Remember Mark Foley, the pervert congressman who was way too interested in congressional pages? And who the Democrats attempted to hang around the neck of the entire Republican congress in 2006? Yeah him. Well, the guy who the Democrats replaced him with was two-timing his wife and paying the mistress hush money. At the same time he was running ads like this:

Faith, Family, Values... Heh!

ABC News:

Mahoney, who is married, also promised the woman, Patricia Allen, a $50,000 a year job for two years at the agency that handles his campaign advertising, the staffers said. A Mahoney spokesperson would not answer questions about the alleged affair or the settlement, but said Allen resigned of her own accord and "has not received any special payment from campaign funds." Senior Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), the chair of the Democratic Caucus, have been working with Mahoney to keep the matter from hurting his re-election campaign, the Mahoney staffers said.

I'm really glad we got rid of that "culture of Republican corruption" and replaced it with a "culture of Democratic corruption". Oh and the fact that Rahm Emmanuel knew about this beforehand and tried to cover it up... According to the "Foley" standard, that means he should step down for fostering the culture. But I'm guessing the Democrats quit caring about such things oh about November 2006.

Too hilarious not to share.

So all Sarah Palin has to do to get widespread support from the AA community is run on Obama's ticket. Brilliant! African-American supporters are also apparently pro-life, anti-stem cell, and pro-stay in Iraq til victory.

Hey, whatever the Messiah wants!

Sen. Barack Obama claims that as president he would cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. He has fought back against charges from Republican Sen. John McCain that he would increase taxes on working Americans by promising that no one making under $250,000 per year would see one penny in increased taxes under the Obama tax plan. But what Sen. Obama doesn't mention, and which Sen. McCain thus far hasn't mentioned, is that Obama's plan to cut taxes for 95% of Americans is based on a false premise, that all Americans pay federal income taxes. Not all Americans do.

In fact nearly 40% of all American households have no federal income tax liability. Obama proposes to "cut" their taxes by sending them "refundable tax credits" good for between $500 and $1000. At the same time, Sen. Obama promises to eliminate the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 for those making over $250,000 a year. In effect, then, Obama's tax plan is a classic redistribution of wealth, from those making more than the government sanctioned level of acceptable income, to those making less.

The Obama campaign claims that its "refunds" would offset the federal payroll taxes that all workers pay, even if they have no federal income tax liability. That is how the campaign can continue to claim that 95% of Americans will receive a tax cut. But by subjecting those better able to pay to a greater and greater share of the overall tax burden, Obama ultimately risks the relief he says that the middle class so desperately needs. The top 5% of income earners in the U.S. already pay 60% of the total tax bill, while the bottom 50% pay less than 3%, according to the National Tax Union's most recent figures. In other words, the tax burden is already distributed pretty unevenly amongst filers. Obama proposes to make it even more top heavy.

Two shocking developments in the polls today. First, in what might simply be an outlier, a new poll shows trouble brewing for McCain in North Dakota of all places.

Public Affairs Institute:

Obama 45%
McCain 43%

with 12% undecided. McCain lost this traditionally red state to Romney in the primary, while Obama won big.


Second, and more worrisome for McCain, are the new numbers out of another formerly safe GOP state, Missouri:

Survey USA:

Obama 51%
McCain 43%

with 3% undecided.

These are trends, and trends have a way of changing, but there's no doubt that McCain does not have Obama exactly where he wants him.

There's been a whole lot of concern over poor old John McCain. Some say he should attack more and harder. Others say he's already attacked too much and needs a more positive uplifting campaign. But picking the right course is easy when you consider the motivations of the would-be advisers.

People who have the most to lose from an Obama presidency are advising the hit faster harder course.

People who want Obama to win, or at best, have no dog in the fight, are advising that McCain safeguard his reputation above all else and determine to lose graciously. Most notable among this group recently is Dan Quayle's former chief of staff. Which should tell you about the quality of advice there.

But even more think of it from the angle of what Obama wants McCain to do... and then do the opposite.

Obama squealing about the Ayers connection. Yes, you're drawing blood.

Obama complaining about the negative tone? - Hit harder!

As proof, we know that McCain's last best decision was in picking Sarah Palin for VP. How do we know this? by the reaction of the Obama supporters themselves! They tried their best to get her off the ticket even as they were giving McCain sage advice that he'd made the worst decision ever. On the other hand, McCain's supporters never lifted a finger to attack Joe Biden... Why? he is not and never was the threat that Palin was.

So when deciding what to do. Watch what Obama does, and not what he says.

_________________________

As I was writing this, I also read the text of the new stump speech. It's good stuff and probably exactly the right tone for the GOP top of the ticket. Keep it up and he will tighten up the polling. Again, we'll know more tomorrow at the debate.

This does not mean that he should keep muzzle Palin either, let her attack, that does not mean Ayers, Ayers, Ayers, but that it's time to pivot. Plenty of material out there.

Well, I just finished listening to John McCain's new and improved stump speech. The differences with the version he was using before this one are as follows:

*McCain now takes a swipe at President Bush for doubling the national debt.

*McCain admits that he is behind in the polls.

*He jabs the media for helping to cause this situation.

*He says that even though he's 6 points down, he has Obama exactly where he wants him.

That's it. All the rest can be found, in one guise or other, in the many speeches McCain has made thus far in the campaign. Today's speech was billed as a bold shift, a re-booting of sorts, to woo voters. While it acknowledged our fundamentally unsound economy, it gave little detail (other than the repeated call to start drilling for oil immediately) as to how to fix the problem. Honestly, in terms of policy, what was really different about his remarks today?

Later this afternoon, Barack Obama will deliver what aides are calling a major policy address about job creation. Let's see if he's more specific than McCain on a prescription to fix what ails us.

In this weekend's episode of "Huckabee," the new FOX News show, Mike Huckabee suggested the current financial crisis could be the result of economic terrorism.

Citing a "friend" of his who works in the "financial markets," Huckabee – during a Q&A with Chuck Norris, who was on the show to promote his book, "Black Belt Patriotism" - said his friend has did an analysis of the markets for the 12 days prior.

"There seems to be a manipulation of the marketplace - at the last half-hour of each day, there is an extraordinary rush of computerized trading going on," the former Republican presidential hopeful said. "He believes that there may, in fact, be evidence of economic terrorism that is fueling a lot of what's going on. Now it's a fascinating idea, that if somebody could break down the world economy, it would have a greater impact that any bomb ever set off. It seems to be there is plausible argument for it."

Chuck Norris approves of that possibility. The "Texas, Walker Ranger" star then launched into his own explanation of the potentially dirty deals the U.S. government has made with regimes around the globe.

It appears that John McCain has made his choice.

The Chairman of the Virginia Republican Party has compared Presidential candidate Barack Obama to at-large terrorist Osama Bin Laden. From WaPo:

According to a report in this week's Time magazine, the Virginia party chairman, Del. Jeffrey M. Frederick (R-Prince William), told Virginia volunteers working for GOP nominee John McCain that Obama and bin Laden "both have friends that bombed the Pentagon."

The report goes on to say that Frederick stood by his remarks yesterday.

What's more amazing, considering the buildup of ugliness at McCain rallies and his apparent attempts to quash hysteria about an Obama Presidency, is the incredibly weak rebuke delivered by the McCain campaign:

Gail Gitcho, a McCain spokeswoman, also denounced Frederick's remarks, calling them "not appropriate."

"While Barack Obama is associated with domestic terrorist William Ayers, the McCain campaign disagrees with the comparison that Jeff Frederick made," Gitcho said.

As I said yesterday, McCain has obviously seen the gathering effect of this "terrorist" strategy. Apparently, his qualms are situational.

Tommy Christopher co-hosts "Unusable Signal" , on BlogTalkRadio Tues & Thur at 9pm, and Wed, Fri, & Sat at 11pm. Click here for the Unusable Signal homepage.

Like so many others, the first time I heard of Barack Obama was in 2004, when he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. In his remarkable introduction to the American people, Obama showed he could communicate so effectively that one twenty minute speech made him a national political force.

One of the ideas Barack Obama pushed in that speech was that America was not hopelessly divided. He went through a litany of touching anecdotes from individuals living in red states and blue states. All of these people had common problems and common expectations from the government. In the heat of one of the most vicious and partisan election cycles in a generation, Obama sold a lot of people on the idea that the best way forward for all Americans is to find common ground through pragmatic compromises and a deeper awareness of our common interests.

Once the long campaign began, Obama immediately staked his campaign to the belief that he could compete with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards financially while limiting campaign contributions to small donors. In so doing, not only did Obama manage to stay competitive with the approach, he tapped into a movement of mostly younger voters displeased by the campaign finance system that keeps politicians from being directly beholden to the people and instead hands the greatest influence to a few powerful special interests that inevitably become any campaigns' biggest contributors.

Much like Alan Greenspan, political strategist Karl Rove has received a mountain of lavish praise over the past decade. Back when times were good, Rove epitomized success. His business was winning elections, and with the dawning of W., he seemed to have no peer. Well, the mighty, they have fallen.

Himself a closet atheist, Rove forged what proved, for a time, to be a cunning strategy of harnessing the fervor of two distinct groups within the Republican Party: Christian and fiscal conservatives. To be sure, these two factions often overlapped. There are many anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage people who also want a balanced budget amendment, for instance. But between these two groups there is also a fair amount of distrust. The libertarian strain of the GOP, which advocates the harshest form of small government self-reliance, bristles at the prospect of a further erosion of the wall separating church and state.

So, then came Rove, who -- through the folksy visage of George W. Bush -- figured out a way to tiptoe through this minefield and make everyone feel they had a piece of the action.