Yes, it is a one day sample.

Yes it's Zogby.

But imagine what the number would be if the Los Angeles Times was a newspaper and not a press agent, if the MSM had spent as much time probing Senator Obama's tax plans as it had Joe the Plumber's tax liens, and if Obama hadn't broken his word about public financing.

When Obama declared last night that it was five days until he "fundamentally transformed" America, he let slip just as candid a moment as when he told Joe about his plans to "spread the wealth," and as when Joe Biden told us to "Mark my words." 

Never have so few phrases moved so many undecided voters. 

Will it be enough?  Pennsylvania?  Ohio? New Hampshire?  Every middle class voter who wants their money back and growth to return?

For some weekend reading,try my new Townhall.com column on what Ayers, Rezko, Phleger and Wright might be thinking these days.

The song of the week at www.amaze.fm.

(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)

J-Pod has 10 Reasons Why McCain Might Win, and it's a nice list, worth a glance at least.

With due respect to him, however, I have a better list. It has precisely one item on it:

1. We haven't had the election yet. So anyone who tells you — based on public opinion polls or science or guesswork or magic or anything else — that he or she knows what the outcome is going to be is lying to you.

Throughout this weekend and all day on Monday, there will be zillions of words communicated — spoken, read, printed, downloaded, whatever — about the result of the upcoming election. Every one of them is nothing better than a guess. We've seen in past elections that notwithstanding the best modern polling techniques, all sorts of polls — including "exit polls" on the very day of the election — have been badly off.

I am not one of those who argues every four years that "This year's election is the most important ever!" I don't know whether that will turn out to be true or not. I am confident, however, that there has never been an election remotely like this one. And you know that too, if you'll just take a snapshot poll of your own common sense.

Treat your own vote as if it might decide the election. Encourage your friends to do that too. Take responsibility. And don't let someone else — anyone else, and especially not some smug know-it-all newspaper or TV reporter, or three-quarter-in-the-bag pollster — persuade you to waste or squander the most precious aspect of your heritage as an American.

— Beldar

(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)

Some will view this as another chance to vote against Barack Obama.

As for me, though, it's a chance to express some solidarity with Bill Kristol as another early and steadfast Sarah Palin supporter. (H/t John McCormack at the Weekly Standard Blog.)

— Beldar

I really don't know how anyone can vote for Franken given that this is just the latest of a long line of deeply embarassing epidsodes for Minnesota's most famous tax-evading failed talk show host::




Send Norm Coleman a last contribution as a rebuke to Franken's entire approach to politics and humor.

Kathryn Jean Lopez sums up the case against Franken.

(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)

I'm a fan of the art of the backhanded complement. Giving someone praise subtly and indirectly can be more effective.

I am not a fan, however, of the backhanded condemnation, of which the Washington Post's editorialists today provide us with a superb and absurd example in the course of a spirited defense of Rashid Khalidi (boldface mine):

In the past couple of days, Mr. McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have likened Mr. Khalidi, the director of a Middle East institute at Columbia University, to neo-Nazis; called him "a PLO spokesman"; and suggested that the Los Angeles Times is hiding something sinister by refusing to release a videotape of a 2003 dinner in honor of Mr. Khalidi at which Mr. Obama spoke. Mr. McCain even threw former Weatherman Bill Ayers into the mix, suggesting that the tape might reveal that Mr. Ayers — a terrorist-turned-professor who also has been an Obama acquaintance — was at the dinner.

For the record, Mr. Khalidi is an American born in New York who graduated from Yale a couple of years after George W. Bush. For much of his long academic career, he taught at the University of Chicago, where he and his wife became friends with Barack and Michelle Obama. In the early 1990s, he worked as an adviser to the Palestinian delegation at peace talks in Madrid and Washington sponsored by the first Bush administration. We don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Khalidi has had to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and Mr. Obama has made clear that he doesn't, either. But to compare the professor to neo-Nazis — or even to Mr. Ayers — is a vile smear.

At last! At last the Washington Post recognizes — backhandedly — that today's Bill Ayers, and not just the Bill Ayers of the 1960s and 1970s, is such a twisted dollop of evil scum that comparing a mere terrorist sympathizer to him is a "vile smear" of the sympathizer!

But "terrorist sympathizer" Khalidi has indeed been, by anyone's most charitable definition. And one may make a reasonable case that he's been a terrorist enabler as well, in the sense of providing encouragement, advice, intellectual support, and a fig-leaf of social legitimacy to murderous thugs like Yassir Arafat.

The Washington Post's editors are entitled to their own opinion of Khalidi. What they are not entitled to, however, is to chide John McCain or Sarah Palin — or you or me — for wanting the American public to be given access to the best actual evidence of what was said at this dinner attended by Ayers, Khalidi, and would-be POTUS Barack Obama.

The WaPo concedes that "[i]t's fair to question why Mr. Obama felt as comfortable as he apparently did during his Chicago days in the company of men whose views diverge sharply from what the presidential candidate espouses." Yet the WaPo's editors are eager to reach a conclusive judgment on the unimportance of this tape without ever having watched it.

The WaPo insists — with no basis more solid than hope — that Sen. Obama "is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, if militant, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position." But others of us, including many supporters of Israel and some substantial number of as-yet-undecided American voters, distrust what Sen. Obama says is his position, and we may well interpret his placid silence when confronted with those outrages as tacit approval. Some of us who are less phlegmatic by nature than Sen. Obama may find ourselves offended and, indeed, outraged by what was said at that dinner.

Given what the WaPo editors admit — which is that "Listening to Mr. Khalidi can be challenging" even when he's speaking on the record for international distribution — it's not at all hard to imagine that he or his good friends may have said very vile things indeed at this dinner. And some of them may well be so vile that they actually might deter someone previously inclined to vote for Obama from doing so.

What's on this tape may move tens of thousands of votes in a battleground state like Florida. A national election might hang in the balance. Can we imagine Ben Bradlee, Carl Bernstein, and Bob Woodward being equally complacent, willing to place their full reliance on someone else, when it came to reviewing the Nixon White House tapes?

As for the WaPo defending the Los Angeles' Times' journalistic ethics: No promise should ever have been made to the LAT's source that the tape wouldn't be shown. Indeed, it was the making of that promise by the LAT's reporter which was the unethical act: Journalists aren't ethically free to bargain with their sources about what news they will and won't report. Doubling down on an unethical act by blind enforcement of that promise isn't ethical behavior, it's compounding the original sin. And in any event, given that the LAT has already reported that a tape was made, and that they have it, and some of what's on it, no promise of confidentiality to the LAT's source can possibly be impaired by the LAT releasing at least (a) an audio version of the entire tape and (b) a transcript.

Whatever else it may become known for in history, this election will surely top any predecessor in cosmic irony: The Washington Post has morphed from a righteous instrument through which truth is exposed into a besotted apologist for another paper's transparent and unethical cover-up, so that they may jointly save the bacon of their mutually preferred candidate (who once again can't quite seem to "close the deal" on his own). Instead of telling truths, the Post's editors savage and ridicule those like Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin for merely asking that the truth be exposed — so that the American public can decide for itself the significance of that truth. Their editorial finishes with this snide comment:

We did ask Mr. Khalidi whether he wanted to respond to the campaign charges against him. He answered, via e-mail, that "I will stick to my policy of letting this idiot wind blow over." That's good advice for anyone still listening to the McCain campaign's increasingly reckless ad hominem attacks. Sadly, that wind is likely to keep blowing for four more days.

Alas, the only "wind" here is the flatulence escaping from the corpse of American journalism, a once-great institution, now eagerly turned great prostitute, that has bled out all its credibility while scrambling after a basket of Obama hopey-changiness.

— Beldar

(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)

Over at NRO's The Corner, Ed Whelan argues that in a televised interview yesterday with NBC News' Brian Williams, Sen. Barack Obama was "lying" when he claimed that differing judicial philosophies would only matter "less than one percent of real hard cases."

I've listened very carefully to the video clip — preparing my own transcription from it, which I reproduce just below, but you can also compare the Chicago Tribune's version if you'd like — and I can anticipate how the Obama campaign would respond to Ed's charge. I'm less certain than Ed that Obama was deliberately lying, but I'm certainly convinced that what Obama said was badly misleading.

Read More...

Yes.  It is a long shot of course, (Intrade ticked a couple of points in McCain's direction the past two days and it is still 83-17 Obama), a long but not impossible shot. 

Here are the Rasmussen numbers.  Here's Battleground.

McCain needs the undecideds to break for him decisively, and that's what worries some Democrats. (Here's an article on who the undecideds are.)

They should be worried, especially in Pennsylvania, where the contempt for the Keystone State's suburban and rural voters has been on periodic display from Obama and Democratic icon Jack Murtha for months.

The attempt to demoralize the GOP through the gigged polling and the triumphalism of Obama hasn't worked as the counter-theme of the volatility of the polls and the overwhelming bias of the MSM --now cemented in beyond argument by the Los Angeles Times' censorship of the Obama-Khalidi (and Ayers?) video-- has kept McCain's supporters focused on the 96 hour effort to turn out voters.  Having just returned from three key states --Colorado, Minnesota and Ohio-- I know from first hand experience that the McCain effort is well staffed and very enthusiastic.  The effort to set up "exit polls" as decisive is already being blunted and though we will be treated to the standard "massive turnout" and "Obama wave" stories on CNN election day, the GOP is poised to get its people to the polls, and to ignore the effort to stomp on turnout as MSM's early and erroneous call of Florida for Gore did in 2000.

(See, btw, Geraghty's explanation of why exit polls are guaranteed to skew Obama.  HT: RobinsonandLong.com.)

The question is whether the real doubts over Obama's experience and judgment will prevail over the standard Americanimpulse to roll the dice.  Great Britain's The Economist counsels that "America should take a chance," and does so after a great speculative bubble has triggered a massive financial crisis.  The Wall Street Journal by contrast reminds us of Obama's deep roots in a Chicago machine under investigation and Sean Hannity's reported last night on Obama colleague Bill Ayer's 1974 book dedicated to "all political prisoners" in the U.S. --including by name Robert Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan!  The reasons to entertain doubt go far beyond Ayers-Khalidi-Rezko-Wright-Acorn and they came from Joe Biden, as Senator McCain noted in my interview with him yesterday.  The Economist wants us to gamble on Obama's ability to handle the most serious of crises, but Biden has warned us we won't like what we get from Obama.

Mark his words. Mark his words.

The only thing now is to work to get the vote out, especially in the east coast states where any early sign of Obama strength will be manipulated by MSM on Tuesday night in an attempt to crush GOP turnout out west. 

Do you part especially in PA.  Think of anyone you know in the state and send them a link to Perry Nunley's Redneck Date from www.amaze.fm along with a note telling them that given the Obama/Murtha view of Pennsylvania, they should enjoy the song very much.

California's Proposition 8 stands a very good chance of passing on Tuesday. If "Yes on 8" prevails, the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman will be restored and the California Supreme Court's egregious 4-3 decision of this past May will be reversed.

Justin Hart reports on a campaign conference call here. 

Hedgehog reviews one of the controversies swirling around the debate--the impact of May's decision on school curriculum.

Audio is available soon here.

From Hugh's interview with Senator McCain almost an hour ago:

HH: Joined by the next president of the United States, Senator John McCain.  Senator, welcome back. The Los Angeles Times has a video. Do you have any idea what Senator Obama says on it? 

JM: You know, I don’t, Hugh, and may I just say first, thanks for everything, thanks for informing the American people, and thanks for the combat we’ve had over the years, and the discussion which I think has helped informed America, and I’m grateful for you. Let me just say, why don’t we all find out what the Los Angeles Times has. Suppose that there was a tape supposedly out there that Sarah Palin and I had been at a dinner, an event with some neo-Nazi outfit, and a newspaper had it. What do you think the reaction would be, huh? So I just think we ought to see it, we ought to hear about it, and we ought to know about it. And we should call on the Obama campaign to tell the L.A. Times to release it.  

HH: Should Senator Obama himself make that statement and demand it be released, Senator McCain? 

Cross talk 

JM: Of course not. Of course not. Of course not. Of course not. We should say that he should, and he should if he wants the American people to be fully informed. Look, I haven’t seen it. I only hear about it. I hear that our old friend, Mr. Ayers, is in the video, but I don’t know. But it seems to me the American people deserve to know before they decide next Tuesday. 

HH: Senator McCain, Joe the Plumber was attacked by David Gergen and Rick Sanchez on CNN on Tuesday night and yesterday for daring to have an opinion on Israel. Are you surprised by the attacks on Joe the Plumber? 

JM: You know, it’s really been interesting, Hugh, and kind of saddening that a guy who’s standing in his driveway, asked a question, doesn’t like the answer because it’s got to do with the most revealing aspect of Senator Obama that he wants to “spread the wealth around”, take the money from one group of Americans and give it to another, and he’s attacked by these media elites. And the Obama campaign, and as I’m sure, I hope our listeners know, his records have been accessed by state officials according to published reports. You know, they’re trying to intimidate people into not asking questions that are tough.  

HH: The Mason-Dixon poll this afternoon, Senator, shows the gap has narrowed considerably in Pennsylvania. Are you going back to PA before campaign’s end? 

JM: Oh, yeah. Yeah, we’re going to be back there, and we’ve just been in Ohio. And I guarantee you this, Hugh. We have had some of the most enthusiastic rallies we’ve ever had. I guarantee you we win Ohio. And I am confident about Pennsylvania. I am confident. When you look at the Fox News poll today where we are two or three points down, whichever it is, I’ve forgotten, we’re closing it, and we’re closing it fast. And I have never felt better in this campaign, and I think we’re going to be a little bit behind until the polls open next Tuesday. But we’re going to win.  

HH: I was with Senator Lieberman last night. He said you’re campaigning as hard as you ever have. Do you expect to do what Al Gore did in 2000, go around the clock? Or are you going to take the George Bush model in 2000 when the President went back to Texas and Gore closed on him? What are you going to do? 

JM: We’re going to do both, but you know, in this day and age, Hugh, I want to come on your show, I want to come on all the shows. I want to do a lot of electronic stuff, because we can get on, by satellite, as you know, both TV and we can do this on radio, so that we can travel, and at the same time, I just did, a little while just before the rally, seven local news stations in the battleground states. So we’re going to do both, but I guarantee you, I’ll be working until the last poll closes. And I’ll be working 18, 20 hours a day, and I have not felt better than I’ve felt, frankly, in the last day or two. And I think you’re seeing that in the polls. 

HH: Senator, last question. 

JM: Yes. 

HH: Lots of stories about the al Qaeda video tonight, and about Iranian nukes in the papers. We don’t know what it will be, but a phone is indeed going to ring at 3:00 in the morning in the next four years in the White House. What’s the difference between how you and Senator Obama will respond to that call? 

JM: Well, I think Senator Biden, the gift that keeps on giving, said it best. He said it best. And I’d love for you to play the tape for our listeners, Hugh, the whole tape. He said now mark my words, he will be tested, this young president will be tested with an international crisis. And then he went on to say you’ve got to stick with him, because you won’t like the way he handles it. I mean, you know, you can’t make that up, can you? 

HH: No, no. 

JM: And Hugh, listen, again, you and I will have our differences in the future. It’s healthy debate we’ve had over the years. I thank you for what you’re doing for me, and for this campaign, but most importantly, for informing Americans. That’s what they need. And then they can make their own judgment.  

HH: Senator McCain, good luck on the rest of the five days, and I look forward to talking to you before the close, and good luck in Pennsylvania. Get back up there in the land where Jack Murtha says it’s all rednecks and racists. I’m sure it’s not, and you’ll tell them that.  

JM: Isn’t that amazing? 

End of interview.

Every national tracking poll has the McCain-Obama race at between 3 and 8 points.  This is a considerable tightening in favor of John McCain, and the fact that three of these polls that put the margin at 3 points is very encouraging news for GOP troops across the country.

Which brings us to the Khalidi-Obama tape and the decision of the Los Angeles Times to suppress it.  This is an astonishing moment in the history of journalism.  In the last presidential campaign, an arm of MSM attempted to influence the race by inventing a major story.  This time, a different arm is influencing the race by censoring the news.

Times' owner Sam Zell and every single editor and reporter at the paper are thus now complicit in a decision to manage the news so that voters are not informed of all that might influence their choice of president.  The videotape might be as bland as skim milk, or as incendiary as even the most inflammatory Jeremiah Wright sermon, but the content doesn't matter.  The paper is suppressing the news and using Orwellian language to claim otherwise.  The silence from other MSMers tells us all we need to know about their commitment to the mission of getting important facts before the public. 

Imagine that the tape is of the sort as to tilt the election to McCain, but because of its suppression by the Times, Obama is elected.  The paper then "owns" everything that follows on Obama's watch.  This is of course true for the author of every partisan action that yields a decisive influence on an election, but it is an unprecedented position for an alleged newspaper to be in.  Newspapers thump their chests when state secrets are revealed, claiming the need of the public to know even at the risk of damaging national security.  What a turnaround to be wholly and irrefutably exposed as a mere agent in a presidential campaign rather than the guardian of the public's interest in truth.

When the Times published stories on the SWIFT program used to track terrorist financing, I interviewed the Times' D.C. bureau chief, Doyle McManus. Here's the core of that interview:

HH: Is it possible, in your view, Doyle McManus, that the story will in fact help terrorists elude capture?

DM: I did…I neither believed it nor disbelieved it. I would believe I took that seriously. It’s impossible for me to evaluate independently to what degree…whether the potential assistance to terrorists…I think they actually didn’t argue that it would help terrorists. They argued that it would disadvantage, or make more difficult, counter-terrorist programs. But that’s probably a distinction without a difference. What…would that be momentous? Would it be marginal? I don’t know.

HH: Is it possible, in your view, Doyle McManus, that the story will in fact help terrorists elude capture?

DM: It is conceivable, yeah, although it might be worth noting that in our reporting, officials told us that this would, this disclosure would probably not affect al Qaeda, which figured out long ago that the normal banking system was not how it ought to move its money, and so turned to other unofficial and informal channels.

HH: The terrorist Hambali came up. He was captured in August of ‘03, mastermind/financier of the Bali bombing. Are you familiar with Hambali?

DM: I am.

HH: And did they alert you to the fact that they believe that Hambali was captured as a result of this SWIFT program?

DM: They did not. The first I knew of that was when I read it in the New York Times.

HH: Is it possible now that whoever was familiar with what Hambali did, those terrorists in Southeast Asia, could just simply reverse engineer his financing, and figure out what they shouldn’t do now?

DM: Well, I suppose it’s possible, except in effect, what we’re talking about here is the simple question of whether international banking transmissions are monitored….

The Times was willing to run the risk of informing terrorists about efforts to capture them, but is refusing to inform the American people about relevant, indeed, potentially decisive facts on the eve of an election. 

(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)

The McCain-Palin campaign correctly points out that Sen. Barack Obama's "30-minute prime-time address [tonight will be] a 'gauzy, feel-good commercial' that was 'paid for with broken promises.'" But for Obama's undisputed and indisputable violation of his solemn oath to accept public campaign financing, there's no way he could have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, including this hugely expensive cross-network TV buy.

But "paid for with broken promises" is the most charitable characterization. The Obama-Biden campaign deliberately has solicited and received hundreds of thousands of credit card transactions of $250 or less, whose details the campaign won't make available for outside review even though in the aggregate they amount to hundreds of millions of dollars — via a fraud-friendly credit card system (a) which accepts transfers from untraceable pre-paid credit cards, and (b) whose basic anti-fraud measures have been deliberately crippled. The Obama-Biden campaign might just as well have set up dumpsters all over the world into which illegal donors could dump shopping bags full of cash donations made in unmarked small bills.

I suddenly had an epiphany. I know now exactly what happened after that bell over the door tinkled again while the jukebox was playing "Don't Stop Believin'" in the diner, just before the picture cut to black and the sound abruptly stopped: That was Barack Obama walking in the door — coming to hire Tony Soprano and his crew to run his internet finance operations.

If you watch the infomercial, ask yourself: How many minutes of it were bought with illegal money? A third of it? Half?

— Beldar

Victor Davis Hanson among others has noted that the returning veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan will change the face of American politics over the next decade.

Josh Mandel is one of those veterans.

When Josh graduated from Ohio State in 1999 he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps.  (He had been president of the student body at OSU.)  He attended law school at Case Western Reserve while in the reserves and has served two tours in Iraq, both in Anbar province. 

Josh is also a member of the Ohio Assembly.  He's also Jewish, the grandson of Holocaust survivors.  And having had lunch with him today, I can assure you that he is one very smart, charismatic great American.

So, what did his left wing opponent do?  Attack Mandel for being "AWOL" from his job in the Assembly --because Mandel had returned to duty in Iraq.  I hope Democrats around the country join us in condemning such a slur on a great American.

Mandel's district is heavily Democratic so he needs support in the run-up to next week's election. You can contribute $10 (or up to $10,000 under Ohio law) here, and even USC fans ought to do so.

Salute and support a genuine citizen soldier, er, Marine, and help get Ohio Republicans to the polls at the same time.  I'll have Mandel on the program in the first hour today.  Be sure to listen.

And did I mention that Mandel is a Browns, Indians and Cavs fan in addition to a proud Buckeye alum?

(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)

On Slate.com, Emily Bazelon has a new piece attempting to interpret Barack Obama's 2001 comments on a Chicago NPR radio station in the aftermath of his "spread the wealth" remark to Joe the Plumber. Someone — perhaps an editor who didn't read it as closely as it deserves — titled the piece "He's Not Robin Hood" — which is altogether contrary to what Ms. Bazelon actually argues. When it comes to matters of tax policy, Ms. Bazelon argues that in fact, both Barack Obama and John McCain are Robin Hoods — and that so, too, is everyone who supports a progressive income tax structure and any sort of legislative entitlement system.

That is a fair point, but it suggests an equivalence that doesn't in fact exist, and for which Ms. Bazelon has no evidence. And indeed, both the 2001 radio comments and Obama's current campaign promises explode her suggested equivalence.

Read More...

Yesterday's Gallup shocker (a 2 point gap in the "likely voter" model) is going to have a follow up today if Drudge is right: A Rasmussen poll narrowing the gap to 3 points.  Now we know why John McCain and Sarah Palin were both in PA yesterday.  The election is tightening across the map as those of us who remember 1976 have been predicting all along.  Barack Obama represents a much more radical alternative than Jimmy Carter did in '76, and Carter's unusual profile sent voters by the millions towards Gerald Ford in the closing days.  The same thing is happening this year as the very well known and very reliable John McCain enters his last big comeback within striking distance and very much on target.

That target is the combination of Obama's plans for massive tax hikes and a "share the wealth" program and the Biden gaffe on Obama's inexperience attracting a crisis within six months.   (Joe Biden also helpfully informed voters yesterday that the taregted taxpayer level is dropping already, this time to $150K).

McCain is pounding on the fact that Obama's soaring tax burden will guarantee that the market losses of the last month will not be coming back, and that even if they did, would not be left with the taxpayers who earned them.  Biden's candor is forcing voters on the fence to consider who they want in charge when the mullahs of Iran make their move towards nukes or against Israel through Hezbollah --or both.  (See Michael Barone's latest for a summary of Obama's commitment to the biggest mistakes made in the Depression-era: raising taxes and trade barriers.  HT RobinsonandLong.com.)

If the polls tighten any further, panic will grip the inside of Team Obama.  In fact, the quick jumps toward McCain guarantees that the GOP will stay energized through the end of the campaign.  McCain voters know how hard the MSM has been working to demoralize them and keep them home, and the backfiring of the attempt is wonderful to behold.

I have been in Colorado and Minnesota with my colleagues Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, and will be at another rally with them tonight in Cleveland.  I have never seen such extraordinary turnouts or enthusiasm.  The GOP base is every bit as passionate and activated as the Democratic base, outraged at the MSM and deeply worried about the prospects of an Obama-Pelosi-Reid troika doing long lasting damage to the economic and national security of the country as well as to its Constitution through hard left judicial appointees.

In a 50/50 country, every presidential election is going to be close, and this one is no different, no matter how often goofy polls and MSNBC tells you otherwise.

Be sure to do your part: Send any bitter, gun-and-God-clinging PA voters you know the link to Perry Nunley's "Redneck Date" at www.amaze.fm to remind them of the Obama-Murtha contempt for their beliefs and region.