case for McCain

Here’s a great piece by Charles Krauthammer explaining why John McCain is the wise choice to lead our country through dangerous times.

Do we really know the real Barack Obama?

Over the past two years, we have witnessed the glowing coverage of Obama by the Main Stream Media (MSM). But at what cost? Have we really been told all that we need to know about this man?

As these video and audio clips reveal, the answer is clearly no.

For Such A Time As This

If you want to help influence this election, use your time wisely. We only have a week and a half to do all we can to get McCain elected. Ask yourself how you are in the position to affect as many people as possible before the election.

One Recommendation: Wise Personal Engagement – person to person:

• Ask people (not in CA or NY) if they have made up their minds yet about what presidential candidate they are voting for.
• If they say yes, McCain, move on. You don't want to waste your time in a love-fest about how bad Obama is.
• If they say yes, Obama, move on. Don't try to change their minds. Most people do not want someone to change their minds once it is made up. It's called pride. Deal with it.
• If they say no, then ask what is their top consideration when voting for president.
• Once they tell you, then offer the best reason or reasons why McCain would do a better job in that area than Obama.
  

That is unless they offer any of the following as their top consideration for president:

• one who will take money from those who work hard and pay taxes to those who don't work and don't pay taxes (i.e. "spread the wealth around").
• one who will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will preserve the right of women to kill their unborn children.
• one who believes that world dictators don't like us because they just don't understand us.
• one who is not one of those evil Republicans.
• one who is black.
  

In any of these instances, than Obama is their man; just move on.*

*This segment of this post was brought to by moveon.org . . . not. ; - )

Another Recommendation: Wise Personal Engagement – via the internet:

• forward to everyone you know good online media clips that make a good argument.
  
• most who have yet to make up their minds are not the most read-up individuals, so most of them will not be very interested in reading stuff about who to vote for, but they would be willing to watch something. (Homer: “Ahhh, pretty lights moving around and making funny sounds.”) This is pathetic I know, but the sad reality is that these still-undecided voters will be deciding the outcome of this election.*
  
• For those who don’t have internet access, bring over your laptop or put them in front of your computer and show them something online.
  
  *If you prefer watching over reading, it’s obvious you are not one of those I am talking about above. Afterall, you are reading right now. ; - )
  
  

Another Recommendation: Wise Personal Engagement – with God:

• not only should you do all that you can as if everything depended on you, but you should pray as if everything depended on God.*
  
  * The truth is, everything is dependent on God, but apart from direct divine intervention, He uses His people in the process of redemption. (e.g. the Book of Ruth).

Voter Fraud: Impinging on Your Rights

I am reading a LOT these days about voter fraud in the upcoming presidential election. And in most cases, the liberal organization ACORN seems to be at the center. Hot Air has a great roundup, with lots of links:

Investors Business Daily asks what Barack Obama knows about the epidemic of voter fraud in ACORN, and it’s not an unfair question. Not only has Obama publicly endorsed ACORN, he has paid them at least $800,000 for their services, an amount that he didn’t immediately disclose until pressed. ACORN has responded in kind, with their voter-registration efforts that have resulted in criminal investigations in more than a dozen states.

(You did catch the Obama ties in that paragraph, right? Lots more at the link.)

In Nevada, ACORN workers submitted false registrations in the name of the entire Dallas Cowboys starting lineup--at least those are easy to catch! Here's more info on problems in Nevada:

[ACORN's] office was raided Tuesday morning by agents of the Nevada Secretary of State and Attorney General who alleged in an application for a search warrant that ACORN had hired 59 felons through a work release program as canvassers and submitted nearly 300 apparently fraudulent voter registration cards as part of the drive.

The submitted voter cards included addresses and names that do not exist in Nevada, duplicate registrations, names culled from telephone books and names of Dallas Cowboys players, an investigator for the Secretary of State alleged in his affidavit for a search warrant.

It's hard to tell whether anyone is voting under false pretenses, since many states don't require ID at the polls. It's hard to prove after the fact. But I did run across an article about recent elections in Texas, where dead people apparently voted.

Why does it matter? Granted, every bogus registration doesn't translate into a bogus vote. But thousands of bad forms to comb through do tax local elections boards and reduce the manpower available to find other serious problems. And some bogus votes probably do get cast. In a post on the fact that Indianapolis has apparently registered 105% of its adult residents, Lawhawk summarizes (via Instapundit, who has more links):

The New York Times and Washington Post forgets that every bogus vote cast or indicated means that your legitimate vote gets offset by someone who is voting illegally. Your right to vote is harmed by these illegal and bogus votes. That's the crime committed here...

This is a serious issue of trust in our election system. Granted, in most cases, the presidential vote in a given state isn't close enough to be swayed by a few thousand illegal votes. But if I recall correctly, Florida in 2000 had a margin of something like 500 or 600 votes, and that state decided the election. Plus, the state and local races often have much closer margins, and those are important too.

Youtube continues censorship

Youtube continues to remove content that jeopardizes the Obama campaign. The latest involves footage that describes the hypocrisy of Obama’s words at the recent Saddleback Civil forum where he criticized our nation's leaders for not following Jesus’ imperative to consider “the least of these” (Matt. 25:40). He boldly declares this all the while neglecting the needs of his very own half-brother who lives in poverty in the slums of Kenya.

Related articles:

Obama’s half brother found link

Townhall.com article link

The Right Gets it Wrong, and the Left Doesn't Get it

By Rich Bordner

(The title of this post borrows a book title from left-leaning author Jim Wallis. I don't buy the guy's views really, but the title fits this blog, so I'm stealing it.)

Ever since McCain picked Palin as his running mate, I've been getting more into politics. It is interesting stuff.

One thing I've noticed is that, though the left is crossing the ethical line in campaigning more egregious ways, the right is as well.

Those familiar with my views know that I'm a conservative. Not only are my views conservative, aligning much more with Republicans than Democrats, but I also think that McCain will make a much, much better president than Obama. However, I am disappointed not just with some of the things the McCain campaign has done and said, but I am disappointed at the conservative commentators as well.

Do you ever get the feeling that both sides are playing this shell game, trying to make their base super-confident while making the other side uncertain? I can understand the strategy, on the one hand, but on the other hand, this can backfire; when folks see the shell game for what it is, the gig's up and it hurts you more than helps.

Then again, most of the time the public falls for pretty silly stuff, so whatever.

Some of the things the Obama campaign and democratic commentators have done is pretty below-the-belt. It seems like they are stopping at nothing to smear Palin, make McCain sound panicky, and make Palin sound like a fundie nutjob without a clue. One skimming of the Daily Kos, or the Atlantic, or one look at the full text of Charlie Gibson's interview with Palin (the edits are astounding) will show that in spades. Palin's personal email has been hacked. The AP has info on who did it but is refusing to cooperate with the feds. In fact, they blame Palin for the crime! Obama's dodges of Gianna Jessen's ads (saying she is lying) are despicable.

But the right doesn't have completely clean hands either. McCain waaaay overplayed the "lipstick on a pig" line. It wasn't a malicious attack. At worst for Obama, it just revealed inexperience; he should have known how his audience would interpret it, but I don't think he was intentionally targeting Palin. Even if he was, McCain/Palin came off as a bit whiny by making such a big issue about it, rather than just plain ignoring it.

The conservative commentators are even worse. Some make a big to do about Palin smears, but then they call names and make insinuations as well. For example, I'm on Michelle Malkin's blog every day. She has some good stuff. But boy can she be downright nasty! Go to her blog and scroll down the side. Notice how just about every picture she has of Obama and/or his wife depicts them in the most ugly fashion? Just about every picture of Michelle Obama is of her snarling her face. That, or she looks like trailer trash. The pics of Obama are no better. Malkin knows what she is doing. It might be an effective tactic, but its manipulative.

Others call Obama names like Obumble or Dalibama.

One Conservative Canadian blogger wrote a great post about the tactics of the far left...or at least it was a great post, until he said the following about Arianna Huffington and her appearance (opposite Chuck Norris) on Larry King Live:

"..she is just jealous of a woman who worked to get where she is instead of making the journey on her knees and back (you heard me right, she married rich). I just wish Chuck Norris, who was also on Larry King, would have nailed her with his signature roundhouse kick (a dream yes, but one I wish would have come true)."

So the far left's attacks against Palin are out of bounds, but an assertion that Huffington used sexual favors to climb the ladder of success is a-ok?

Huffington might be pretty astonishing in the drivel she writes, but what the heck is wrong with Canadian Conservative?!

At the end of the day, my vote is still solidly conservative. No matter how bad the cacophony gets, that won't outweigh the bad effects an Obama presidency will have on this country.

But I want to say to both sides: what good does it do you if you "gain the whole world, yet forfeit your soul? (Matthew 16:26)"

Caught up in Election Mania

I'm starting to feel a little overwhelmed by all the election news, the economy, the war. Everything is the most, the biggest, the worst, the absolute most important thing. So I needed this reminder, from the Anchoress:

I’m praying and fasting “that wisdom and light be brought to guide our nation in this election period, and that Thy will be done…” whatever that ends up being. I was a little appalled to get one missive from a lady who said she was Christian but was clearly in high-hand-wringing mode. Her worry: what if I encourage others to pray and fast “but we lose! If we lose it will not be good witness to the power of God! It will say God is defeated!”

My prayer is not for victory. It is for the very best outcome for the country, and for God’s will to be done. Our ways are not God’s way, nor our minds God’s mind...

So, let us not worry. Let us not wring our hands. For the Christian, anyway, I believe we are in a moment where the rubber meets the road. How do you respond to that? With trust that no matter what things seem like, that “all things work for good and to the Glory of God” or with wringing hands, depression and doubt?

If you are doubting…if you are thinking that only electoral victory - as defined by the world - will be a validation of either the existence of God, or His Intent, then you need to hunker down into scripture and get out of your own head. Do you believe that Christ is the Son of God, or do you not? If you do, do you really think that this election is all there is, and that a loss here is somehow static, and works to nothing in God’s purpose?

To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under the heaven.

You either believe that, or you don’t.

“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

You either believe it, or you don’t.

But if you’re calling yourself a Christian, and you’re not believing it, then question what you say you believe.

Yes, I am praying; yes I am fasting. I am not doing these things for a “victory.” I’m doing it because I am in training. I’m taking the long-view, and understanding that nothing ends or begins on November 5 that has not already ended and begun...

I'm certainly not going to stop thinking about the issues and working to share important news and trying to persuade others of the Truth. But I think I need to take a breath, and be calm, and stop worrying, and trust. If you're feeling the same way, read the whole thing.

Figures don't lie, but liars can figure #2

As I've mentioned on this blog before, my dad is fond of saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." He's pointing out that it is often possible to twist numbers so they seem to support your point of view. You shouldn't just accept statistics as valid just because they sound official and scientific.

Here's a really good example: the current presidential polls. This is a really good post looking at the last five weeks of the Gallup tracking poll. Gallup releases the total numbers, and then also breaks down the numbers by party identification (liberal dem, moderate dem, independent, liberal repub, etc.) The alert blogger at Wizbang, DJ Drummond, looked at these party ID numbers and did a bunch of math and concluded (emphasis in the original):

So, put it all together, and in the past week Obama has stayed steady or lost support in every party identification group, yet Gallup says his overall support went up four points. And McCain stayed steady or went up in every party identification group, yet we are supposed to accept the claim that his overall support went down by four points? Anyone have an answer for how that is even possible?

Well, actually I do. There is one, and only one, possible way that such a thing can happen mathematically. And that way, is that Gallup made major changes to the political affiliation weighting from the last week to now. Gallup has significantly increased the proportional weight of Democrat response and reduced the weight of Republican response.

People do change party ID over time. But we're talking about something like an 8% swing in one week for this poll to be accurate. I think that's pretty unlikely. In the past 10 years there's never been more than a 2% change in those identifying as Democrats between elections (the biggest Republican swing is 3%). And that is over a period of 2 years, not one week. Basically, the pollsters are trying to guess at the electorate's party ID, and they all guess differently, and they change their guesses week-to-week.

That's not the only reason you should take polls with a grain of salt. For starters, you may remember that both polls before the election and exit polls of actual voters overstated Democratic support in 2000 and 2004. I'm not sure why this is true--perhaps it is tied to weighting by party ID! But it is historical evidence of the problem.

You should also know about the registered voter/likely voter issue. We know that everyone who is registered to vote doesn't actually vote each year. So pollsters ask some questions to try to guess who is a "likely voter" and then release numbers based on their choice for president. But, really, these are at best educated guesses. This year, the guesses are confused even more because Obama is a candidate with particular appeal to the youth vote (under 25); this group traditionally has very low turnout. No one can know in advance who will vote. When you look at a poll, it's important to check whether it is of registered voters or likely voters. If it's registered voters, it may be overstating the Democratic vote, based on historical turnout patterns; if it's likely voters, it might be influenced by the pollster's guesses--possibly biased--about who will actually vote.

There are a whole bunch of other things that can influence a poll. For example, pollsters are starting to get worried about cell phones, which don't get called for most polls. If people have only cell phones and no landline, they can't be in the survey. If these people all tend to vote in one particular way, it could bias the results. A new Pew Report suggests that this might make a 2-3% difference in the results. Another factor can be the age and gender of the interviewer, especially for in person interviews such as exit polls on the day of the election. Inexperienced interviewers might also have trouble getting enough respondents to cooperate.

Finally, pay attention to the margin of error. Most polls of 1000 or so people have margins of error around 2.5-3%. Remember, this applies to both candidates. So, if the number for McCain is 47% with a 3% margin of error, then the real number is assumed to be 44-50%. Likewise for Obama. If the spread between the candidates is less than double the margin of error, it is really showing a race that is too close to call. Also remember that, if the whole poll has a margin of error of 3%, if it then breaks down different groups (men, women, by race, from a particular state), the margin of error for those subgroups will be larger than 3%.

So that's some stuff I know about surveys, from my job and from a lot of reading about this stuff. Bottom line, don't just read a headline about a poll and assume that it is honest truth! The poll that counts is the actual vote.

If you're a statistical geek like me, and you want more info on this topic, you might want to check out pollster.com. For exit polls in particular, this pollster.com page is a good place to start, with lots of links.

Media Bias: Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson

Remember that big interview Sarah Palin did with Charlie Gibson of ABC News? Well, ABC released the full transcript of the original interview, not just what was shown on TV. Newsbusters describes how ABC did some serious editing to make her look less knowledgeable and experienced, more like a warmongerer, more like a "scary fundamentalist" and less like a reasonable Christian. Really interesting read, you should definitely check it out.

Also read Charles Krauthammer on Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine. Liberals are crowing that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and thus betrayed her ignorance of foreign policy. Krauthammer says Gibson got it very wrong and betrayed his "establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension" in the process.

This kind of clear media bias in misleading editing just shows why you can't believe everything you hear on TV. You need to make sure you're getting information from a variety of sources and checking it against what you know. I know, this is harder and takes time and effort and thought, but it's important.

(I know the interview was something like a week and a half ago, so I apologize for the tardiness of this post, but if you live in central Ohio you know we've been dealing with crazy power outages and so on. Anyway, I think it's still relevant.)