Are Our Big Cities Prepared for a Mumbai-Style Terror Hit?

One of the questions being asked in Britain and in the U.S. is whether there are enough anti-terrorism forces to go after terrorists in multiple locations in the same city, as it happened in Mumbai, India. Rather than army commandos, it would likely be SWAT teams that would be initially deployed in places like New York, L.A., Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta. Britain's got their own version of SWAT.

Focusing in on America, if a terrorist force hit multiple locations in one city and managed to dig in as they did in Mumbai, would there be enough SWAT units and other similar units to quickly deploy and begin immediate operations to secure whatever locations had been seized and rescue the hostages? And would reinforcements be quickly available from the federal government?

India was not prepared for an attack of this magnitude; it took 60 hours for them to clear the buildings that were captured by the terrorists. During that time, the terrorists were shooting hostages.

Are we ready for something like this?

Governments of India and Pakistan Need to Keep Talking: The Region Doesn't Need a War Between Two Nuclear Powers

Indians are asking exactly the same questions of their government that many Americans were asking after the 9/11 disaster in this country. "Why did the government fail to protect us?"

The Indian news media is reporting that the government knew a major attack was coming, but took no steps to warn their people that a disaster of this magnitude might happen in the near future. They kept their silence in the same way that the Bush Administration ignored the previous administration here about how dangerous al-Qaeda was and that an airborne terrorist attack might be mounted.

And India seems to be pointing the finger of blame at Pakistan, even as Pakistan attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric and keep everything low-key. They dispatched their intelligence chief to New Delhi to speak with his Indian counterpart, an act that many Pakistanis were unhappy with, but did so regardless of how it looked in Islamabad.

And Pakistan's president has promised to take action if it is proven that elements in his country were involved. Asif Ali Zardari is the husband of former Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto, who was also killed by terrorists last year.

India and Pakistan need to be talking, not arguing and then fighting. They're both nuclear powers, and blowing one another off the map won't help matters. Pakistan really needs to come down on it's extremists, and India must do the same.

Government Should Forget About the Bailouts, and Reduce the DEBT: That's Going to Kill Us

When we take a hard look at what our nation is facing in this financial crisis, it becomes clear that a number of things need to be considered when formulating a strategy to dig ourselves out of this mess. And I think our government is failing to look at what lies over the horizon. They're really blowing it.

They've reacted by adding $5 trillion to our national debt.

Here's my impression of this fiasco:

• A stimulus package that requires us to borrow money from China to fund it? DONE!
• Fanny Mae is failing? So is Freddie Mac? QUICK!! TAKE THEM OVER! (Pass the buck.)
• Lehman Bros. is failing? Too bad. They didn't support my candidacy. Let them FAIL!
• AIG is failing? Bail 'em out. Then bail 'em out again!
• Stock market's lost 2,000 points in the last ten days? Drat.
• Bear Stevens is failing? Seize them, sell them and put the taxpayer on the hook for the bill!
• Citi is failing? Bail 'em out. More? Bail faster! Here, have some more taxpayer money!
• A $700 billion bailout? Add another $150 billion to bribe the opposition in Congress. Mo' money, mo' money!
  
• We're bailing out all the toxic debt??! Bail harder! Bail faster! Here, have some more money!
• What? What? Wall Street doesn't think it's the right fix now that they have it?
• Washington Mutual is failing? Seize 'em and bail 'em out!
• Dow's dropped 2,000 more points?
  
• Hmm...Dow added 936 points in one day, but it's still down for the week.
• Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of New York Mellon and State Street all signed on to our $2.5 trillion deal, to take our money, whether they needed it or not! YAY!! MORE DEBT!! Oh those taxpayers are really soaking it up now! Hummana, hummana, hummana!
  
• WHAT DID ALAN GREENSPAN SAY?? Oh, man, there goes another 600 points off the Dow!
• "Bailouts Being Used to Finance Retirement Packages." Surprise, surprise, surprise.
• Now the TARP measure isn't being used to buy all toxic debt? What's going on now?
  
• Hmm...General Motors sales fell 45% from a year ago, Ford fell 30%, Chrysler fell 35%, Toyota fell 23%, Honda fell 25%, and Nissan fell 33%.
• Now the Big 3 want a bailout? Yes! No! Yes! No!
• The CEOs flew their private jets to Washington while claiming that their companies are BROKE??! GM is producing a 2009 Hummer??!
• Group says we entered a recession in December 2007. Well, DUH!

It seems clear to me that the auto companies are ALREADY bankrupt, if they're going to Congress and asking for an I.O.U. to stay in business through December. They don't have the guts to come right out and say it. Yet.

As for the rest, it was a mistake to begin with. I think that those companies that would have a negative effect on the value of the dollar overseas (should they fail) need to be bailed out, while the others should get on a payment plan and pay off their debts, just like Joe and Jane Six Pack does.

The government should take the money from this $5 trillion scheme and put it toward paying down our national debt. That'll kill us in the long run and will hurt many more people than the current downturn has/will.

Trouble in India Will Mean Disaster Between Pakistan and India: Last Major Attack Almost Brought Two Countries Close to War in 2002

The huge terrorist attacks taking place in India will cause serious problems between Pakistan and India. The Indians have been looking for an excuse to put Pakistan in it's place for a while, and the headline-grabbing terrorism taking place in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) may well provide it.

Kashmir remains a problem between the two countries, and at least one terrorist has cited the troubled region as being the reason for his taking hostages. Terrorists launched an attack on India's government in New Delhi in 2001, and that attack caused over a million Indian and Pakistani troops to take up positions on either side of their shared border and square off for months.

If Kashmir is the cause of this, and it's directed at the government of India, they might turn their attention from Mumbai to Kashmir, and trouble will follow.

I'm getting the impression that there's more than one terror group involved here; one group took a Jewish facility, several others attacked hotels, and others attacked elsewhere. Some have targeted Americans and British citizens; others targeted Jews, still others targeted Indians. Some have released their Western hostages. It's really confusing. If it is one large group, they're hiding their goals quite effectively by going after so many different targets.

It's going to take a while to sort all of this out.

ANOTHER $800 Billion Mistake? It Happened a Lot Faster Than I Thought It Would

Back when I was railing against the first $850 billion mistake to bail out Wall Street's Folly, I predicted that they'd be back in six months asking for another huge infusion of cash.

I was not expecting them to put up another $800 billion within 1 1/2 months to help Wall Street.

We can't afford this, nor should we be bailing out the auto industry. The fact that they're begging for money shows that they're already bankrupt, but haven't chose to admit it yet.

The government is setting us up for more falls in the future with all this intervention. This is a short-term strategy that will have serious long-term ramifications. A lot of these companies that we're busy rescuing were going to fail, and will probably fail regardless. And we'll still be stuck with the bill.

I don't like it.

Many Institutions Climb on Gravy Train: Corporations, States, Cities and Who Knows What Else

Let's see who else is requesting federal bailout money, now that the floodgates are blown open:

American Express
Transportation Corridor Agencies of California
Ford
Chrysler
General Motors
General Electric
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
State of California
State of New Jersey
State of New York
Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association
City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
City of Phoenix, Arizona
City of Atlanta, Georgia
City of Detroit, Michigan

There are now DOZENS of institutions trying to get onto the gravy train! They need to all be told to cut their expenses and live within their means. People do it; why can't they?

TERRIBLE Nebraska Law Allowing Parents to Drop Teens Off at Hospitals Being Reviewed: "Please Don't Bring Your Teenager to Nebraska" Comes TOO LATE

Nebraska's awful child-abandonment law is FINALLY being reviewed, as kids from other states continue to be dropped off by their idiot and incompetent parents.

The total number of kids abandoned so far is 34. On Thursday, a 17 year-old girl was dropped off at an Omaha hospital with her 14 year-old brother, and promptly ran away, leaving her brother behind.

This law has been a FARCE from day one and should never have been adopted by the legislature of Nebraska.

And the emotional damage being done to these children by their parents is immeasurable.

They say the way to hell is paved with good intentions. And this law was originally designed to help infants, but with the lack of an age limit in the law, parents began dropping their teenagers off. Of the 34 kids dropped off so far, not a SINGLE one has been an infant. Six of the children were under age 10, and the rest were teenagers.

All of these teens need to be returned to their relatives, and the ex-parents PROSECUTED! And in particular, those parents who crossed state lines to get rid of their kids need to be in federal court for what they have done.

I'm not interested in hearing why they've done what they've done. They had the means to travel to Nebraska from other states to drop their kids off; why couldn't they have contacted social services in their OWN states? EVERY state in this country has some kind of system to help parents in need, and family courts to order the kids into state custody to get the help that they need.

Nebraska needs to GET IT IN GEAR and FIX this terrible law!

Gay Activists Disrupt a Lansing-Area Church: How Low Can They Go?

Gay activists took a Lansing-area church by surprise and staged a protest during services, both inside and outside the building on Sunday.

Inside the Mount Hope Church, demonstrators yelled gay slogans, hanged a banner from the church balcony, threw fliers at members of the church and then pulled a fire alarm. Outside, activists had an upside down pink cross and picket signs.

Revolting behavior!

And no one was arrested for doing this? Pulling a fire alarm is not protected speech. I wonder how many of these protesters were locals, and how many were outside agitators?

Time to Repeal the $850 Billion Bailout Mistake: It Isn't Working

I wrote the following in the last couple of months:

September 24th: I think that $700 billion is just the start and they'll come back and ask for another $500-$750 billion in six months. We can't afford that!

September 28th: No $700 billion ever made can stop a crash of a financial system that people have lost their trust in and believe is unstable.

October 3rd: And we've only seen the beginning of this bailout. Now everyone will want one too.

October 5th: Two states--California and Massachusetts--want money as well. The floodgates are now open; where will this end? And how many states will try to climb on this gravy train?

October 6th: Welcome to the dark side of globalization....This has been the strangest bill in quite a while; the size of it is HUGE; Wall Street didn't want it, the politicians say they didn't want it but attached $150 billion in pork to buy off their colleagues to vote for it, Wall Street put it's reaction on public display by losing hundreds of points on the days that the House and Senate voted on this bill; then they said it probably wasn't the fix that was needed. Then Wall Street lost hundreds of points more over worry that the money won't come fast enough. And the taxpayer's on the hook for the entire $850 billion package with little to no hope for a return.

Then I took a hiatus to see if this $850 billion mistake was the miracle cure that would save us. What happened?

Since the signing of the bailout of Wall Street's Folly, the DJIA has lost another 1,950+ points. The federal government increased it's bailout of AIG from $85 billion to $150 billion. Now they're talking about bailing out the auto industry. And many companies that have been thrown a lifeline are sustaining HUGE quarterly losses.

And the U.S. government is up to about $5 trillion in additional debt, trying to solve this mess.

The bailout isn't working; the money's being eaten like candy, and the problems are continuing to cause mayhem in the American and global economies. I get the impression that this bailout money is being thrown away.

They need to repeal the entire mess. The bailout of Wall Street's Folly was ill-conceived, and we simply cannot afford to bail out industry after industry, as the politicians now seem to be hell-bent on doing.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of U.S. Navy Use of Sonar Without Restrictions

Environmental wackos lost their case against the U.S. Navy today, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Navy could use sonar whenever and wherever it needed to.

Lower court judges had issued injunctions against the Navy to prevent it from using sonar to detect enemy submarines when in proximity to marine life, whether in practice or in an actual combat situations. The high court found that the possibility of having an untrained anti-submarine force being deployed against an enemy (with no such restrictions) presented a danger to the safety of the fleet, and outweighed the potential danger to the little fishies.

The Supreme Court decision is the correct one. It would be a HUGE gamble to have an inexperienced Navy crew going after a Russian or Chinese-built sub with a nuclear payload targeted at American cities.

If the wackos don't like it, why don't they take their money and find an alternative detection system that the Navy can equip their ships and subs with, so that the Navy can get rid of their EVIL sonars and save the little fishes?

Veterans Deserve More: Government Has Dropped the Ball

On this day that we honor America's veterans for their service to our country, I find it APPALLING that 1/4 to 1/3 of America's homeless are also VETERANS.

This is shameful.

They put their lives on the line for our country, and come back from America's wars with both obvious and hidden injuries. It's a sad state of affairs when our various elected federal governments have to be prodded AGAIN and AGAIN to take the necessary steps to care for America's wounded warriors, both from the current wars and from past wars as well.

And yet, some 300,000 to 400,000 veterans are out in the cold, and the VA takes care of 100,000 of them annually. If the 400,000 number is accurate, then that means that 300,000 (or 75%) are left to fend for themselves.

I'm glad that the budget for Veterans Affairs has doubled to $93 billion in the last seven years, but they had no choice, with so many wounded veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope that the VA is expanding it's reach to help other, less fortunate veterans.

Thank you veterans, for putting on a uniform and putting it ALL on the line.

Obama Chooses a KLINGON for His Chief of Staff: So Much for Cooperation

President-elect Obama is not off to a smooth start to his new Administration. He chose the Democratic version of Karl Rove, Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, as his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel is not equipped with an "off" switch, unlike Rove, who knew when to keep his mouth shut. The GOP labeled him a "hyper-partisan" immediately upon the announcement of his nomination to be White House Chief of Staff.

Here is an example of how a Klingon deals with an annoyance, which matches how Emanuel will deal with people in the White House:




This will be a VERY interesting appointment. Obama's found someone meaner than Michael Savage, which I didn't think was possible. Here's Emanuel's Wikipedia entry, including a recounting of the famous steak knife incident, which helped to earn him his nickname of RAHM-bo, owing to his "take no prisoners" strategy of dealing with people he doesn't like.

I though President-elect Obama would pick a Klingon-like person to fill the role of Chief of Staff, not an ACTUAL Klingon!

Where Does Obama Stand on Slave Reparations?

President-elect Obama hasn't made his stance on slave reparations clear yet, as he hasn't made his position clear on a great many issues.

According to NewsMax, Obama was opposed to slave reparations before he ran for Congress; after he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he stated that he was opposed to "...just signing over checks to African-Americans," which is a lot different than opposing the concept outright as he was before.

Where does he stand now?

I am opposed to court-ordered reparations, as the statute of limitations has LONG expired for slavery, which ended in 1865. Doing it in 1868 would have been better than in 2008, as it would have helped the direct victims of slavery. It's too late now.

And if American taxpayers will be called upon to pay reparations, does that mean that the decendents of Union soldiers who died during the Civil War to free the slaves will be made to pay as well? Is that fair?

I have other objections that I'm not going to get into now, but I think that Obama coming in on the side of the slave reparations crowd will fire up the kind of people who have already been arrested for plotting an assassination attempt.

And I agree with the Libertarian Party, in the assessment that a serious attempt to hand out checks to slave decendents for wrongs committed by a part of the population, long dead, will actually increase racism, rather than bury it. I think there's quite enough to be getting on with, without adding this complication.

Proposal 8 Succeeded in California Because Judges Didn't Listen to the Electorate in the First Place

If opponents of California's Proposal 8, which bans gay marriage, want to blame someone for the passage of the measure, they should start by blaming the judges who forced the issue in the face of strong opposition from California's voters. Instead, the left is blaming Christians for running a better campaign than they did.

Prop 8 succeeded because gay marriage was imposed by the judges on the voters of California, when they had already objected to it. The judges overstepped their authority, and there was a wave of resentment that went along with it. The U.S. Constitution makes it clear that marriage regulations are a reserved power for the states to decide. Activist judges like to assume this power for themselves.

Voters had already approved Proposal 22 in 2000 with 61% of the vote, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Five years later, the courts overturned Prop 22. Legal challenges tied up the issue until May of this year, when the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages, to take effect in mid-June. Almost immediately, a new ballot proposal started gaining strength in the shape of Prop 8.

The feelings of the voters haven't changed that much. And they threw the issue back into the faces of the activist judges, who will almost certainly overturn it again, in another display of judicial activism. This debate will never go away.

Every state in the union has to decide this issue for themselves, and some definitely have, with varying degrees of judicial intervention. I continue to oppose any federal involvement in what is, under the Constitution, a state matter. Federal judges need to let the state supreme courts have the final say in matters related to state powers.

Senator Talks Up Fairness Doctrine Again: Assault on First Amendment Set to Begin

Senator Shumer is talking about the Fairness Doctrine again, setting the stage for the Democrats to begin their legalized assault on the First Amendment.

He was on Fox News on Tuesday and did a word play on Fox's own motto: fair and balanced. He said that the Fairness Doctrine would bring fairness and balance to the AM dial, balancing conservative shows with liberal ones.

Let's be frank.

Liberal talk shows are money-losing propositions for radio stations, while the conservative ones rake in the cash, and have tremendous staying power. Why should the radio stations be forced into such a money-losing proposition by carrying liberal talk-radio on an equal footing with the conservative ones?

Conservatives are afraid that since liberal shows are money-losers, that they would cut back on conservative shows as well in order to avoid the flak and fines that the FCC would be required to impose, as well as limit the damage to their bottom lines that liberal programming would bring.

Senator Schumer also said that those who opposed the Fairness Doctrine also wanted to limit the amount of pornography on the air. His argument makes no sense from a literal standpoint. Pornography isn't seen on radio.

And he's made no argument for more of a conservative viewpoint on TV news stations, such as CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, or NBC, or more liberal viewpoints on Fox News. Senator Shumer and his friends have targeted radio exclusively. That fact alone makes the Fairness Doctrine unfair.

Conservatives Should Declare Independence from the GOP: They'd Do Better With Their Own Party

I think the time has come for the conservatives to break with the GOP. They're Democratic-Republicans anyways!

The Republicans lost because they tried to out-Democrat the Democrats. And then they became the Democrats, spending money that isn't theirs, and not agreeing with anyone (including themselves) on anything. And they tried to push the conservatives out of the way in the process.

Being a conservative is about taking a stand, and living by it, not changing a stand when the wind of public opinion starts to blow in a different direction. All one has to do is look at the global warming hubris and how McCain embraced it to win over Democratic supporters.

And now we see the consequences of trying to out-Democrat the Democrats: the GOP's butt is in a sling, the result of voter dissatisfaction with Democratic-Republicans.

Will the moderates in the GOP learn?

Democrats Should Keep Their 15% Approval Rating in Mind: With Fewer Republicans Around, They're in the Hot Seat

Before they get too carried away, the Democrats need to keep their approval rating in mind. As of a CBS poll from last week, Congressional job approval stands at 15%, which is half of what President Bush's is.

And with fewer Republicans around to blame, and a Democrat preparing to move into the White House on January 20th, the Dems will be squarely in the hot seat.

It will be interesting to see if they succumb to the same pressure that the Republicans did, with one-party in control of the Congress and the White House.

If anything, the Democrats are even more vulnerable, as their party is a sewn-together coalition of competing factions. There's a few triggers that we've already seen will cause the Democratic Party to splinter; remember when Pelosi and Reid decided to knuckle under to President Bush and his war budget last year? The anti-war Democrats nearly rioted in the aisles.

We'll see how this goes.

Status of Forces Agreement With Iraq Needs to be Delayed: New Administration Doesn't Need Their Hands Bound

I think that the Iraqi and U.S. governments should put off agreeing to any Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) until after January 20th, when President Obama takes office and his intentions are made clear. There's no point in making an agreement like this if the Obama Administration will be withdrawing troops on a large scale, as he suggested during the campaign.

With the current mandate set to expire on December 31st, our troops will be required to suspend military operations in Iraq and return to their bases throughout Iraq. There is a need for U.S. troops to be able to defend themselves if their bases are attacked; I think it would be a good idea for both governments to extend the current mandate to mid-March, until the new U.S. government is in place and both governments can meet can plot out what the next 16-20 months will look like.

Why sign a SOFA with Iraq if our forces will be gone in 16-20 months?

WSJ Says Treatment of Bush Was "Disgraceful": Administration's Shredding of Constitution Was MORE Disgraceful

I'm at odds with the Wall Street Journal's op-ed piece on how President Bush was treated during the campaign of the last two years.

Frankly, I'm not concerned with what our enemies overseas are thinking. I'm much more concerned about the damage done to our Constitution in the name of national security that this Administration and this President have allowed to occur.

Indefinite detention of people? No habeas corpus? Star chamber justice? Not being allowed to confront their accusers? No trial by jury? No attorneys? No independent judicial review of the cases and sentences? Illegal evidence is allowed? A majority vote to decide guilt, and not a unanimous vote? Torture?

No, the Constitution of the United States is the SUPREME law of the land, and cannot be altered by lesser laws like the Patriot Act or the Military Commission Act of 2006. It's protections cannot be changed until the Constitution is properly amended and voted on as outlined in the Constitution itself. That has NOT happened.

It's true that the country hasn't been attacked since 9/11, but that's because it's easier for terrorists to shoot at American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than trying to infiltrate over here and risk getting caught before being able to do any damage. And our soldiers are more than happy to return the favor and fire back.

I am in complete disagreement with the Wall Street Journal on this issue. The other issues quoted in the article are trivial, compared to the damage that President Bush has done and received criticism on, and rightfully so.

Michigan's Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 are ABOMINATIONS: I Despise Both of Them

Michigan voted to become a safe haven for growing pot, in the ugliest case of drug-fiendish group-think that I have ever seen.

Who will be authorized to grow medical marijuana? My drug-fiend neighbors? The local supermarket? And what's to stop criminal elements from registering as growers and engaging in criminal enterprise as well as supplying "medical" pot?

Will it come across state borders, in violation of federal laws? And which laws will trump the other laws? Federal anti-drug laws, or state ones?

I'll be the first one to admit that I absolutely despise Proposal 1, and am very perturbed that so many voters were hoodwinked into voting 'yes' on this proposal.

As for Proposal 2, I voted against this as well on religious grounds. In addition, by the ballot's own language, it will use embryos that are unsuitable for implantation, which means that they're using defective embryos, and will require taxpayers to pay for faulty research. This is a waste of money, as well as being morally objectionable.

It also closes the door on preventing future research along similar lines, which I object to as well. I'm no fan of Prop 2, but realize that this will be harder to reverse than Prop 1, which I will continue to rail against.

What a revolting turn of events!

Obama Wins; Definitely Not a Reagan Landslide, But More Than Enough to Beat McCain

Barack Obama made history, becoming the first African-American man to become President of the United States. It wasn't quite a Reagan-style landslide, but was still more than enough to put McCain away. Congratulations to the President-elect.

I'm more unhappy about Michigan's Prop 1 and 2 right now than I am about the race for the White House. I've been on record as not being happy with either candidate, but we have a new President, and without all the legal dramas of 2000. For that, I am grateful.

We'll see how President-elect Obama does. I'm looking forward to a lot of new source material in the next four years, especially if his Socialist views begin to take the shape of policy.

For now, he has a lot of work to do in order to straighten out the economy.

It Will Be Over Tomorrow; We Will Have a New President

As the rest of the country gets ready to vote starting in a little over eight hours from now, I still have mixed feelings on the candidates.

They are not the best that their respective parties have to offer, and we're going to be stuck with one of them for the next four years, assuming they stay healthy.

McCain has made too many compromises over his career to be called a real conservative. Obama is too young and inexperienced and is too far over to the left; he's going to be forced to move to the right in order to govern if he wins tomorrow.

I don't think that the polls are correct in their blowout predictions either.

They've gotten the last two Presidential elections wrong with their polling data, both before and during Election Day. The problem is that the media and the pollsters continually underestimate the turnout on the Republican side, while overestimating the Democratic turnout on Election Day. And they never seem to learn from their mistakes.

And when the polls do not match the election results, they start screaming about voter suppression and start looking for victims. They don't seem to understand that many people don't want to tell who they actually voted for. I'd tell a pollster that I wrote in Mickey Mouse, just to throw their numbers off. It's none of their business!

It'll be interesting to see if any coal states predicted to go to Obama flip to McCain. Very few of the networks carried the Obama/coal industry story.

I will be watching the results tomorrow night with great interest.

Newspaper Covers Up Obama Statements on Killing the Coal Industry to Keep Coal-Producing States in His Column

The October Surprise came in November, and might well change the complexion of the race for the White House.

The surprise was a statement by Barack Obama, made in January of this year, about the coal industry to the San Francisco Chronicler. Obama said, in the recording, that the companies could try to build all the coal-fired plants that they want, but they could only do it in a way that would bankrupt the coal industry if he had his way.

Really? And when was he going to tell the twenty-seven coal-producing states that little bit of information? And when was he going to explain that to the ten largest coal-producing states:Montana, Illinois, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Texas and Indiana?

And here's why the Chronicler withheld the information about their preferred candidate:




Many of the undecided/"leaning Obama" and "marginally McCain" states also have a sizable portion of their economies built around coal production, with thousands of voters depending on the coal mines for their livelihoods.

For this supposedly "huge" lead that Obama has on McCain, the race is still in the air and could go in a number of directions OTHER than the way that the media PREFERS.

I think it's going to be a lot closer than ANYONE thinks.