New Obama ad: McCain’s an anti-amnesty Republican racist like Rush Limbaugh

CBS poll: Obama leads by five after trailing by two post-convention

McCain up 9 in Virginia — among registered voters

Absolutely despicable.  Both men should be ashamed of themselves.

Barack Obama ripped his country again at his Hollywood fundraiser. He said that if he loses this election, the country will get "meaner."

Democrats Killed Iraq's Deal with US Oil Companies

Thanks to three American senators, China will be pumping Iraqi oil. 

The Iraqi government was poised to sign no-bid contracts with those firms this summer to help make immediate and needed improvements in Iraq's oil infrastructure. The result would have been significant foreign investment in Iraq, an expansion of Iraqi government revenues, and an increase in the global supply of oil. One would have thought that leading Democratic senators who claim to be interested in finding other sources of funding to replace American dollars in Iraq, in helping Iraq spend its own money on its own people, and in lowering the price of gasoline for American citizens, would have been all for it. Instead, Senators Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rice asking her "to persuade the GOI [Government of Iraq] to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq." The Bush administration wisely refused to do so, but the resulting media hooraw in Iraq led to the cancellation of the contracts, and helps to explain why Iraq is doing oil deals instead with China.

While the media desperately seeks a relevant angle on the so-called “Troopergate” non-story out of Alaska, or perhaps investigates who paid for Sarah Palin’s tanning bed, a U.S. senator who has not been elected president attempts to undermine legitimate negotiations between the man who has and the government of the nation we would like to stop occupying as soon as possible.

Why is the mainstream media ignoring the story? Well, first and foremost, because they want Obama to win the election. But it goes deeper than that. They’re ignoring the story because they don’t see anything wrong with what Obama did.

The problem, of course, is that Bush is the president, and that undermining him puts both the war effort and the troops at risk – not to mention the potential long-term stability of Iraq. There is also the matter of respecting the office of the president and the electoral process that put Bush in that office. The press doesn’t care about any of that. They only care that they’re tired of Bush and want him gone.

The other reason the press is giving Obama a pass on this is that they agree with what he was trying to do. Undermine Bush and the war effort? They’ve been trying to do that for years. Trumpeting bad news while ignoring the good? Screaming headlines about roadside bombs and troop-death “milestones” while ignoring yet another province we get under control? They’ve been at it since before the 2004 election. Any reporter who was in that room with Obama probably would have asked Zebari much the same question

Biden’s campaign attorney: Washington lobbyist

Alaska AG says subpoenas a dead letter

Jack Cafferty: If Obama loses, it’s because of racism

News flash (to the Left): Rosenbergs were spies

(An aside: Some Hollywood “historians” make McCarthy the villain not just of his jeremiads against the State Department and the Army, but also against Hollywood.  That’s not accurate.  The effort to root out Communist “sympathizers” in the entertainment industry came from the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC.  Senator McCarthy never sat on this committee, nor did the committee impose the “blacklist”; that came from studio executives, under tremendous political pressure to clean out Communists.)

It’s time for all the myths to end.  The Soviets presented a grave danger to this nation, and the Rosenbergs were a large part of their assault on America.  Their continued enshrinement as martyrs to free political thought insults both history and the intelligence of this nation.

Case closed: The Rosenbergs were spies

Gang of 10/16/20 breaking up?

Cavuto versus O’Reilly: “You push this populist nonsense that doesn’t make sense”

May 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

If we elect Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, we will get a rerun of the windfall-profits fiasco that Ronald Reagan finally ended in the early 1980s. Obama has added his own plan to Hillary’s on the stump, which would hike taxes on oil companies while gas prices go through the roof. Not only does this make little sense, but we already have a history of failure that proves it, as Investors Business Daily reminds us.

Hillary: I can’t protest Ahmadinejad because Sarah Palin might be there

Like I say, I’m a sucker.

“We are pleased to inform you that the keynote speakers at the “Stop Iran. Now!” Rally are confirmed to be Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Governor Sarah Palin and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel,” read an e-mail from a leader of a Jewish group planning the event.

But the curtain came down on the comedy sketch-turned-reality before the duo ever hit the stage: Clinton officials soon said they had not been told Palin would be on hand — and that her presence, which made the event a political one, would mean the absence of the New York senator.

The McCain-Palin campaign has not yet said whether Palin herself will still be attending the event, but released a statement criticizing Clinton’s withdrawal. “Governor Palin believes that the danger of a nuclear Iran is greater than party or politics,” said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. “She hopes that all parties can rally together in opposition to this grave threat.”

Am I hallucinating or didn’t Her Majesty and The One manage to momentarily overcome their differences last year and join hands in the interest of another good cause? How come that joint appearance didn’t make the Selma event a “political” one? Answer: It did, but Hillary didn’t stand to lose any votes by being there. She does stand to lose votes — for Obama, as his most prominent surrogate — if she shows up on Monday and gladhands the usurper, so naturally she put her party interest first and backed out. She’s the one making it a political event, not Palin. If she was half as committed to this cause as she pretends to be, she’d opt for a compromise: To avoid any fallout from having the two of them momentarily share a stage or, lord forbid, a handshake, simply coordinate the schedules so that they aren’t there at the same time. It speaks volumes that her first impulse was to say “to hell with it” rather than seek an accommodation.

As it is, now Palin’s invite is in jeopardy too. Exit question: Which party-over-country Hillary pander is more disgraceful, this one or the time she did MoveOn’s bidding by voting against that Senate resolution expressing support for Petraeus after the “Betray Us” ad?