Crossposted from Flopping Aces

RedState’s server crashed with the amount of traffic that hit the site to read this exposé by a former Hillary supporte who went on to work with Obama. The campaign worker has opted to keep her/his identity secret. My instinct says female, but this is unknown. In the wake of the invasion of Joe the Plumber’s privacy, I’d count that wise. For if they do that to the opposition, what could they have in store for an inside traitor and former member of their campaign? I wouldn’t even dare to imagine.

This is a must read in it’s entirety. But I’ll post some excerpts here.

I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance.His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything.

Interesting that Alinsky’s major thrust of campaign organizing is, and I quote, to “rub raw the sores of discontent”. The interesting twist is while Obama riles up the “have nots” with discontent, and then provides government giveaways to appease them, he attempts to do the opposite for the GOP. He merely hopes to “rub raw” and quit there.

Thus the explanation of the Obama campaign mainstays… the constant comparisons of the Maverick with the much maligned George Bush as it’s centerpiece. On that thrust alone, truth is a casualty here. The battles between McCain are notable, and not readily relayed merely by “votes” without examining specifically what those “votes” addressed. Close to half of those will reveal that Obama, himself, also voted the same way McCain did.

The campaign worker lays out the Obama weaknesses in his/her RedState post. First, INRE Hillary… internal campaign gossip says not offering her the Veep slot was a personal decision of Barack and Michelle Obama, and went against his advisors’ suggestions. And because of this, they are not showing that “unity” from the PUMAs they project thru their pet media.

Hillary voters. Internal polling suggests that at best, we are taking 70-75% of these voters. Other estimates are as low as 60% in some areas – particularly Ohio and western PA. My biggest problem with this campaign’s strategy was the decision NOT to offer Hillary the VP slot. She was ready and able to take this on, and would have campaigned enthusiastically for it. This selection would have also brought virtually all of her supporters into the fold, and the Obama campaign knew it. Though I have no way of knowing this for certain, and I do admit that I am relying on internal gossip, Senator Obama actually went against the advice of his top advisors. They wanted him to choose her, but the only significant opposition to this within the campaign came from Barack and Michelle Obama. In short, he let personal feelings take precedence over what was the most logical thing to do.

The other tidbit that gives one a grin is how they cringe, and go on clean up duty after Biden opens his mouth…

The Obama internal polling belies the news reports of the impact of Sarah Palin. It’s impact on the Hillary voters is negligible, but it’s effect on the GOP base is explosive. And with that completely unexpected pick, they threw the Obama campaign into a tizzy.

Sarah Palin. Don’t believe what the media is telling you about how horrible a choice she was. Again, our internal polling suggest that though she has had a minimal impact on pulling disaffected Hillary Democrats to McCain, she has done wonders in mobilizing the base for McCain.

Another thing – we were completely taken by surprise with her pick. In my capacity in the research department, I looked into the backgrounds of Leiberman, Romney, Pawlenty and Ridge, and prepared briefs. I don’t mind bragging that we had pretty good stuff on all of them. With Leiberman, the plan was to paint him as an erratic old-timer who didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing (pretty much a clone of McCain). In Romney, we had him pegged as an evil capitalist who cut jobs. Pawlenty was going to get the “Quayle treatment”, or more precisely: a pretty face, with no valid experience. Tom Ridge was going to be used to provide a direct link from McCain to Bush. As you can see, we were quite enamored of all of them.

Then the unexpected happened – Sarah Palin. We had no clue as to how to handle her, and bungled it from the start. Though through our misinformation networks, we have successfully taken some of the shine off. But let there be no doubt. She remains a major obstacle. She has singlehanded solidified “soft” Republican support, mobilized the McCain ground game, and has even had some appeal to independents and Hillary voters. This is what our internal polling confirms.

Can I take a moment to insert a “na na nanaaa naaaaaaa” here? Boy that felt good… :0)

Here’s my favorite “weakness”…. the Obama campaign has a detailed plan to “distract” for every mention of Obama’s radical preachers, friends and business associates.

Standards operating procedure has been to cry “racism” whenever one of these has been brought up. We even have a detailed strategy ready to go should McCain ever bring Rev. Wright up. Though by themselves they are of minimal worth, taken together, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfelger, and now, Rashid Khalili, are exactly what the campaign does not need. The more focus on them, the more this election becomes a referendum on Obama.

The campaign strategy from the very beginning was to make this election a referendum on Bush. Strategists have been banging their head on how successfully McCain has distanced himself from Bush. This has worked, and right now the tide is in his favor. People are taking a new look at Barack Obama, and our experience when this happens tells us this is not good news at all. When they take a look at him, one or more of these names are bound to be brought up.

McCain has wisely not harped on this in recent weeks and let voters decide for themselves. This was a trap we set for him, and he never fully took the bait. Senator Obama openly dared him to bring up Ayers. This was not due to machismo on the part of Obama, but actually due to campaign strategy. Though McCain’s reference to Ayers fell flat in the last debate, people in the Obama campaign were actually disappointed that he didn’t follow through on it more and getting into it. Our focus groups found this out: When McCain brings these connections up, voters are turned off to him. They’d rather take this into consideration themselves, and when this happens, our numbers begin to tank.

According to this campaign researcher, there is a “Bradley effect” noted, and the true toss up states are Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa. He/she also says they have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada.

Anyone got an electoral map handy? I know how people love to play with the colors….

The final comments are something that comes as no surprise… Obama’s “cyber hit squad”, as I like to call the faithful. And of course, there is the main campaign talking point that we’ve heard from so many here… Don’t you guys get it?

This has been the Obama campaign’s sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns.

What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it.

You may point to the polls as proof of the inevitability of all of this. If so, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. How did we skew these polls, you might ask? It all starts with the media “buzz” which has been generated over the campaign. Many stories are generated on the powerful Obama ground game, and how many new voters were registered. None of this happens by coincidence. It is all part of the poll-skewing process.

This makes pollsters change their mixes to reflect these new voters and tilt the mix more towards Democratic voters. What is not mentioned or reported on is not the “under-reported cell phone users or young voters” we hear so much about. What is underreported is you.

This campaign worker officially lost the taste for an Obama presidency during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin. No clue who he/she would vote for, since this worker did state major disagreements with Palin’s policies.

But we sure know this is one campaign worker who won’t be voting for Obama.

More:

As economists and media catch on to Obama’s “fuzzy math”, Obama campaign draws up plans to “lower expectations”

H/T to LD over at No Quarter.

Terrific round up of data on the Obama plan to flush the US economy completely down the toilet. With an illustrious group of 537 (so far) bipartisan economists throwing their support to McCain and his tax plan, the word is eeking out to some of the MSM that all is not well in Obama-topia.

Economists for McCain is not affiliated, nor donors to the McCain campaign… despite what their name implies. What their name *does* imply is that after evaluation of both plans, 375 of them have put their names to condemning the Obama tax proposals.

Their official statement on Obama’s tax plan warn of a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession.

It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

Also of great concern is Obama’s increasingly protectionist stance on foreign trade agreements such as NAFTA, GATT and the pending CAFTA.

Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government’s “stimulus” package.

They chastise Obama and the DNCs entertainment of yet another stimulus package which would, of course, do nothing to grow the economy. From the increased taxes on oil to the dividends, labor income, investments, income and payroll, there was little these economists could praise.

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

In sum, Barack Obama’s economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

You know the world might *finally* be waking up to adding two and two when CBS starts questioning Obama’s “fuzzy math”.

Obama has already proposed a new stimulus package of $188 billion over two years. His tax cuts will cost $85 billion a year. His “army of new teachers”: $18 billion; Renewable energy: $15 billion. CBS News and various independent experts estimate Obama’s total first year spending could exceed $280 billion.

~~~

“I’ve offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost,” he has said.

The fact is the savings Obama has identified do not cover his spending. According to a CBS News estimate, he’s around $90 billion short. The Obama campaign disputes this, saying everything including the stimulus is paid for over 10 years. But other analysts say – even presuming Obama saves money in Iraq and chops the federal budget as promised – he falls short.

Remember my previous post on the Obama tax plan? Like where is he going to find that $4.3 trillion he’s proposing thru 2019? Even CBSs Wyatt Andrews is having a hard time finding some economists not on the Obama gravy train to justify the numbers.

Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign’s own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.

Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.

Fact: Obama’s claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years – a fact Obama neatly glosses over.

Then, of course, comes the math challenged Obama faithful who believe if we just leave Iraq, all the cash will flow into the coffers for a democratic socialist Euro-America.

Fact: Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he’s addressing.

~~~

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he’s promised to do “line by line,” he still doesn’t pay for his list. If he’s elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with – thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he’s facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

Whether Obama is so inept as to not function well with so many zeros, or he’s merely misrepresenting… no, make that lying thru his teeth… about his tax plan, there is a slow tide of realization that something ain’t right in Obama and Michelle’s financial “camelot”.

So it comes as no surprise that Obama is drawing up plans to lower expectations for his presumed presidency.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obamas senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next weeks election, amid concerns that many of his supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of hope and change are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.

The Times quoted a senior adviser as saying that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, so theres not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair.

We have a word for this in the financial world…. it’s called “buyer remorse”. Frankly, it’s better to kill the deal altogether than suffer from that malady. Especially in the case of a POTUS, determined to steer the US into a socialist economy not dissimilar from the failures in Europe.

Obama’s Tax Increase Coming YOUR WAY!

By Inauguration Day, 95% of Americans will be expecting a tax increase!

On Friday, Obama said Americans who resisted a tax increase were selfish which led me to ponder how long it would be before most Americans were told to do what Joe Biden called their patriotic duty and pay for Obama’s planned socialist revolution.

Today, Aye Chihuahua found the perfect video complement. In three short minutes you’ll see exactly why Obama can’t be trusted to keep his word on taxes because his word changes repeatedly:

Hold onto your hats. The trend here is clear. You WILL be paying higher taxes if Obama is elected!