"Most Ethical Congress Ever"

In 2006 Democrat businessman Tim Mahoney denounced his opponent, Rep. Mark Foley, for his role in the rather sordid House Page scandal. Mahoney forced Foley to resign and quit the campaign and then his lawyers prevented the Republicans from placing the replacement candidate's (state Rep. Joe Negron) name on the November ballot. Given all this, Mahoney eked out a narrow win in a Democratic year. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/676/

Whatever his flaws, one would have thought Mahoney would be mildly moral given his path to office. Nope. Not even close.

Congressman's $121,000 Payoff to Alleged Mistress


Guess this was all a public investment in "a world that is safer, more moral."

Worse still for the Democrats is one of their top leaders, Rahm Emanuel, is alleged to have known about this disgraceful conduct and to have counseled Mahoney on how to avoid political fallout. Of course, Emanuel recruited Mahoney in 2006 at a time when Foley looked like a shoo in, which leads one to surmise Emanuel knew about Foley's misdeeds before they went public, too, and now is merely trying to protect his political investment. 

Evidently, as per Wikipedia Mahoney has been holding himself out as a potential opponent to Senator Mel Martinez  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010#Mel_Martinez_of_Florida

Another possible challenger is Rep. Tim Mahoney (FL-16), who defeated Mark Foley in 2006 after revelations about inappropriate relations between Foley and his staff surfaced. If he is reelected in 2008, he will have proven his ability to win in a Republican-leaning congressional district, which potentially could make him a strong candidate in a statewide run.

Perhaps Mahoney should pursue his statewide ambitions, as he can follow in the footsteps of two prominent Democrats in this part of the country who paid for sexual pleasure --Eliot Spitzer and Jim McGreevey 

Go to fullsize image Go to fullsize image

I await with baited breath the pleas from Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Party Chairman Dean and Florida Democrat Senator Nelson for this sleazeball to resign from the House and quit his embarassing re-election campaign.

We forced Foley to quit. Evidently the "most ethical congress in history" doesn;t feel the need to take similar action.

We should take some action , though This should be a Republican seat, as it includes such places as Hobe Sound and Port Charlotte  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida's_16th_congressional_district and we have a good candidate http://www.tomrooney.com/ already running.

We ought to hang this one on the Democrats. They talk the talk, lets make this guy walk

Florida Sheriff SHOULD Be Censured For His Palin Rally Introduction


I may shock some of you with what I am about to say. I agree with the left that Sheriff Mike Scott of Lee Country, Florida should be censured for what he did at the Sarah Palin rally on October 6.

But first the background. On October 6 Sheriff Scott appeared in uniform to introduce Governor Sarah Palin at a rally held at Germain Arena in Estero, Florida. As he introduced Gov. Palin, Scott told the cheering crowd, "On Nov. 4, let’s leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened."

Naturally the far left is all upset that Scott's use of Obama's actual middle name is somehow "racist."

And now my shocking agreement with the left... well, at least near agreement. I agree that Sheriff Scott should be censured by the Country Sheriff's department for his actions.

There. I said it.

But, there is a crucial difference between why I want such a censure and why the left does. It is where I disagree with the left on why he should be censured that matters most.

The left wants Sheriff Scott censured for the absurd reason that he used Barack Hussein Obama's full name. This is a stupid reason to get mad at Sheriff Scott.

There is, however, a proper reason to want him slapped down by his bosses: He wore his uniform and was on duty while he introduced the Governor and as he participated in partisan activities at the same time.

Now, I want to be consistent, here. I would no more want a Sheriff to appear in uniform and on duty at a rally to introduce Barack Hussein Obama than the left would want him to introduce Sarah Palin. I think it is a misuse of his uniform and authority to appear at a partisan rally while wearing it. Fair is fair, after all.

No public servant in uniform should be allowed to wear their uniform to participate at a partisan political rally. Period.

I would have had no problem whatsoever if Sheriff Scott had appeared in civilian clothes and participated at the rally, just as I would have no problem with any other public official appearing at a political rally when in their role as private citizen. Public servants have just as much right to their freedom of political choice as anyone else.

But, while in uniform, it is an abuse of their position to use their uniforms representing the public trust to engage in partisan political activity.

Certainly a federal probe (as it looks like is being threatened now) is going too far, but he should be reprimanded just the same.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

No to bail-out


I would realy suggest that no Republican vote for the Pork filled BAILOUT. There isn't any need for kids wooden arrow manufacturing to be subsidised, alog with all the other pork.

Lets stick to the matra that if you make a bad desission, you live with it till you correct it.




What a Night!

Last night, both the Democrat and Republican nominees for President of the United States, Barack Obama and John McCain, met face-to-face in a debate forum for the very first time. Both appeared energetic and prepared to engage in this rhetorical battle in front of thousands who were there and millions watching at home.

Both of these two met and exceeded expectations set forth by their respective campaigns. For Barack Obama, long term, this might be where the good news for him ends.

I say “long term” because of the raw transcript of the debate. There were a number of instances where Obama looked as if he was trying to be all things to all people. There were also moments where he showed his youth and inexperience in other areas.

First, when the moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates about scaling back the federal budget as to what each of the candidates would do as president, Obama never mentioned one area where he would freeze or reduce spending. Instead, he mentioned his support for increased funding for early childhood education. All told, the combination of the Paulson bailout plan combined with Obama’s four-year spending proposals would add an additional $1.5 trillion to the federal budget alone. He needed to show where his cuts were going to be, but he showed an instance where he was going to increase spending.

Meanwhile, McCain gave areas where he would reduce spending starting with his least favorite items on the budget, earmarks. Next, McCain went to eliminating the ethanol subsidies and by tighting the screws on defense contracts so that defense spending is more efficient.

Obama supporters might be fast to point out that he will eliminate $10 billion a month ($480 billion over four years) by ending the war in Iraq and eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more a year. For the 48 months that he would be president which would not even come close to covering the costs for his spending proposals, tax cut for the bottom 95% of wage earners, covering a projected $600 billion deficit in his first budget, and the Paulson bailout plan. Sacrifices will have to be made and they might most likely start with the proposed tax cut (a la Bill Clinton).

The second mistake by Obama was a reversal of his position on so-called dirty energy. John McCain has made the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants to provide energy and combat climate change along with support for clean coal and offshore drilling parts of his energy plan along with renewable energy, flex-fuel vehicles, and better fuel economy.

Prior to last night, Obama had previously expressed his desire to tax coal, natural gas, and place a windfall profits tax on the oil companies which even he admits would not produce another drop of oil. However, last night Obama got in to the mode of being all things to all people by advocating his support for drilling, clean coal technology, and nuclear energy. The Sierra Club cannot be happy about this.

Third, Obama was clearly on the defensive about unconditional negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud “Adolph, Jr.” Ahmadinejad. A major mistake made here was the citation of former Secretary of State and McCain’s friend and advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger. Obama cited Kissinger as one of five former Secretaries of State who had advocated Presidential-level talks with Iran. The five include both of Bill Clinton’s (Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright) and James Baker, who served under Bush-41. McCain had said that Kissinger was not one of the five though Obama insisted he was. 

After the debate last night, Kissinger said the following: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.  My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.” Oops!

Fourth, there was a moment in the debate where John McCain and Barack Obama were comparing the bracelets they received from mothers who had lost their sons in Operation Iraqi Freedom. McCain gave the name of the soldier who was on his bracelet instantly without having to look. The same cannot be said of Obama who had to look at his to get the name. It might have been better for Obama to have not mentioned the name if it required him to take a look.

However, the biggest missteps by Senator Obama went under the radar because they were sprinkled throughout the debate. In all, there were eight instances where Obama expressed his agreement with Senator McCain. Within minutes, McCain’s campaign released a web ad (potentially a television ad in the future) showing where Obama agreed with McCain on responsibility and accountability, the earmarks process, and that business taxes are high. More could be made against Obama on the issues of spending cuts, the success of the troop surge strategy in Iraq, and that the world cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.

Writing in the National Review, Byron York stated a prediction: “The next time McCain and Obama meet in debate, on October 7 in Nashville, start a drinking game in which you take a big swig every time Obama says, ‘John is absolutely right.’ I’ll bet you get to the end of the debate without ever lifting a glass.”

In all, Senator McCain won this round despite the curtailing of national security issues (the original topic of the debate) for three questions on economic issues. The night was largely on McCain’s turf thanks to national security, talks about government spending more than anything else, and the aforementioned missteps of Senator Obama. However, for McCain, thanks to Obama’s energy and exceeding expectations, the win was not by as wide a margin as some anticipated.

Obama / McCain Debate Leaves Traces..

A few things I noticed is that McCain sounds rehearsed. That "Obama doesn't understand" line from McCain sounds like an attempt to demean in lieu of his lack of comparable experience. Then again, McCain is 72 years old. I dont think the playing field is even.

Another thing that bothered me is that McCain never looked at Obama even though Obama was looking at him and speaking directly to him. He did not pay him that respect and semed to be putting alot of effort into now staring anywhere in that remote area... I thought that said alot about McCain..

Obama semed to have facts to bring and McCain seemed to have alot of references to his "vast" experience.  If his experience is that good then why has he voted with Bush over 90% of the time? one of the most hated, genuinely stupid and failed presidents in American history?  it seems like McCain is Bush with a new package and a more "schooled" and "polished" appeal. It is pretty clear where this is leading..

FL Paper Quotes White Woman as Racist Against Obama, SHE Says She Never Mentioned Obama


<p>A 60-year-old white woman from Spring Hill, Florida is quoted as saying that there is no chance a black man can win the White House. This same woman, Sandra Cichon, is quoted in a total of three St. Petersburg Times stories, the latest being from <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/15/obama_race_campaign.html">September 15</a>. But in a follow up interview, <a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/260085">Barbara Sowell of digitaljournal.com</a> finds that Cichon claims she was never called by a pollster, as the paper claims, and never told any reporter that she wouldn't vote for a black man. </p>

<p>So who is right? Did the St. Petersburg Times merely make up racist quotes out of whole cloth and put words in the mouth of this woman or is she suddenly trying to take back what she said by claiming not to have been interviewed about Obama? Here's the story and you can decide. </p>

<p>On September 15, Adam Smith of the St, Petersburg Times wrote a story headlined "<a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/15/obama_race_campaign.html">Black 'issue' hangs over presidential polls</a>." Contained in the story are the following lines: </p>
<p>A pollster calling Sandra Cichon, a 60-year-old Democrat from Spring Hill, would hear her identify herself as an undecided voter. But is she really? </p>

<p> “I can’t imagine having a black president, and I think he’s inexperienced,” she told a reporter recently, eventually acknowledging she was leaning unenthusiastically toward McCain. “I don’t think we (Democrats) have a chance to be in the White House with Obama.” </p>
<p>This quote sure makes it seem as if Sandra Cichon is a racist and cannot vote for Obama because he's black. This isn't the only time that Cichon is quoted by this paper, though. In two earlier stories writer John Frank (the original reporter as identified by Adam Smith) interviewed Cichon on matters political. Both appeared on August 27. </p>

<p>The first one, "<a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article785957.ece">Russell, Mitchell, Hackworth win congressional primaries</a>," also gives us what we are told is a quote from Sandra Cichon.</p>
<p>The race was skewed by incredibly meager voter participation. Many Democratic voters said they were unimpressed with the quality of the candidates. </p>

<p>"I don't know one from the other," said Sandra Cichon of Spring Hill. </p>
<p>And in the second, "<a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article785799.ece">Dismal voter turnout in Hernando</a>," another quote from Cichon makes an appearance. </p>
<p>The main focus of this year's primary elections were the three County Commission races. In one, Republican incumbent Jeff Stabins battled two challengers, Michael Burmann and Jon "Jaz'' Zydenbos. </p>

<p>In the other two, Republicans John Druzbick, Hubert "Wayne'' Dukes and Charles Gaskin competed for the chance to oust incumbent Democrat Diane Rowden in District 3; James Adkins, William "Billy'' Healis and Michael Robinson tangled for a shot at unseating Democrat Chris Kingsley in District 5 in the Nov. 4 general election... </p>

<p>Sandra Cichon, 60, cast a ballot at Spring Hill United Church of Christ. She left disappointed because she couldn't vote in the hotly contested commission races as a registered Democrat. </p>

<p>"I wouldn't even have come if I knew," she said. </p>
<p>Notice how neither of these stories is about either the racial issue or Barack Obama. They are both about local races and in neither did Cichon seem to make any racial utterances as then reported. </p>

<p>The fact that the only other Cichon quotes had nothing to do with race when the later report did made Barbara Sowell curious. So she called the Times’ Adam Smith about his story. Smith told Sowell that the Cichon quote he used for his September 15 story was gathered from the notes of reporter John Frank and that Smith didn't talk to Cichon himself. </p>
<p>In a phone call to Times Political Editor, Adam Smith, who authored the article in question, Smith said that he had the utmost confidence in the reporter, John Frank. Smith said that Frank was the reporter who actually spoke with Cichon. Smith said it is understandable that Cichon wouldn’t want to admit over the phone to making that statement, but “polls all over are showing that people are not hesitant in stating that they won’t vote for a black person.” </p>
<p>So, Sowell called up Cichon and asked her what her side of the story was. And since the Smith story mentioned a "pollster" who called Cichon, Sowell asked of that, as well. </p>
<p>The article fails to name the pollster who claimed to have called Cichon. When asked during my phone interview, Cichon denied speaking to any pollster on the phone. </p>

<p>Cichon explained that the only time she spoke with a reporter was in August when she went to vote in the county commission races. She said that he (the reporter) seemed nice and she gave him a catalogue for gift baskets. </p>

<p>"...This is crazy. I never spoke to any reporter about Obama. I’m going right down to the St. Petersburg Times and demand a retraction!" </p>
<p>It is a bit interesting to me that two earlier stories had no racial quotient at all and in both Sandra Cichon is presented as a Democrat. No hint of her "leaning unenthusiastically toward McCain" shows up in these earlier stories. Yet, as a month passes, suddenly Cichon is presented as a racist, Democrat apostate. Why the wildly different presentations of the same voter? </p>

<p>If it were true, would not the earlier two stories find it relevant to mention that Cichon was an "unenthusiastic" Democrat and might be considering a look at Republicans? Might that factor not make the local races somewhat more interesting? Yet, this whole Democrat supporting Republicans angle was curiously absent from the earlier stories. </p>

<p>For its part, the paper stands 100% behind John Frank’s reporting. I suppose there is no way to really prove who is telling the truth. It might end up being a he said (Adam Smith)/ she said (Sandra Cichon) tale. But it sure raises alarm bells in how differently Cichon appears in stories a month separated. </p>

<p>I report, you just scratch your head.</p>

<p>Be sure and Visit my Home blog <a href="http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/">Publius' Forum</a>. It's what's happening NOW!</p>

More Dem/Left Voter Fraud, This Time in Florida

WESH-TV in Orlando is reporting:

Local elections officials are looking into potential election fraud and some of the information is pointing to a Democratic-leaning voter's group.

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations For Reform Now, has been registering thousands of new voters for this year's election, but in Seminole County, some voter applications are being withheld until it's proven they're legitimate. <SNIP>

Seminole County's elections supervisor is holding up dozens of voter registration applications because they appear to be fraudulent: wrong addresses, bad signatures and more. <SNIP>

Many of the applications with suspect information were turned-in by the activist group ACORN.

This is the same thing that ACORN was/is doing here in Michigan, which the Detroit Free Press reported on last week:

Several municipal clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from a nationwide community activist group working to help low- and moderate-income families.

The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has a large voter registration program among its many social service programs. ACORN's Michigan branch, based in Detroit, has enrolled 200,000 voters statewide in recent months, mostly with the use of paid, part-time employees.

Here in Michigan, there are rumors that the state Attorney General's office is investigating.



Winchester women, (con't)

After laboriously trying to digest the latest debacles from Washington and Wall Street, I decided to thank my Supreme Being for Wasilla, Alaska  

Sarah Palin welcomed tens of thousand of her closest friends in central FL yesterday, and once again I noticed the prominence of "Winchester Women". Here's the Orlando Sentinel's  take on the event

To Jan Hatfield, a 58-year-old small businesswoman from Longwood, Palin embodies the women she sees everyday: the mothers who are also successful executives. "You can keep your faith and your family and still be a strong businesswoman," Hatfield said.

Like 'Western women'

Palin reminds George Wright of the Western women he always admired -- who can wear a skirt but shoot a gun.

"Western women have confidence in their capabilities and their femininity so that they don't have to sacrifice one to promote the other," said Wright, 68, of The Villages.


This might just be our secret demographic weapon


Old Media Helps Obama Push False Rush Limbaugh Immigration Quotes


Yesterday, the Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe reported that the Obama campaign was releasing some new Spanish language campaign ads on TV in Florida and other markets that feature Rush Limbaugh making what appears to be anti-Mexican comments. The ads then link Limbaugh to McCain on immigration attempting to smear them both in the minds of voters. The Limbaugh quotes, however, are so out of context that their use constitutes a lie. Unfortunately, too many media outlets are allowing these lies to stand unchallenged.

As O'Keefe reported on September 17, the ads feature quotes from Rush that display a shocking anti-Mexican immigrant feel. Titled "dos caras" -- or "two faces" -- Rush is quoted as calling Mexicans names and telling them to "shut up and get out."

"They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the television ad's announcer says in Spanish as a picture of Rush Limbaugh appears onscreen with quotes of him saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out."

"They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much," the ad continues. "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."

The companion radio ad uses the same script as above and then continues:

"Don't forget that John McCain abandoned us rather than confront the leaders of the Republican Party. Many of us were born here, and others came to work and achieve a better life for their families -- not to commit crimes or drain the system like many of John McCain's friends claim. Let's not be fooled by political tricks from John McCain and the Republicans. Vote so they respect us. Vote for a change."

It turns out that Rush did actually say the words that the ads use against him. But, it also turns out he did not say them about Mexicans! Rush was not telling Mexicans to "get out" nor did he say that Mexican immigrants are "stupid and unqualified."

O'Keefe, however, does not explain this in his Washington Post story. This lack of context was the same in other papers relating the story. The Chicago Tribune, for instance, didn't fully report the truth and neither did the Wall Street Journal.

However, both Jonathan Martin of Politico and our friend Jake Tapper of ABC did report the true context of the Limbaugh quotes. And Tapper goes the extra mile with his coverage, as he always does.

On his Wednesday radio program, Limbaugh successfully proved that his words were wildly taken out of context. As to the "shut up and get out" quote, when Limbaugh said this line he was saying it in context of the immigration laws that Mexico has in its own country for foreigners wishing to live in Mexico. Mexico's immigration laws are very strict and, as Limbaugh said, if you don't like Mexican laws you can "shut up and get out" as far as Mexican officials are concerned. Limbaugh did not say that Mexicans here in the U.S. should "shut up and get out" if they don't like our laws and that is the context in which Obama campaign was using this Limbaugh quote.

The second quote, "stupid and unskilled Mexicans," was also taken out of context by the Obama campaign.

Here I'll let Tapper explain:

Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.

Railing against NAFTA in 1993, Limbaugh said, "If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Not one of his most eloquent moments, to be sure, but his larger point was that NAFTA would mean that unskilled stupid Mexicans would be doing the jobs of unskilled stupid Americans.

I’m not going to defend how he said it, but to act as if this was just a moment of Limbaugh slurring Mexicans is not accurate. Though again, certainly if people were offended I could understand why.

On top of all these misuses of Limbaugh's words, to link Limbaugh with McCain on immigration is also a lie. Limbaugh was strongly against John McCain's soft immigration stance in the Senate. So, linking Limbaugh to McCain is simply absurd.

So, this Obama ad is filled with what amounts to lies. Will the rest of the Old Media follow Tapper's and Martin's example and expose this scurrilous Obama campaign tactic? It doesn't look like they will because this story was out all day on the 17th and no one followed up like Tapper and Martin did. Will the rest of the media remain mum allowing this Obama lie to hang out there unaddressed?

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

If He Could Make It There...He Could Make It Anywhere

An interesting poll out of New York shows Barack Obama up only 46-41%, a 5-point lead. The poll is not from a major company. It's from Sienna College. However, Sienna was in line with most of the polls taken previously. The last major national poll out of New York was Rasmussen that Obama up 19, Sienna had him up 18.

Ah, New York is this year's Hawaii. In 2004, Hawaii had two polls that showed narrow Bush leads, but Kerry won the state by 9 (as opposed to the 18 that Al Gore won it by in 2000.) Who knows, if may have been winnable had Bush put more effort into the state than merely sending Cheney out for a rally. Of course, should McCain compete for New York, it'll take a lot more than Sarah Palin holding a rally on the tarmac at Laguardia.

Is there anything that could facilitate a switch to McCain? Sure, here are some good ones:

  1. 9/11 happened there. McCain looks like a serious leader whose ready to be President-Obama not so much. New York has a lot at stake in the terrorism issue, more than perhaps any other state in the union.
  2. Corruptocrats: New York has had a big problem with government corruption, most recently with Democrat Elliot Spitzer's disgraceful resignation. The city's financial sector and economy has been wracked by the fall of giants like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Maybe giving reformers a chance makes sense.  
  3. Payback for Hillary: This is Senator Clinton's home state and loyal New Yorkers could exact some revenge on Barack Obama.
  4. Female VP: New Yorkers who wanted a female Vice-President could have one in Sarah Palin.
  5. No worries about Roe v. Wade: New Yorkers who are pro-abortion don't have to worry about Roe v. Wade being overturned, overturning Roe would only send the issue back to the states and New York isn't about to ban abortion.

Does McCain carry New York? Barring a national landslide in which he also carries Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey, too, I seriously doubt it. Does he compete for it? Not if he's smart. New York, like its neighbor New Jersey has to be rated a distraction from the current battlegrounds.

In other polling news...

  • New polls out this week. In Pennsylvania, Fox/Rasmussen has this race tied. The internals are even worse for Obama, by a 50-41% margin, Keystone State voters say they trust McCain more and if they had to ask advice about the most important decisions in the life, McCain would be their go to guy, 52-39%. Finally, McCain outdoes Obama in favorable ratings 60-55%, thought Obama enjoys a light (33-30%) edge in strongly favorable. For the fourths traight survey, Obama's lead is 3% or less, well within the margin of error. McCain's favorables mean this is going to be close. Let's move this to toss-up:

Other states:

Ohio: Fox/Rasmussen: McCain +3, Survey USA: McCain:+4, Suffolk University: McCain +4. After months as a toss-up, this state is definitely trending McCain.

Florida: Fox/Rasmussen: McCain +5. This is up from the previous poll showing it tied.

Virginia: Fox/Rasmussen: Tied, Survey USA: Obama +4. I'm leaving this as a toss-up. I should note that no poll other than Survey USA has shown an Obama lead of more than 2 this year.

Colorado: Fox/Rasmussen: McCain +2. Up until now, the credible polling had been pointing towards Obama. The last five credible polls had an Obama lead. I'll wait a little while before moving this back to toss-up and leave at Leans Obama.

Iowa: Des Moines Register: Obama + 12.  Two questions. Is this even still a swing state? If not, why are McCain and Palin holding a rally there later this month?

Utah: Rasmussen: McCain by 32, Deseret News: McCain by 38.  Obama may close to within 29 before this is all over...

Syndicate content