Thursday, January 29, 2009

The true Democrat definition of rich

I just figured out a secret that I don’t think most people in America have noticed. The fact is it’s not much of a secret, it’s more like the elephant in the room. And Democrats have successfully avoided mentioning it for a while now.

Looking at the supposed “stimulus” package that is trying to be shoved through Congress before the public realizes what’s in the package I noticed something. Now we have to step into the way back machine called facts for a moment. Democrats be prepared.

“So, if you make $31,850 or more you may not feel like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett but you are going to get taxed like them.”


Remember that? It was March of 2008 when all the Democratic candidates (including then-Senator Obama) voted to increase taxes on anyone making more than $31,850. It was at that time that Democrats started to insist with high order of polispeak that only the rich would suffer under their leadership.

Of course that leadership also was asleep as the mortgage crisis grew and then spawned the credit crisis. Both of which are still evolving into bigger problems. But I digress.

As then-Senator Obama won the Primaries, he began to discuss, vaguely, his economic and tax plans. It was a central point that he envisioned the rich as the sole point of higher taxes. This of course raised the question, what is rich?

The Obama campaign started to almost answer that question with anyone making around $250,000. That later went down to $200,000. Shortly after that it became $150,000. Then the nation got distracted, as financial institutions fell left and right. The only question at that point was who else Rep. Barney Frank might blame the collapse on other than himself.

Now we can move up to the present.

The House Democrats (minus 11 bi-partisan Democrats who joined the entire Republican membership) voted to pass the bloated, non-immediate, useless, stimulus package that also seeks to fund Honey bees, fix NASA, and study ‘global warming’ among other useless actions. But in this current version of the non-‘stimulus package’ there is a provision for tax rebates.

The money is to be provided to the public, as a savings each month for 4 months of about $120. But here is the catch. It’s only good for up to the first $8150 you earn, so if you exceed that amount before the 4 months are up you lose out.

Worse yet is who will get that money. And this is the elephant. You must make less than $75,000 (or $150,000 jointly). And there is the new definition of rich. The answer that has been over 6 months in the waiting has presented itself.

So if you thought Obama would only tax the rich, hello you very likely are now part of that group. Honestly I never considered making $75,000 as rich. It isn’t poor but its just as far from Bill Gates.

Think about that. Middle class income is a cut-off point for Democrats in Congress, and President Obama who is all in favor of the stimulus package as is. Can anyone tell me this is what they expected when they voted for President Obama?

If this is the threshold for who gets help, and who pays for that help, it seems more lopsided than even during the Primaries where Democrats were leapfrogging each other to sound more moderate and friendly to the public. But Congress is not partisan, nor are the current batch of polispeak promise socialisic – according to the self-admitted major news media.

Let’s be honest. If President Obama told the American public the truth, that he considered $75,000 rich, he never would have been elected. No wonder he never gave a firm answer. And why Democrats have avoided the issue entirely, because the public backlash would sink the approval ratings faster than Nancy Pelosi can waste money. And that is very fast indeed.

Well you may not hear the truth in many other place, but you have heard it from me. If you doubt this, just look up the provisions of the stimulus plan. It’s right there for you to see.

Labels: , , , ,



Ask for ad rates

House Democrats are scamming your money

I had a friend ask me why the Republicans are causing trouble. The reference was to why all the House Republicans (and 11 Democrats) voted against the Stimulus Package. And when I mentioned some of the things I have long written, I was asked for more details.

Now I imagine others are wondering about details as well. How can I claim this is a horrible plan that will bankrupt America if there are no specifics. How can I be sure that this won’t stimulate the economy. Perhaps this is just a giant plot of Republicans to make President Obama look bad.

Well back in the land of reality, I decided to see if I could find a few more details on the stimulus package. And here are some of the things your money is being spent on. Remember that this is your money, and you will have to pay for this out of your pocket sometime soon.

    $245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency
    $175 million to buy and restore floodplain easements for flood prevention
    $2.7 billion for rural water and waste disposal direct loans
    $150 million for emergency food assistance
    $50 million for regional economic development commissions
    $1 billion for "Periodic Censuses and Programs"
    $650 million for Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program
    $100 million for "Scientific and Technical Research and Services" at the National Institute of Standards And Technology
    $30 million for necessary expenses of the "Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership"
    $300 million for a competitive construction grant program for research science buildings
    $400 million for "habitat restoration and mitigation activities" at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    $600 million for "accelerating satellite development and acquisition"
    $140 million for "climate data modeling"
    $3 billion for state and local law enforcement grants
    $1 billion for "Community Oriented Policing Services"
    $250 million for "accelerating the development of the tier 1 set of Earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadal Survey."
    $50 million for repairs to NASA facilities from storm damage
    $200 million for "academic research facilities modernization"
    $100 million for "Education and Human Resources
    $4.5 billion to make military facilities more energy efficient
    $18.5 billion for "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" research in the Department of Energy
    $2.4 billion to demonstrate "carbon capture and sequestration technologies"
    $6 billion for energy efficiency projects on government buildings
    $600 million to buy and lease government plug-in and alternative fuel vehicles
    $150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums
    $700 million for "comparative effectiveness research" on prescription drugs
    $1 billion for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
    $1 billion for Amtrack

Again this is only part of the list of things that are needed “immediately”, and will “improve the economy”. Please do correct me and explain how Food assistance, research, or climate data modeling are going to improve the economy and help the guy/gal down the block keep their job at the local Macy’s or Office Depot. Please explain how those ex-employees of Home Depot are going to feed their family and pay the bills for the next 2 or 3 years because of repairs to NASA or Earth science research.

I dare you.

Do I think funding for education is important? Definitely. Is it part of a stimulus package meant to help people stay employed tomorrow? No. Thus anything that does not help the NATION create jobs or maintain employment is a waste of time and money in this package.

If Democrats really wanted to improve things, why not take the billions of dollars that are being wasted, roughly $36 billion just from the examples I cited above, and give it directly to the public. That would be about $123 for ever man, woman, and child in the United States right now. Take out children and those not paying taxes (since they can’t repay they don’t get the benefits) and you get around $250 each.

There is still another $790 billion more to look at. Think that there might be just a bit more waste in the 25% of the package that won’t even be spent for 2 or 3 more years. How abut just giving us the money today and not wait 3 years. That would be almost $2,500 each. That would stimulate the economy.

But that isn’t going to happen. Which means the entire package is nothing more than polispeak, and a way for the Government to gain more control of your life. The Republicans that voted against this aren’t bad guys, they are actually helping you. But don’t expect the major media to explain it.

Labels: , , ,



Ask for ad rates

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The Democratic Party: entertaining with polispeak

Democrats are really something. I don't say this because I favor Democrats. Nor because they are special in any way. And let me clarify this - I am speaking about politicians and not people.

Democrats are just as prone to polispeak. They break campaign promises just as often. They have scandals, ignore constituents, and promote special interests as much as any other political group. But the thing that really gets me is the style they have in doing all this.

Democrats don't just get caught stealing money, they have it sitting in their refrigerator. They don't just nominate (or appoint) officials that no one has heard of or lacking experience, they go out and get people that are particularly unqualified.

Just look at recent events. In New York State we had a Democratic Governor that was actively looking to appoint Caroline Kennedy. She has no experience, has no defined political positions, and her best argument for the position is her last name. Why did she not get the position as Senator? Because she has a massive number of skeletons in her closet; and even with that information Gov. Patterson was still courting her at the last minute.

Then there is Illinois. Gov. Rod Blagojevich was caught trying to sell the Senate seat. Rather than resign, he turned the tables and made an appointment to the position. Thus making the story about the lack of Black Senators, the question of the validity of the appointment, the credibility of the appointee, and the division in the Democratic Party.

In fact the Governor of Illinois is still causing an uproar. because instead of defending himself he is talking about how he wanted Oprah Winfrey for the job. Talk about unqualified.

Yes, Winfrey is intelligent, and popular. Yes she does good deeds, and has a ton of cash. In fact she is the exact equal of Caroline Kennedy. Including the fact that she has no qualification for public office. The closest she has ever come to anything political is her lavish support of President Obama during the Primaries and election. And that puts her on the list of possibles.

Democrats don't just have balls, they are crazy. They seem willing to substitute qualifications for publicity. They seem to promote opinion polls versus positions. And they do so in a hoard of media cameras as if they were entertainers or celebrities. And then they expect us to blame EVERYONE else when things go wrong - like Barney Frank insists.

Other political parties have at least an equal number of foul-ups in their ranks. They all have prima donnas and power-hungry opportunists. But in the Democratic Party it seems that this is the best features in their top ranks.

I just can't wait to see what will happen next. Las Vegas should be running betting pools over what will happen first. Barney Frank blaming the extension of bank failures on someone else (likely the Bush Administration for another 18 months), Secretary of State Clinton being questioned about receiving tens of millions from foreign Governments while in discussions with those nations on behalf of America, Vice President Biden saying something racist and/or stupid, or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid insisting the time of the Congress is best spent combing thru every document and comment ever made in the prior 8 years.

And all the while bulbs will be flashing, and news media will be gushing as President Obama tells the nation that he will change things while they stay exactly the same.

Yet its other political parties that are bad for the nation, filled with malcontents, and ineffective. Only Democrats would have the balls to look the nation in the eyes and spew that polispeak.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,



Ask for ad rates

Monday, December 22, 2008

The ghost of Christmas past invades the credit crisis

Oh the horror. Now you have your choice of what the horror is. The $188 billion spent on the mortgage/bank bailout so far, the latest news from AP stating that in 2007 banks paid $1.6 billion on salaries and compensation, or the fact that Barney Frank dares to question anyones work ethic.

"Most of us sign on to do jobs, and we do them best we can," said Frank. "We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!"


Frank is head if the Banking Committee in Congress and failed to do his job all year long. He thought the sale of Bear Sterns would end the crisis. Then he thought that Freddie and Fannie Mae were fine. Then he thought AIG would end the mess. And so on. He either needs new batteries in his calculator, or we need a new head of the Banking Committee - you can guess which I suggest.

But back to the point at hand.

I don't care that last year the banking industry spent way too much money. That has nothing to do with the current problem. That's the thing these days in politics. You need ratings or you want to get positive results, polispeak on the past and you look like a genius. Too bad that hides the fact you don't know your ass from your elbow right now.

Have many executives gotten paid too much? Hell yes. I have no problem with the thought that an executive that comes to a company and improves it such that the jobs are secure and profits are up, getting a bonus, that is the concept after all. But being paid exceptional amounts for piss poor work and endangering the company makes no sense. I mean it's not like an executive can't survive on the tens of millions they get paid as salary in the top companies.

But this is an issue going forward. It really doesn't matter if the CEO gets a driver, or financial planning advice as a perk. That isn't enough money to matter. In total that is maybe 3 employees of the company saved, and nothing else. It wouldn't even show up on the companies liabilites sheet.

Though seeing where the company valued it's mortgages, and when, makes a big difference. Looking at what debt instruments the company is still using makes a difference. Looking to see if the bank is loading every bad debt and problem asset into the bailout money is worth knowing. The other stuff is a trifle meant only to gain readers and sell newspapers.

Executive pay is in all the headlines these days, driving the mantra of Democrats that regulation is good. But all this bluster hides a couple of simple things. You can't legislate good or bad business decisions. Oversight means nothing if the person in Congress is not smart enough to understand what they are reviewing. And the most important, the more the Government is involved with private business the more screwed up and like the Post Office it becomes.

So when you think of the horros of 2008, perhaps that last thought is the only one that really matter.

Labels: , , , ,



Ask for ad rates

Caroline Kennedy - a name with no place in politics

I've waited for a while now, just waiting for something from Caroline Kennedy to justify or remove her from consideration in replacing Senator Hillary Clinton. Mind you that I am not sorry to see Senator Clinton gone from office, as I am tired of her excuses on the broken promises that mark her time in New York. Though I am greatly saddened to see her working anywhere near the Executive Branch. But long-term readers know that, and this is about Kennedy.

Up til now there can be no question that Caroline Kennedy has zero qualifications for the Senate. She is a lawyer, like much of Congress. She is a Democrat, which at the moment gives her a boost. And she is the daughter of a revered dead President. Because if we are honest, that is the only reason any of us know her name.

Since she has never been politically active, which is a problem for me with anyone that would be Senator, we need to look at other aspects of this woman. She is part of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which I personally like but is not enough. She has worked for 2 years, 2002-4, and rose $65 million in private funds for schools in New York which is great. The job was only 3 days a week though and one must wonder how much money she could have raised if she worked a full 5 days, the schools in NY could have used the extra effort.

Still none of this is a qualification. Yes she helps people, and is a committed Democrat. But what can she do? And what does she plan to do to help the state in this very critical time? The New York Times and other news media had the same question and asked her just that on several issues. The answers reveal quite a bit.

Mrs. Schlossberg is shrewd, having given a total of $7300 to Clinton before she switched to Obama in September of that year and gave him $2300. At the same time she has not voted in numerous Primaries since 1988. So we can understand she is willing to let her money vote for her.

In addition we now know that she supports same-sex marriage, which 68% of the nation opposes - even in California and New York. Something that neither Clinton nor Obama support. Which makes me believe she is even more liberal than the former most liberal member of Congress - President Obama.

It also seems that she opposes any restriction on abortion. This is another far-left Democrat policy stance. It includes, and Kennedy defered to not answer about, partial birth abortions. Even those in favor of abortion have issues with that. But seemingly not Kennedy, though she prefers to avoid having to make polispeak about such a position.

And in a hat tip to the Pelosi led Congress, she supports the mandating of public vote at unions. Thus taking away the normal right of secret ballots, and forcing workers to deal with peer pressure and criticism for co-workers and management. How kind.

And of course she is in favor of the auto bailout. Something that all Democrats are pushing to advance, though none have answered a simple question. When the auto industry came back to Congress after using up $25 billion in bailout money in one month, they stated that they HAD to have $50 billion or they would fail. Congress is trying to provide $15-35 billion instead, with a "car czar" (otherwise known as more government interference resulting in another Barney Frank). Since this is not $50 billion, and thus means the auto industry will fail and/or come back for more money, why does she support the lesser amount? No Democrat has a good answer for that, though they have been very good at avoiding the question.

And we know that Kennedy is anti-gun, which places her at odds with most of the state - except New York City. And it is the City that NY politicians proffer to.

Speaking of which, surprisingly she backs her uncles plan to make illegal immigrants (otherwise known as undocumented workers - the missing document is a greencard and reason to be in the U.S.) citizens. Pay a fine and swear in. We might as well make citizenship available on eBay.

But in a question that hits the pockets of the people in the state Kennedy is mum about capping property taxes. Or on taxing the higher income brackets more (which still would not make up the shortfall that the new spending creates).

So all in all what can we surmise? Kennedy is a liberal the likes of which we have not had in this state as far back as I can remember. She is more liberal than Clinton, and Obama. And if you wonder why might that be a bad thing recall this. Senator Clinton PROMISED to bring 200,000 jobs to New York State if upstate New York voted her in. We have lost over 30,000 jobs as of 2007, long before the current crisis hit.

Do you believe a more liberal, pro-illegal immigrant, anti-second ammendment, spend and tax, lawyer with no experience in politics would be a good Senator? Without the last name, the answer can only be no. But what Gov. Patterson decides will happen. Sadly.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,



Ask for ad rates

Thursday, December 18, 2008

When the Clinton ledger hits daylight

$492 million in 11 years. That is a heft sum of money, just under $45 million a year. Talk about an annual pay that dwarfs the imagination. And almost all of it comes from overseas. And some think that the world has stopped investing in America.

Of course this is not investments in America as in the stock market. This was not money put into real estate or any other investment. Unless you call the Presidency and top level American politics an investment. Which obviously more than a few do.

All of this has been revealed now that former President Bill Clinton has divulged the 205,000 names of those that donated to the William J. Clinton Foundation (it only took 10 years to be told). And when I say donated I mean a lot of money.The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million, Amar Singh, Suzlon Energy Ltd. of Amsterdam, Nasser Al-Rashid, Lakshmi Mittal, Harold Snyder, Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi, Mala Gaonkar Haarman, Lukas Lundin, Victor Pinchuk, all gave gave $1 million to $5 million. And of course there is also Denise Rich, who gave the foundation at least $450,000. She just happens to be the wife of Marc Rich - recipient of a President Clinton pardon.

Some other names that bring up questions include Frank Giustra who gave $31.3 million following a 2-day visit by Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan that resulted in his gaining control of uranium mining in a astounding move in the mining industry.

Amar Singh is an Indian politician that has spoken with Senator Hillary Clinton recently about nuclear arms on behalf of his nation.

Suzlon Energy makes it's money in creating wind turbines, the number one energy initiative of Democrats, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who owns stock in that industry).

China Overseas Real Estate Development - which gave between $250,000 and $500,000 is interesting. Especially for those focused on how much China has bought into the U.S.

Perhaps one of the oddest donations to me is that of COPRESIDA-Secretariado Tecnico for some $10 to $25 million dollars. COPRESIDA was created by the Dominican Republic government to fight AIDS. Considering the relatively poor nation's funds, why would they donate so much of their budget to a foundation instead of to AIDS drugs, researchers, or promotions focused on awareness and prevention?

In a similar vein a question would be the $10 to $25 million from Children's Investment Fund Foundation - a group that is dedicated to helping children, primarily in Africa and India. Would that same money not be better spent in Africa and India on food, clothing, building secure homes, clean water and so on directly?

But looking at all the major donors, and looking back on the timing of many of the investments - excuse me, donations - the question quickly becomes if Hillary Clinton can be an objective Secretary of State. Her long term involvement in the gains of her husband, and the governments he has 'worked' with cause pause. Like how will Pakistan trust her neutrality when Indian interests provide her and Bill Clinton so much money. Or when thinking about Marc Rich the question of whether she can be bought arises.

The Secretary of State is supposed to be without agenda, beyond the message of the President. Somehow this does not appear to be within the capabilities of Senator Clinton. Something that was apparent to me throughout the Democratic Primaries.

But a Democrat-led Congress, with a President that is as liberal as the Party has, and a Democratic Party still looking to smooth the ruffled feathers of 18 million of their voters, is likely to overlook almost anything. Not that this in any way is to the benefit of the nation.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,



Ask for ad rates

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Rewards and penalties for American politics

Ok, so is it just me or has anyone else noticed the way the Democrats are rewarding each other? President-elect Obama took the Democratic Primaries, and to reward Senator Hillary Clinton for not fighting out the DNC he gave her the Secretary of State position.

In doing so he swallowed all of the comments of former President Bill Clinton - most regarding President Obama as secondary and racially questionable. He has effectively ignored all the attempts of the Clinton campaign to paint him as a Muslim, and drug dealer. And he has taken the most ambitious and willing -to-do-anything political viper into his cabinet.

All Senator Clinton had to do was make a complete political 180-degree turn around on what she had spent months and millions of dollars stating. Not that such actions are unusual for her.

And the public got a Secretary of State that derives part of her income from monies donated to charities she and her husband run, from countries what have dubious at best relations with the U.S. We received a Secretary of State that was willing to have a major fundraiser that was a known fugitive from the law, and tried to keep the money he provided, which was known to be stolen.

President-elect Obama has just rewarded Gov. Richardson with a Secretary of Commerce position. Gov. Richardson was the first to back Obama and run from the Clinton campaign. For such political shrewedness it was expected he would get the State position. But Latinos are not as important as donor money, 18 million supporters, and a backdoor deal (made just after Hillary conceded).

One of the things that has really gone unmentioned is Representative Charles Rangel. He was the key Democrat that push Senator Clinton into conceding the Democratic Primary. He is known as a staunch Clintonite, so his doing so made him a visible example.

Shortly after blasting Hillary (politically) it was found that Representative Rangel had homes in the Dominican Republic that he paid no tax on, that he had several rent-subsidized apartments in new York City though he claims Washington DC as his residence. Add to that the fact he is now also being investigated for receiving $1 million in donations to his Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service from the CEO of Nabors Industries after he got them a tax break.

Most of his tax and residence issues all existed for years. And not a single person in Congress ever made not of this. The IRS never questioned it. Everyone in politics were completely fine with his actions, until he pissed of Hillary Clinton.

So what are we seeing in the Obama Administration?

Old politics in the embodiment of past figures from the Clinton Administration. Partisan politics in the number and degree of down-the-line Democrat political figures. People (Like Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton) that are known for their spiteful actions to those that oppose their views. People that are willing to accept funds and favors from anyone that can advance their political goals. People that will seemingly say anything, and reverse their publicly stated opinions at the drop of a hat, for political favor.

And we have an Administration that is filled with crossed political agendas. Vice President-elect Biden opposed President-elect Obama on several foreign policy and economic views - which he reportedly believes in and wants to support. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opposes President Obama on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, and a number of goals that she has sworn repeatedly to uphold for her 18 million voters. And Secretary of Commerce Richardson is not without his disputes and objectives.

This is an Administration that was primarily loyal to the Clinton's, hates any policy that is not left-wing liberal, blindly pro-Democrat, with little to no positive experience with economic issues. Several of the key figures all have opposing and partisan agendas - none of which match the stated goals of President Obama.

The in-fighting that will occur will be unmatched by any Administration I can recall in my lifetime. And we the people will get the rewarding opportunity to watch this all unfold via television and blogs. The only price of admission will be the economy at large and the national debt. Not too big a price some might say.

And for those that oppose any part of this, this Administration has enough venom to kill a African Black Mamba. Just ask Rep. Rangel. Too bad Iran, Al Quida, Indian extremists, Russian expansionists, OPEC, the stock market, NATO and many others could give a damn less about American internal political oneupmanship.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,



Ask for ad rates

Thursday, November 06, 2008

M V Consulting, Inc. election poll results

For those that were curious about the results of the polls that were on the sites of M V Consulting, Inc. about the presidential election I have the numbers. These polls were on the site for a year, and visitors were able to vote only once each.

The visitors of the M V Consulting, Inc. sites broke down as follows:

  • 28.5% Democrat
  • 53% Republican (not including Michael Vass)
  • 16.3% Independent
  • And believe it or not 2.2% checked of that they didn’t think their vote matters – which I disagree with


  • In addition 84.2% stated they were old enough to vote, 81% had voted before 6% were to young prior and 6% just did not vote. 50% had family members in the military and 17% of those were in Iraq. 83% felt their jobs were not secure.

    29% believed one candidate was a dead-on choice for them, 64% felt one candidate was 50% or more aligned with their views.

    43% felt the next President would affect their daily lives a lot or more, 28% thought the effect would be a little or not at all, and 29% were unsure.

    83% follow politics everyday.

    The top issues affecting America were ranked from most important to least

      Economy
      Iraq/Afghanistan
      Education
      Illegal Immigration
      Crime
      National healthcare
      Foreign Policy
      National Defense
      Race Relations
      Other

    Final votes ended up as 64 million votes and 52% overall for President Obama, 56.4 million voters and 46% of overall votes for Senator McCain.

    So do you agree with my readers that voted? Do you feel these results reflect the concerns and attitudes of the nation?

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, October 21, 2008

    Need welfare? Elect Obama

    As talk of the economy and taxes dominate the political pundits, and the Presidential candidates stump speeches, I again wanted to take a look at the reality of the Obama tax plan. In searching for those more intelligent than myself to evaluate the tax plan I came across the Wall Street Journal. Considering the daily focus on money and economics I doubt anyone could call them an unqualified source.

    And while this article may be a bit dated I find it accurate. In fact since it was written the only real change ahs been the fact that Obama has promised, and virtually guaranteed, that he will give away even more money. Suffice to say that in total the Obama tax plan is really a welfare system.

    “Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.”


    Giving people money that they have not earned and is not theirs is welfare. That is the core of his “share the wealth” redistribution of income he proposes as a tax plan. That is anything but the American way. It is far closer to a socialistic Government.

    “Mr. Obama proposes a fully refundable Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which would have the government pay out $500 to each worker and $1,000 to couples -- reminiscent of George McGovern's 1972 election proposal for the government to send a $1,000 check to everyone.

    His American Opportunity Tax Credit would provide a $4,000, fully refundable tax credit for college tuition expenses. His Mortgage Interest Tax Credit would provide a 10% credit -- refundable -- to offset mortgage interest payments for lower- and middle-income families. His Health Care Tax Credits, which the campaign says "will ensure that health insurance is available and affordable for all families," include "a new refundable 50 percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers.

    The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would be made refundable and expanded to allow "low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit on the first $6,000 of child care expenses.”


    This may all sound great, except it forgets something important. All that money being given to low income people and families has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is feeling the crunch of credit and the slow down in the economy as well.

    “The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system -- meaning from the taxpayers -- equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.”


    So while those in the lowest income brackets make the most money, it’s all money that is undeserved. You might be saying, “I don’t care. That’s money coming to me and not out of my pocket.”

    But that would be a lie. In fact that is the exact thought the Obama campaign and Democrats hope you think. Because money does not grow on trees, and deficit spending that the Government does so well must be paid off at some point.

    The money comes from business, at least they hope. By increasing corporate taxes and that of those making over $250,000 the Government hopes to cover the costs of the ‘welfare’ and the bigger government Obama promises (costing $800 billion dollars on it’s own).

    But those in the top income bracket have no reason to invest in or create small businesses. The capital gains tax means that investing is not worthwhile. Unless you can legally find a way to make 45% on investments in a down market (that would cover the 20% tax, 10% broker fee, and leave 15% which would be further hit by personal taxes – and for the record at the top of the internet bubble the average investment made 35% profit and this is far from that exuberant market).

    And business will pass the cost onto consumers, while firing employees to make up the difference. Kind of like what Yahoo just did. And you can expect more of that from more companies if Obama is elected.

    Welfare is not a bad thing in itself. Most of us need help at one point in our lives. But that is not the same as handing out someone else’s money simply because of envy that they worked hard and made more money. It’s not the same as the Government arbitrarily capping how much money you can make in your chosen field of work. It’s not the same as essentially working for the Government when you had struggled to be able to work for yourself.

    The repercussions of the ‘welfare’ or effectively higher taxes, and higher unemployment that is the Obama plan are severe. And in a Democratic Congress that is more focused on placing blame on anyone else while spending money that does not exist those problems become more extreme.

    Senator Obama is a good American, and his high hopes are laudable. But America cannot afford his socialist leaning views.

    Labels: , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, October 01, 2008

    Democratitis, the infection is spreading

    Oh My God, Democratitis is spreading. If you are unaware Democratitis is an affliction where liberal minded political officials spontaneously are bombarded with invisible non-life threatening bombs and bullets. A side effect of this condition leaves those affected driven with an undeniable urge to describe the harrowing attack on national television.

    A related disease is Liberal Media Love Syndrome. This tends to affect those working in the newspaper industry more than most other forms of media, but all news media workers are at risk. Those infected have the inability to perceive lies and polispeak spoken by those with Democratitis unless large amounts of reliable facts are rammed up an orifice.

    Ok, so much for my fun.

    On a more serious note, we all are familiar with the infamous invisible sniper bullets that assailed Senator Clinton during a trip to Bosnia with her daughter. The uproar was huge, once people actually investigated the facts of the trip and found out she was lying… excuse me, had misspoken. Her misremembrance of the facts of this trip, and her attempt to garner votes from it, were immediately pounced upon by the Obama campaign.

    Yet the fact that Senator Biden made exactly the same kind of lie… excuse me misrepresented fact has gone unmentioned. Until now. Of course when he said in 2007, during the Democratic Primary debates, that he came under fire – no one cared because the chances of him becoming President were as good as Barney Frank regulating banks. But now that we are looking at potentially the next Vice President this is important.

    If Senator Clinton was discredited and shown to be willing to corrupt facts to sway the American public, are the comments of Senator Biden no less?

    “Let’s start telling the truth,” he said. “Number one, you take all the troops out — you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die, number one.”


    That’s what he said. The implication is that Senator Biden is Patton-esque in nature and that he was not shot at once but several times. The truth is

    “Biden described three incidents on two separate Iraq trips in which he felt that he was shot at or might have been shot at. Only one of them took place inside the Green Zone, he said, and involved a “shot” landing outside the building where he and other senators were staying…

    Biden said the incident happened in the morning while he and at least one other senator were shaving. Although he said it shook the building, he wasn’t rattled enough to duck and cover.

    “No one got up and ran from the room—it wasn’t that kind of thing,” he said. “…It’s not like I had someone holding a gun to my head.”


    Hardly the kind of event that evokes images of Iwo Jima, a soldier, or danger. I mean he didn’t even mention cutting himself shaving when the building shook.

    But this is not the end of the embellishments.

    “If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.”


    and again the truth is

    “But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February.”


    So the real question of all this is not the Democratitis or Liberal Media love Syndrome, but in fact Senator Obama’s judgement that he wishes to replace actual experience when voters consider him as President.

    Without question the Obama campaign researched and knew of this inaccurate (to say the least) comment. And the Afghanistan quote is from about a week ago. Yet the Obama campaign has no comment on these statements.

    If Senator Obama wants you to vote on judgement, and the world of new politics, you have to wonder why he thought a person who lied, or whatever you wish to call it, to the nation was the right choice for Vice President. If that’s new politics how is it different than what Democrats complain about President Bush or said about Senator Clinton?

    Well before more of the media, and worse yet the nation, get infected with Liberal Media Love Syndrome I suggest a cure. Vote Republican.

    Labels: , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Monday, September 29, 2008

    Bailout deal fails again, polispeak runs rampant

    You have to be impressed by the Congressional Democrats. They have balls. Not brains, just balls. Because that is the only way they can make the claims they do about the bailout deal.

    In listening to the Democrats, Barney Frank in particular you would think that the Republicans are staging a massive political coup. That the Republicans are the only reason why the bailout deal that was voted on today failed was their votes. That this is all about politics and the upcoming election.

    But if you stop listening to the polispeak in Congress and look at the vote numbers and you see another picture.

    The vote was 228 – 205 against the deal. That includes 94 Democrats, which could have easily made the difference and passed the deal no matter what the Republicans did. But they chose to go against their Party and Treasury Secretary Paulson, and President Bush.

    Why? Because the deal was horrible. Because there is no confidence in the deal. Because the rush to pass the deal makes you wonder what is in it. Like the fact that a previous version included a stipulation that if this bailout actually got any money repaid that money would not go to taxpayers but would fund a Democratic initiative called ACORN (which has federal problems currently).

    Or how about the fact that I have yet heard how the public, that will be buying these assets (bad mortgage loans) could or will get the money back. We will spend $10,000 each, out of our pockets, and if this ever makes break-even or profit there has been no discussion how we get that $10,000 back in our pockets directly. And under the current plans you never will. That is not a political problem, that is just a bad deal.

    If this were as political as Democrats would like it to be, then this bad deal would have passed, Senator Obama would have the credit for it (or at least Senator McCain would have the blame) and they would use this to win the election. That didn’t happen.

    If this were political, Republicans could have voted for this deal claimed it was because of Senator McCain’s influence and used that to win the election. It’s just that simple.

    But Senator McCain, the Republicans, and 94 Democrats are not being political. They are doing their jobs. They are trying to structure a deal that works for taxpayers like you and me. They want to answer (I hope) the question of how the money comes back to you and me, if it ever makes money.

    If we want to really be political about this, we can ask why Barney Frank and Chris Dodd could not see the impending problem as late as July of this year yet they are the heads of the Banking and Finance Committees in Congress. They were informed by supposedly brilliant minds on the exact status of the problem, and they crafted laws and regulations to control what happened. They also made enormous amounts of money from the very people they were (supposedly) watching.

    Look, here is the reality. Senator Obama and McCain are Senators. One of them will be the next President. They are effectively the leaders of their respective Parties. They need to get into this fray (well at least Obama does as McCian is) and do their jobs. They need to forge a deal, stand together and say they endorse the deal. At that point it will have to pass. And to forge the deal they need to answer the question that I feel is most important, how I get my money back.

    Everything that is short of this is polispeak. Every moment that Obama avoids this problem, every moment that they don’t answer the key question, every moment we have no deal endangers America and makes our near-term future that more bleak. And no matter how many Democrats blame Republicans, or how many deny their failure to do their jobs, the outcome remains the same.

    Labels: , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Thursday, September 25, 2008

    The bailout and mortgage crisis: Where did it start, who screwed up, who tried to fix it, and when

    I just can’t step away from the most pivotal issue in the election and the lives of Americans right now. The spin in the media is that Senator McCain is avoiding Senator Obama on a debate of foreign policy – something McCain has experience at for decades and Obama has a speech in Germany. And many are calling the deep desire of McCain to serve the nation, as was called for by Harry Reid yesterday, a political stunt. Though they ignore the school boy-esque scolding that Obama received when the President called him to the White House today.

    But I am tired of hearing Democrats and some media pundits running around blaming every economic woe of the nation on Republicans. There is certainly more than enough blame for all the politicians in Congress, which is why it has the lowest approval rating ever. Republicans have screwed up and spent more than they should. But Democrats have been no better, in fact those that are critical to the finance of the nation have been particularly blind. Mr. Magoo could have foreseen more with their level of information and influence over the years.

    But lest my words be seen as partisan, which to an extent I am sure they are as with any pundit or blogger, I present talking heads from across the spectrum of the cable news media and pundits, as well as politicians themselves. Listen to those that we have elected, and their votes and assurances. Then tell me this is only a Republican caused problem.

    And please explain to me why we should believe that those that planted the seeds for this problem, and fostered it to the debacle we are required to deal with today, should be believed when they say they have a solution

    History of mortgage crisis back to 2003


    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions – Sept 18 2008


    Chris Dodd was watching closely but did nothing – August 2007


    Treasury Secretary Paulson progress made – February 2008


    Barney Frank – Improving regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac July 14 2008


    Obama accuses McCain of opposing reform


    Have Republicans tried to do anything?


    S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

    So I also ask this, If Senator McCain did not go to Washington D.C., if the President did not call Senator Obama to the White House, are you sure there would be a resolution to the bailout crisis? Would that resolution be in the best interest of the nation?

    Is a debate, that could be easily rescheduled, more important than the potential of 4 out of 5 Americans losing their homes and jobs?

    And lastly, isn’t it a bit hypocritical that Democrats claim that the debate must happen because America wants this; yet they defended Senator Obama when he refused for 2 months every request that was made for Obama to join McCain in speaking directly with Americans at town hall meetings across the nation?

    Labels: , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Friday, September 19, 2008

    What's another $50 billion in debt?

    The stock market was falling, the Government spent a quarter of a billion taxpayer dollars to bailout selected financial companies, and plans were being made to spend almost $1 trillion dollars on the bad debt still floating in the market. While all this is happening House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to promote increasing the debt of the nation even more. How kind.

    House Speaker Pelosi, who still has not publicly acknowledged her substantial investments in alternative energy, is now pushing a $50 billion stimulus plan which is similar in some ways to they prior $168 billion stimulus plan that was enacted earlier this year. That early stimulus check failed to do anything except push-off the eventual downward trend in the economy.

    I was never in favor of the stimulus check plan. It was a waste of money. With the problem of foreclosures and slower growth the initial checks were used to pay down on debt and mortgages, as opposed to the purchases of new goods that was hoped for. Which seemed obvious to me.

    This time Pelosi wants to spend the money

    “…that would fund road, bridge and other construction projects, help low-income families pay upcoming winter heating bills, give more food stamps to the poor and help states pay the higher costs of health care for the poor.”


    This plan is a little bit smarter than the first but still does nothing to help the people that need it most. Unless you work in construction building a road or bridge will not directly affect you. So that is a waste, and money best spent at the local or state level. Giving poor people more food does not help them learn skills or get jobs that will help them not be poor anymore. Though I agree letting people starve is not nice, in the long run it only trains them to rely on the Government more, as they have been trained to do since the 1970’s.

    Of course another problem about the higher costs of food is directly tied to Nancy Pelosi’s investment portfolio. As is the higher cost of heating oil. Nancy Pelosi has held off discussions of domestic drilling for nearly the whole year so far. She has supported everything that will limit this drilling. She wants to build up alternative energy exclusively.

    It will take at least 10 years, if not more, to effectively create any alternative energy sources. The one source currently being pushed is corn-based ethanol. Because it’s based on corn food prices are going up. Because only 5 states in the nation have pumps with ethanol, and the fact that only 2 allow public purchases there is a glut of ethanol. And Government mandates will increase that glut by 60% next year.

    So effectively, Democrats and Speaker Pelosi are hurting the poor with their plans, and this additional stimulus plan is a band-aid on the wound they inflicted.

    I have to wonder how this stimulus plan will help anyone. I have to wonder how this will do anything more than just temporarily hold at bay the problems Democrats have enforced in the nation.

    Will this bill pass? Of course. Politically the timing is perfect. The Government is already bailing out the financial sector for $1 trillion, what’s another $50 billion. And how bad will a Presidential candidate look if their Party refuses to pass a bill that targets the poor. The average American does not connect one dumb political idea with another, nor do they see the connection of all these things to the domino effect they create in the future. So it will happen.

    Of course that means that the Government will swell further, and the economy will worsen. And the taxpayers will become poorer, at all income levels. These issues are not a rich versus poor issue. If the economy is bad, every American is affected. And the plans being put in place are just trying to push those problems off the minds of Americans till just after the election.

    Speaker Pelosi is deceptive in her refusal to acknowledge her personal benefit from her politically based ideas. Senator Obama, in supporting this idea, is ignorant of the real fundamental issues causing the problems. Democrats are too absorbed in political gain to deny this act of futility.

    Still never fear, this bill will pass. It will also do nothing to benefit anyone. Especially when crude oil prices increase over the winter as they always do. Especially as food prices go higher as more ethanol is created and sits unused. Especially as domestic drilling sits on the background delaying any potential help it can garner to the public because its ultimate benefit won’t happen for several years (just as alternative energy will take a decade or more to be effective).

    But not to worry, bigger Government, larger wastes of tax money, increased national debt, and inept plans from Congress are ok by Democratic standards. Just elect Senator Obama and continue a Democrat-led Congress and they will ensure that the Government will take care of you more; instead of you taking care of yourself. Because they know better. Just look at their record and you can tell.

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Thursday, September 11, 2008

    Democrats vs Gov. Sarah Palin - what are they thinking?

    I’m just looking back over some of the political comments in the last 2 weeks and it’s amazing how much the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin has affected the Democratic Party. You would think someone hit them all with a taser. They are acting like a chicken without a head.

    I mean there is the comment by South Carolina Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler. Now I imagine Chairwoman Fowler is no fool, having achieved her position because she is intelligent and capable. Yrt she presents none of these qualitiues when she said Sen. John McCain chose a running mate

    "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion."


    If that is eloquent or insightful I can’t imagine how. And the Democratic response to the obvious outrage was less than inspiring as well. First they noted that this was an independent statement not made on behalf of Senator Obama. Then Chairwoman Fowler apologized with

    “I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make every day, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive. I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue.”


    If the comment was merely clumsy, then this half-hearted apology must be off-balanced. Because it’s obvious that Fowler does not respect a woman that chose to give birth to a baby that is less than perfect, or that has risen through the political jungle to become a Govenor of a State. Perhaps it’s because Gov. Palin is a mother of 5 that does not believe what Fowler believes, seemingly a sin among many Democrats.

    But let’s not think that only women in the Democratic Party are off-kilter when it comes to Palin, or Senator Obama for that matter. Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen was more than ready to jump off the deep end with his comment.

    “Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor.”


    What is that supposed to mean? I respect Senator Obama, though I disagree with his ideals, but you really need to explain to me how he is God-like any more than any other human being. I mean Gandhi could be compared to Jesus in some ways, Mother Theresa could have been compared to Mary as well but Obama? Beyond being a great speaker in front of large crowds what else is there?

    And to compare Palin to Pilate makes no sense. I mean her name starts with a “p” and beyond that I don’t get it. Does that mean that America is the Roman Empire, since that was the government Pilate worked in? Would Rep. Cohen agree with that? Following that analogy would Senator Biden be Judas since he has publicly denied Obama’s ability to lead the nation and no works for Obama? Would Senator Clinton be Doubting Thomas? Would the Clinton Democrats be the crowd that condemns Jesus to crucifixion?

    If we are going to follow the analogy then let’s follow the whole thing. And I doubt any Democrat would be happy with those comments. But where is the Democratic Party denouncing this? So perhaps they do agree and thus they must agree with its further conclusions as well.

    Honestly, since Gov. Palin has been named the Vice Presidential candidate of Senator John McCain the Democrats have been abluster. They are failing to stay on the important issues facing America. They are failing to show how their divided Party is better or how the deep divisions in their Executive candidates are a better remedy to the nations problems than the cohesive Republican candidates.

    All political candidates are flawed, and they all are human. To address their failures and mistakes is fair game. But to raise any candidate up to ridiculous comparisons to religious figures, to ignore serious political factors which are the basis of why they are running is beyond stupid.

    We are electing a President, not seeking to create a new religion. We are seeking to vote for a political Administration, not a best friend or exact mirror of ourselves. Perhaps if Chairwoman Fowler and Rep. Cohen can remember these simple things they can help Senator Obama. Yet I have to question what they think an Obama Administration would really bring the nation.

    Labels: , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, September 03, 2008

    Senator Joe Lieberman speech at Republican National Convention

    Another important speech last night was from Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman may be the first Democrat to speak at a Republican National Convention.

    Sen. Lieberman is officially recorded as an Independent, because in his last re-election the Democrats threw him under the bus and he had to run on his own against a candidate they put up against him. Since that time, if not quite some time before, Democrats have been in various forms of dislike towards him. But they need him to maintain the majority they hold in the Senate.

    Of course Senator Lieberman engendered no great joy from Democrats from the speech he made. Instead of going straight down the Party line, instead of racing along with the far-left liberal policies advocated at the DNC, Lieberman – the 2000 VP pick of Al Gore – asked all Americans to vote for the person that was best for President. And his opinion is that Obama is not that man.

    So many Senator Hillary Clinton supporters, Democratic delegates, and the Independent Senator of Connecticut have all endorsed McCain. A former Democratic Vice President, the current Democratic Vice Presidential pick, and the main competitor in the Primaries to Senator Obama have all said the same thing to the nation (before they polispoke their way to complete reversals based on political gain).

    But don’t take my words, listen to Senator Lieberman – who knows what it takes to get elected.

    Labels: , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Thursday, August 28, 2008

    Bill Clinton finally backs Obama at Democratic National Convention

    There is no question that Bill Clinton is a great speaker. So there was no shock in the fact that he spoke well at the Democratic National Convention. The overall thing that impressed me though was that Bill Clinton did was Hillary could not; he gave reasons to believe Senator Obama would be a good President and finally admitted that Obama was ready to be President.



    Unlike Senator Hillary Clinton’s speech, which was self-serving, Bill Clinton started off and continued to evoke his support and good will for Senator Barack Obama. Bill bit the bullet on his personal disagreements with Obama and did what was best for the Democratic Party. I have not seen a politician flip on a position so well on national television in some time.

    You have to love the fact that Bill, unlike his wife, had no problem mentioning Senator Obama’s name more than 3 times in his speech. Then again Bill is a better speaker.

    Now Bill did make some mistakes. First his comparison to President Carter is not a good one. Carter is accepted as a horrible President that did virtually nothing to improve the economy, resolve the energy crisis, lower unemployment, or protect Americans abroad. In fact his policies made all of that worse. This is why Carter was part of the long list of Democratic Presidents that have never gotten a second term since Roosevelt. (Only Bill Clinton has.) So stating that Obama is like Carter implies that America will have a worse time if he is elected than some think it is today.

    On top of that is the fact that Bill Clinton’s Administration did nothing to improve America’s safety (he let Osama Bin Laden live to create the 9/11 attack), create alternative energy sources (crude oil increased some 150% during his time in office, no nuclear plants were made, and oil refineries dropped in number), or prevent the devastating economic burden of the internet bubble that I would argue did more damage than any other single factor in decades. It was also his Administration that failed on healthcare.

    But particularly I want to address the spike in food, the core in the CPI index. Food prices are up because of one of the major initiatives that Democrats are pushing right now. Corn Ethanol. In playing to the farmers of the nation corn was picked as the source to create ethanol – a product that is less efficient than gasoline by 25% and unavailable to 97% of the nation – and while there is a glut of ethanol the mandatory increase of it’s production has caused the price of corn to go up and therefore food prices to increase.

    This is a problem caused by the tunnel-visioned emphasis of the Democrats on specific exclusionary choices for alternative energy. Like wind power that benefits Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s investment portfolio the Democrats allow political and financial interests to dominate what they believe is the energy choice America should have, without being honest enough to say why they refuse any other option. I believe we need to invest in all energy sources and let innovation discover which the best choice is, and that we switch to grass ethanol that does not affect our food supply and costs.

    But getting back to Clinton’s speech, you have to love the way Bill has ignored and reversed his thoughts espoused about Obama during the Primaries. It’s about time too. But his credibility is weak considering this is the first time he has changed his opinion, under pressure that his wife is out and if she is ever to have a chance he must shore up the political divide they created together.

    It is correct that Senator Obama has the ability to rally the public, and inspire our minds. That is critical in a President. Curiosity and intelligence are equally important in a President. So at the 6:51 minute of the speech Bill Clinton is correct. But he leaves out something else a President needs. Experience in working with the Congress and creating bi-partisan policies that benefit the nation. Experience and respect from the international community. Senator Obama has neither. And while President Bush now has experience in both (to limited degrees) few in America approve the degree to which he has gained both. But Senator John McCain, and even Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden have more experience, international respect, and bi-partisan ability than Obama, with as much intelligence, curiosity, and inspirational capacity.

    Bill Clinton makes an excellent attempt at claiming Senator Obama has made solid choices on international policy. But he ignores facts, like the fact that Senator Obama was among those opposing the Surge (in fact joining those that declared it a failure before it started), that his position on Georgia and Russia was weak, that his choice of Vice President directly opposes his views on Iraq, and is inaction (and in fact reluctance to discuss) on Darfur.

    I agree that Senator Obama has a unique and beneficial view of America that every White President to date has not had. If Obama becomes President it will be the first time that someone who has lived with racism, prejudice, the biased legal system, and the disadvantages enforced in our media and culture will be in the Oval Office. Such a perspective is needed in a nation that is very diverse, with 1 in 3 Americans having to endure those challenges ever day.

    But while the Primaries may have tested Senator Obama, they also presented his weaknesses. Senator Obama performed outstandingly in the early Primaries, only to be massively attacked and eventually beaten in the last several states. Senator Obama showed his ability to create a lead, and the inexperience to keep it. The gaffes that occurred late in the Primaries are examples similar to the choices many make in their late teens and early 20’s, which are remade and rethought upon gaining the wisdom of experience and age.

    And As for Obama’s choice of running mate, I still don’t get it. There is no synergy here. Senator Biden opposed Obama on several critical points. He represents the ‘old’ politics that Obama has stated he wants to change from. Biden had even said, as did the Clinton’s, that Obama lacked experience enough to be President. I have worked for inferior bosses before, and I think anyone who has will say that it created more problems than solutions.

    Thus the national security leadership Bill Clinton mentions is fractured. It is based on an internal argument of diametrically opposed views. It is anything but a team effort. Which means either Biden, or Obama, either lied about their views or do not believe in them strongly enough and will flip their previously stated thoughts. Because if either of those conditions are not met, then we have the potential for a divided Executive Office fighting against itself.

    By the way, when Bill says

    “revitalize the international institutions, which help to share the cost of the world’s problems”

    He is speaking of the U.N. It is that organization that has always failed to match our funding, that has failed to pay its full dues. Always. The United Nations has never had a major military presence anywhere that did not involve the U.S. in an over weighted manner. And in 40 years of life I have never heard a single President mention how the U.N. has satisfactorily done anything that America has wanted. Share the cost? How about just paying their post-due fees as a start.

    As for HIV/AIDS I agree that more needs to be done to highlight the fight. But it would be a lie to say that America has given up on this. More needs to be done, but we have not stopped funding or fighting this disease, abroad or domestically. The major news media may have moved on to another ratings grabbing issue but various governmental and individual efforts have continued. Still I say again that more can be done, and needs to be.

    And a President Obama is seen as a weak military commander. Senator Obama is seen as without the guts to fight, or continue the efforts already on-going. That is why Iran and other Middle East nations, and various militant groups have endorsed Obama. Because they believe they can push him around, as Hillary did in the Primaries, as John McCain is currently doing in various ads. If it takes just one television political ads to take the Obama campaign off message, how hard would it be to take him off of a potential military crisis? And his initial response to Russia in the current Georgian conflict has been seen universally as weak and toothless.

    While many nations in the world may need the innovations and financial support America can provide Senator Obama does not strike me as capable of providing it. He has yet to take a stance on Darfur. When asked directly about that nation at the recent Civic Forum Obama instead discussed Rwanda. As a Senator He has made no strides in Darfur, or in the Primaries drawn any attention to it. If he cannot do this, then how can we believe he will lead America in beating the Chinese at providing financial and industrial aide to Africa? Or any other nation?

    But Bill Clinton then goes to attack Republicans. Now criticism is fair, and many problems exist over the last 8 years. But it is a fallacy to believe all the problems were created by Republicans, or to ignore the fact that some of these issues were created by or failed to be resolved by the Democrat-led Congress.

    The issues of the economy, and in part failing retirement accounts, are partially a Republican failing. But they are also the failure of the Clinton Administration. The excesses allowed in the internet bubble, that he did nothing about, had immediate and lingering effects on the economy. Millions have still not recovered the losses they incurred then, and the debt it created. The failure of Congress to address the issues in the commodities and options markets caused the recent, and soon to recur, runs in energy prices. These are issues that both Democrats and Republicans share in, from the Clinton Administration’s 2nd term thru Bush.

    And the image of American’s without healthcare is yet another example. The Clinton Administration failed to change healthcare, and after the disaster of Hillary Clinton’s attempt never picked the ball up. Bush as well has failed to run with this issue. Both are culpable. And any reform will need to be bi-partisan to effectively help anyone.

    And Clinton should never talk about favors for the well connected. Mark Rich and Norman Hsu. Do I need to say more?

    But he is dead on about the cronyism that helped to worsen the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But those were direct results of President Bush, not McCain or the Republican Party.

    At the 15:39 minute of his speech Bill Clinton discusses Senator McCain. He mentions that McCain is defined by the extreme of the Republican Party on the issues of rebuilding America, and restoring America’s leadership. America’s leadership is something that Europe and other nations have been complaining about since the 1960’s. When Bill was President France would not let us use their airspace to bomb Quadafi in Libya – an accepted promoter of terrorism in the world outside of the U.S. American leadership has always been questioned and fought against, and it always rolls through hills and valleys – but ultimately it exists because the rest of the world needs out money, military and expressions of freedom time and again. But when we have weak Presidents, like Carter and Clinton, we see the emergence of long lasting problems – like the emergence of radical Iran, Bin Laden, and the initial problems with Saddam Hussein (which Clinton bombed constantly as Kurds were killed by the thousands).

    And to rebuild America requires innovation. That innovation usually comes from small businesses growing and taking chances. Like Dell, or Apple, or Microsoft, these companies need an environment to grow in. But increased corporate taxes and higher minimum wages restrict small business and diminish that innovation. So how will that help rebuild the nation? How does increasing the burden of the nation with higher debt for funding a new department in charge of healthcare help to rebuild a nation? How does higher unemployment and lower work hours help to reduce the tax burden and higher taxes stimulate home purchases?

    So in effect the extreme views of the Democratic Party are no more efficient or likely to achieve the goal of a better, stronger America. I agree that the extreme Right Wing of Republicans may be wrong, But the extreme Left Wing of the Democrats (or hardcore Democrats as Bill states) are equally wrong.

    And I must dispute the claims about 2001. In that year we had the worse tragedy in American history. Caused by inaction of his Administration. All of America overreacted on multiple issues. Those reactions were not the historical claims of any Party. But the fact was that America was under attack, and the people sought the Republicans for their strength in that time, not Democrats. And now the nation is at war (rightly or wrongly, the cause is moot as our soldier fight).

    And again I must also note that many of the things he mentions about that time were repercussions of the burst of the internet bubble. Caused again by his inaction on that bubble. The debt of the nation was never decreased; just the accounting of the Clinton Administration was changed. The jobs created en masse by the internet died with the bubble. The exorbitant salaries went with the start-ups, as did numerous jobs. No matter who was President, the internet crash would have caused the same problems. And the realization of that fact is in part why Democrats lost in 2004 trying to claim it was a Republican problem alone.

    So yes, Bill Clinton was impressive. His ability to polispeak is nearly unmatched. His spin of facts, viewing them with squinted eyes, does sound attractive. Until you look at facts and causation. Until you pay attention to the details.

    I admire that Bill Clinton has flipped his position on Senator Obama. I admire that he stepped up where his wife Hillary would not. I enjoy that while he and Obama don’t get along; Bill is able to rise to the need of the Democratic Party. He was a unifier, Hillary was out for herself.

    But still he is unable to identify why America should vote for Obama. His misrepresentation of historical facts, his uniquely envisioned interpretation of actions and consequences sound great. And I am sure some will believe him wholeheartedly, because he sounds sincere. But he is not credible. And I do not believe he is sincere.

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Monday, August 25, 2008

    What the Democratic National Convention means to me

    As the Democratic National Convention is about to start I want to step back and address a question I am often asked. Why am I not a supporter of Senator Obama?

    I have been asked that by dozens of White Americans that presume I must be for Obama because he is Black. I have been asked that by almost as many African Americans for the same reasoning. And there are the far smaller group of Americans, of all color and ethnicity, that wonder because they presume I must agree with the Democratic Party policies.

    So let me state this clearly, I do not support Senator Barrack Obama at this time. I doubt if I will ever support him. And I disagree with the Democratic policies he supports.

    It’s not because I was a democrat and want to switch parties like the bitter Clinton Democrats. They are often White women, upset that a White woman was denied the chance to run for President. Their switch of support, like Debra Bartoshevich, seems like sour grapes more than anything else. And Democrats are responding in kind, splitting their party.



    Which leads these Democrats to the right choice for the wrong reason.



    Besides the fact that I think Democrats are a split party, created by the Clinton campaign, there are other issues.

    Senator Obama has no experience. His own Vice Presidential pick has said he thinks Obama is unqualified. If Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton, agree with Senator John McCain how strong and qualified is Obama?

    Senator Obama will be increasing taxes. He has already voted to do so for those making $31,850 or more. My belief he will limit himself to those making an unknown and ambiguous amount qualifying them as rich is shaky at best. His expressed view that businesses, of all sizes, need to pay more in taxes strikes me as harmful to a weak American economy.

    Senator Obama has stated often that our dependence on foreign oil is bad. No surprise. Yet he still only considers the idea of domestic drilling. But how else will there be a stopgap to allow us to fund and create alternative energy sources? And his position on oil shale is directly Party line. How about cleaner coal? How about Nuclear energy?

    Senator Obama is exclusive in his plans, targeting only the renewable energy plans that benefit stock positions held by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. How is that a grand benefit to America when only options that profit a few are considered? How is that different than the claims made by Democrats that Republicans are in the pocket of big oil, aren’t they in the pocket of Wind and corn ethanol (which has already increased the cost of food)?

    Senator Obama has stated he would speak with any threat to America, no matter the provocation. He would speak with Iran, a nation that has sought the wholesale destruction of America and Israel for 30 years now. Like mere words would stop them from their declared God-given need to wipe us off of the earth. Obama is not God, especially to the

    Senator Obama would run from Iraq as quickly as possible. There is no consideration for the outcome of such actions. There are no qualms about the probable increased threat to average Americans in their homes. Terrorism has not stopped since 9/11, it just hasn’t hit our homes stateside. But thousands of orphans given no choice and every reason to blame America will grow up looking to kill America. Just as they did at the end of the Gulf War, in 5 – 10 years they will strike American soil after a retreat that will be viewed in the Middle East as a defeat of America, and thus a vindication of Al Quida and other such groups.

    Senator Obama wants to give millions the support of the Government. That in itself is not a bad thing, except that it is funded by Americans and perpetuates the ideal that America would rather feed the hungry rather than teach them to fish for themselves. It creates a culture that cannot support itself; and for those that think this means minorities remember that there are more Whites in prison, on welfare, and/or in Government care than all minority groups combined.

    As I mentioned the Democratic Party is split. Not on substantive differences – as the voting records of Clinton and Obama are virtually the same. It is split on racial lines, due largely to the efforts of the Clinton campaign.

    It is split with a Vice President that disagrees on key issues in a massive manner from the Democratic Presidential nominee he would work for. A VP that would not vote for a less experiences candidate, one that has done less bi-partisan work than he has in a decade. A VP that embodies the ‘old’ politics that Obama has railed against throughout the primaries.

    So what makes Senator Obama the right man at this time?

    Labels: , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Saturday, August 23, 2008

    In Senator Biden's own words

    To even be fairer to Senator Biden than I think he deserves, I’ve decided to look around and see what he has said directly. I won’t bother with comments that are purely passionate polispeak, but his statements on substantive issues. I’m looking for his comments on taxes, national security, energy, international policy, immigration and healthcare.

    But before I get to those points I what to highlight another factor that is just as important. How does the potential Vice President relate to the various peoples of the nation. As is stated clearly by the moderator in this video clip, Biden is known to create more anger than he resolves.



    Statements Biden has made include the comments against Senator Obama, insulting African Americans backhandedly. And there is his thoughts other ethnic groups as well



    Or his pride about representing a former slave state, as if this is a motivation for southerners.



    Now on taxes, Biden is the Democratic Party line. Tax the ‘wealthy’ and investments. Of course there is no thought given to the fact that average workers own investments too. And there are millions of IRA’s and 401K’s that potentially will be affected as well. But that’s not as important as symbolically saying that having money is evil.



    In terms of Iraq, he is nowhere near his Democratic colleagues. Not that his plan is worse
    than their ‘run and hope for the best’ plans, in fact it is better though I feel inadequate.



    A bit on his views on religion in politics



    Which I would have loved to follow with his thoughts on abortion, but I could not find. So I moved on to energy. Please note that his view is somewhat different than Senator Obama.

    He speaks about foreign oil, but ignores domestic drilling (which would be an obvious way to give America more flexibility on energy independence – though it wouldn’t help the stock options of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats invested in renewable energy). He correctly mentions that corn ethanol is not the answer, but leaves out the fact that the use of this is and will continue to push up food prices. He says he’s for alternatives, but negates nuclear power, which Europe uses. Basically he is a Democratic drone on the subject.



    National security? Nothing. Sounds like most Democrats.

    Darfur? Nothing, though he has quoted how we helped end the genocide in Bosnia, and that no U.S. troops have died there in the last 10 years. He’s concerned about Bosnia, but could care less on Darfur it seems.

    On immigration he flips in a live debate. He is against making a fence to stop illegal aliens, because they can get around it, but he voted for a fence, because it will stop drug trafficking. Now if illegal aliens can get around or over a fence how will it stop drug trafficers? And he wants to give the illegal aliens in the nation citizenship. Essentially saying that breaking a major law is ok and should be rewarded. Might as well just give citizenship to everyone who asks for it then, by that logic.



    On healthcare he reminds us that he is not exactly a clean bill of health. But beyond that he wants the Government to provide funds for Catastrophic injuries and children. Which sounds great, but where does the Government come up with the extra trillion or hundreds of billions of dollars each year? Taxes, and not on just the rich, bet on that. And what if your company cannot afford the required insurance for each employee? And since there is no department of the Government that runs efficiently or on budget, ever, where does the money come for the inevitable increases?



    But lastly these might be the most stinging and telling comments of Senator Joe Biden, yes in a commercial form from McCain’s campaign, about his thoughts on Senator Obama, and McCain.



    So I leave you with this thought. If after all the polispeak and Democratic Party speaking points, Senator Biden has believed and said that McCain is ready and worthy of being President or Vice President and that Senator Obama is not, why would anyone vote for Obama – Biden?

    Labels: , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, August 13, 2008

    The Democratic National Convention - strike one on the first night

    On August 25th on thing will be very clear, Senator Barack Obama will be looking to shore up the women’s vote. That’s the first night of the Democratic National Convention, and all the stops are being pulled out.

    Senator Obama will have his wife and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speak on this first night. If there was any question of having prominent women stand-up and support Obama this first night is meant to dispel that thought.

    And as an added bonus Senator Obama will be looking to lockdown the African American vote, with prominent displays of successful African Americans in the form of his brother-in-law Craig Robinson, a coach at Oregon State, and his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng. And of course his wife Michelle.

    It’s a good arrangement. The planned videotape message from Senator Edward Kennedy will be a nice added touch. As the first prominent Democrat to publicly announce his endorsement of Obama, stirring the longstanding ire of the Clinton machine, it seems fitting he speaks on the first night. The fact that he will be doing so via video due to his recent brain surgery is bittersweet though.

    But I think that having Nancy Pelosi speak is a mistake. She is the symbol of the ineffective Democrat-led Congress. She is a reminder that Democrats would prefer to allow millions of Americans to have to choose between food and/or work or paying their energy bills. She is the voice of the Democratic Party that refused to even consider having a vote on domestic drilling – effectively saying that Democrats have no intention of being bi-partisan if Senator Obama is elected.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi may look good to the women that only care about having a woman’s face in a leadership position; but anyone that has followed what the Democrats said in the 2006 mid-term elections may have a different opinion. The 110th Congress is a complete failure. The Democrats have failed to do any of the things they promised in their 2006 campaigns. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the charge to stalemate.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the first woman Speaker of the House, but I believe that she is just like Senator Clinton. The wrong woman for a serious job. And having her speak on August 25th will only remind the public of that fact.

    Change is Senator Obama’s motto, as it was for the 2006 mid-term elections for the Democrats. Congress failed to live up to that promise in the first week, Pelosi at the helm. Her speaking will just connect the dots that the only change the Democrats can do is who is speaking about changing things.

    Labels: , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Friday, August 08, 2008

    Senator Obama should watch his back around Senator Clinton

    Does anyone remember the old cartoons where a boomerang is thrown away and when it returns it hits the thrower? You may not recall the cartoon, but if you want to see it in reality all you will have to do is watch the Democratic National Convention.

    The boomerang is Senator Hillary Clinton, and it looks like Senator Barack Obama is about to get hit in the head.



    Senator Clinton it seems is not done with her attempt to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama. She tried to keep fighting after Senator Obama closed the Primaries on her, failing to congratulate him on his win and requiring several prominent supporters and politicians to make her back down. She has only recently started to try to back-handedly support Senator Obama.

    And former-President Bill Clinton is still finding ways to put down Senator Obama every time a microphone is put in front of him.



    Note how he refuses to say that Senator Obama is ready to be President – something he has said about every Democrat that ran in the Primaries (especially his wife) except Obama. So much for healing wounds created during the Primaries.

    And now we learn that both Clinton’s will be speaking at the DNC. Just as the full ballots of Florida and Michigan are included now (which was promised they would not) and the Clintons are quietly keeping their supporters hopes alive.

    If this isn’t a boomerang coming back to hit you, then the only other thing I would call it is stabbing Obama in the back.

    And the only real outcome of these actions by the Clinton’s is weakening of Senator Obama, possibly splitting the Democratic Party and causing Obama to lose. That would open the door to Senator Clinton claiming she could have won and paving the way for her run in 2012. That is unless she can’t get the nomination at the DNC. It’s so deceptive it can only be a Clinton plan.

    But if Hillary gets the nomination expect riots. It would be the equivalent of Rosewood in a political sense. Every African American, and more than a few people of color, in this nation will call this the single greatest act of racism in perhaps our lives. And they will be right.

    And if Hillary Clinton fails to get the nomination, and continues to back-handedly support Obama, while her husband plants seeds of doubt at every media opportunity he gets – there will be no difference than if she stole the nomination. And some people think the Clinton’s were a positive force for Blacks. How positive does their treatment of Obama feel?

    Senator Hillary Clinton may be a woman, but she acts more like Iago (or Jabba the Hutt for those less familiar with the classics) to me.

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Saturday, August 02, 2008

    110th Congress on vacation - what's the difference?

    The 110th Congress is now on vacation. You might be asking yourself when they haven’t been. I know I have.

    The Democrat led Congress has earned and justified the 14% approval rating it has recently received. And a big cheer should be made that they increased the rating by 3%, from the all-time lowest rating for Congress ever. That includes just before and after the Civil War.

    You might ask what has this Congress done?

    Well they don’t work longer than any other Congress – though it was a campaign promise. They haven’t achieved any of their major goals. They haven’t even really lived up to their rally call in the 2006 mid-term elections, which was change if you forgot. Well, if you count the numerous Congressional hearings then they did change a few things – how much money was wasted.

    This Democrat led Congress boosts the achievements it made, like U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007,. Of course they leave out the fact that this emergency funding was required because their refusal to fund the military in the first place. And the funding, finally passed in May 2007, runs out in September. Also note that the only way the Democrats would allow funds to go to our troops that are actively fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was by attaching an increase to minimum wages and funds for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

    And yes I know that an early funding was vetoed by President Bush, Again the Democrats knew what they were doing, wasting time and money. They knew that President Bush would not give the enemies of our nation (and people fighting our troops are enemies) the means to hurt our soldiers by telegraphing our moves with a timeline. He told the nation as much. But they did it anyway to try to look like I don’t know what.

    And of course there was the farm subsidy act, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. A real brainstorm here. This act increased food stamp benefits which is a good thing since it also increases ethanol production – corn ethanol. Corn based ethanol increases the cost of food. Thus food stamps have to have more benefits just to stay even with the higher price of food. And higher food prices is a leading cause of inflation.

    Speaking of energy and Congress, notice that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will not allow a vote about domestic drilling? So they are pushing corn ethanol, which 96% of the nation cannot buy or use, and is less efficient that gasoline, and is actively increasing the cost of food. And they are really only pushing ethanol. All other alternatives are off the table.

    Does that make sense? Considering no one knows what energy source is the best for mass production shouldn’t they want to try everything? Shouldn’t we be ramping up wind, solar, hydroelectric, biomass, grass or sugar based ethanol, nuclear, and domestic drilling all at once? Considering none of these will be the answer for at least 5 to 10 years, imagine what the cost of oil will be if we don’t start trying everything now then.

    But I detract (and yes I blame Republicans for the energy mess equally, though corn ethanol and refusing to even have a vote is purely Democrat).

    The 100th Congress has been very busy though. It takes work to avoid having debates about domestic drilling, and to be in nearly non-stop meetings. There have been Congressional hearing on so many issues that Democrats make sound like absolute importance. They just use the polispeak and obfuscate the facts a bit. Like the massive hearings on the lawyers the President fired (CONTINUING INVESTIGATION INTO THE U.S. ATTORNEYS CONTROVERSY). Democrats were all revved up on this.

    What was obfuscated? The fact that each of those lawyers work at the pleasure of the President. Meaning that at any time, for ANY reason the President can fire any of them. It’s not illegal, and every President has done this. But the Democrat led Congress had to find a reason why the President fired these lawyers and tried to find a law that was broken, where no law exists. There went several weeks.

    A few other top hearings that resulted in nothing:

      WHY DEFICITS MATTER

      IMPROVING THE LABORATORY EXPERIENCE FOR AMERICA'S HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

      COMPETITION AND THE FUTURE OF DIGITAL MUSIC

      AN UPDATE: PIRACY ON UNVERSITY NETWORKS

      MEETING TO DISCUSS MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE CONTESTED ELECTION IN THE 13TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

      CREDIT CARD PRACTICES: CURRENT

      GASOLINE PRICES, OIL COMPANY PROFITS, AND THE AMERICAN CONSUMER

    The list goes on and on.

    To help out in listing a few more items I found this video



    So my overall point is this, there is an election coming up. Not just for the Presidency but also for Congress. When you go to vote consider why this Democrat led Congress has the lowest approval ratings ever. Consider why President Bush, who is not brilliant and has made mistakes, is regarded better than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Congress by 10%. Consider that every major policy issue that the Democrats promised to do in the 2006 elections still have not happened, and that they have spent more time looking for people to blame than passing laws to help the nation.

    Perhaps it’s me but I expect a Congress to do something. For god sake they couldn’t even get together to pass an Act to apologize for slavery. House voted yes the Senate just let it go by.

    In November you can vote to keep the Democrats leading Congress, if not the nation, or you can “vote for change”. Unless you have a perverse desire to see if Congress’ approval rating can reach single digits.

    Labels: , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, July 29, 2008

    Oliver Stone - an ultra-liberal pissing on America - movie preview

    It would seem that for some in the American ultra-liberal far left wing, otherwise defined as fanatics, it is not enough that Senator Obama stands a solid chance at winning the American Presidency. It is not enough that the major news media are fawning over Senator Obama – treating his recent trip overseas as if he were a sitting President, and refusing his opponent the opportunities they give him (ie. New York Times editorial). Even the fact that a movie highlighting the very liberal Democratic Presidential candidate is in post-production is not enough (and the film will be out just before the election – nice timing).

    No for those like Oliver Stone something more must be done. Something over the top. Something insulting. Something that has never happened to a sitting President in any medium. Oliver Stone feels that now is the time to make up a movie about President Bush, while he is in office.

    Why can’t Oliver Stone give up his citizenship, move to France (or Russia, or Iran), and make whatever slanted version of history he wants. I’m sure the Taliban, Al Quida and a few other “see an American, kill an American” hate groups will be more than happy to pack theaters for his biased derogatory slime on film.

    Obviously I have a problem with the upcoming film W. My problem is not so much political as it is decency. I don’t care that Oliver Stone has a political agenda the size of the Empire State Building. I don’t care, as much, that he is seeking to portray historical fact in a manner more akin to a scifi movie about they year 300,000 A.D. I don’t care that he is going to get about as many people in the audience (stateside) as there are members of Moveon.org – I’m sure they will all go see it 2x.

    What I care about is the power and prestige of the American Presidency and thus America. America is the President on an international level, whether we love or hate any particular President. And Oliver Stone is so obsessed with his personal hate that he doesn’t seem to care what damage he does. He seems willing to do anything to place a(nother) blemish on President Bush, even if it means hurting every American and every American President to come.

    This film, a supposed biography of President Bush – that seems to be focused squarely on the past according to the trailer - looks dumb. What may be even more dumb is that it was greenlighted by a Hollywood studio, and that actors of ability have taken several prominent roles.

    Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioann Gruffudd, Ellen, Burstyn, should all be embarrassed that they would do this to an American President. I really thing that James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scott Glenn should have known better. I mean they couldn’t wait until President Bush finished his term of office?

    And as for Jeffery Wright and Thandie Newton I am at a loss. Do they believe that a movie built upon diminishing the office of the President of the United States is going to help their careers or in any way highlight African Americans (who are routinely seen and expected to be Democrats only) in a positive light? Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice have succeeded in becoming exceptional political figures, a fact that did not exist in any other Presidency before President Bush. And Wright and Newton believe that a film that insults America is the best way to immortalize these 2 accomplished, educated, Black figures? I think they deserve far better.

    I will show this movie trailer clip. Because I do believe in Freedom of Speech and artistic expression. But I in no way suggest that anyone should see this film. I in no way support any actor’s portrayal in this film. I denounce what Oliver Stone has done, and am angry at Thandie Newton and Jeffery Wright.



    Could I be wrong about the film? Until it is released sure, and it is mathematically probable that I can fly, piss on the sun and put it out, and/or suddenly have a stroke and thus believe that Code Pink and San Francisco know what they are doing. But back in the real world, Oliver Stone is doing a wretched thing.

    Imagine if someone did a hatchet job on President Clinton and Hillary back when he was in office while doing Ms. Lewinsky with a cigar; the Democrats and Hollywood would be raging and the nation embarrassed. How is this different?

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Senator Obama: looks great, less filling on economy and foreign policy

    Senator Obama is quite a man. I mean that seriously. It takes quite a man to step up to the plate for a position that most my age or above never expected to happen. He is facing down the most difficult hurdle an African American has ever come against in this nation’s politics and looks to be competitive.

    Though with that said I have to say that I wouldn’t vote for him. Historical importance and all, he is not ready for the position – but he is damn close.

    My problems with Senator Obama are purely on his political experience and policies. In terms of his presentation, the fact that he is breaking barriers and making history are all things I deeply respect about the man. I find him charismatic, and a capable public speaker. His ability at polispeak is unmatched by neither Senator McCain, nor any of the past Democratic primary candidates he beat.

    But that is not enough to be President.

    I’ll give you an example. Senator Obama visited Iraq for less than 2 days, after 2 ½ years since his last visit of less than 48 hours. That is not fact finding, nor is it being open minded to changes that he opposed. That is building voter interest on the backs of the soldiers in Iraq. The same can be said of his time in Afghanistan.

    Senator Obama has not changed his position. He never was going to. Thus the trip, with enough media coverage to rival the President, was just a new take on the shake-hands-kiss-babies politicing. He got into the race saying he would remove all the troops in Iraq in his first term, then shifted to a 16-month policy that will still leave some unknown number of troops in Iraq, and after his trip he still maintains that policy.

    But as I have said to many people and in this blog, how do you expect to win a fight if you tell your opponent that you will stop before it’s over? If this were boxing, Queensbury rules all the way, but this is war. When America left Saigon did anyone view that as a win? Besides the North Vietnamese. Can anyone give me a reason to believe that Al Quida and any other insurgents won’t just bide their time for 16 months to end, if Obama is elected President, and then rally to make Iraq a bigger mess than it is?

    If people want to praise Senator Obama for his unyielding position on Iraq, which essentially calls for retreat and means that every orphan and anyone who lost a loved one in Iraq will be gunning for Americans within 5 years of our departure, even if it is not popular then how can they not praise Senator McCain for his unyielding and at times unpopular stance to win the war? Mark my words, not winning in Iraq means that more American lives will be lost, and in our nation not overseas.

    But there is also the issue of domestic economic instability. The housing markets are tanking, as are many financials that facilitated this drop. Senator Obama is looking to speak with advisors (though not 300 as he uses for foreign policy which is impractical) that include Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

    Obama said in his meeting with advisers he expects to ``get their read on where the economy is going,'' and fashion some ``additional steps'' to address the short-term economic and financial and housing issues.


    Robert Rubin helped to advise Senator Hillary Clinton. While many have chosen to forget, I recall that her campaign ended in debt of some $20 million. That’s after she loaned herself in excess of $6 million for her campaign. Somehow I think Rubin’s advice was ignored and/or faulty, you can pick which.

    Warren Buffett is the greatest investor ever. He has made billions via investing. Yet he does not give one extra dime to the government than he has to. He has never donated any money to the I.R.S., but he has been very vocal to say that taxes should be raised. He is so sure that the government should have more of his own money that he is donating the bulk of his billions to a charity, run by Bill Gates – another man that made billions via business and investing. This tells me that he does not believe that the government can efficiently use his vast fortune to the benefit of Americans, whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge.

    Paul Volcker, the predecessor to Alan Greenspan – the man who tried to get the Clinton Administration to do something about the internet bubble, is best known for ending stagflation and creating a recession that killed farming. To recap for those younger than myself Volcker reduced the inflation rates at the end of President Jimmy Carter’s term (13% in 1979) to reasonable levels during the President Regan Administration (3% in 1983). He also helped increase unemployment levels to those near equal to the Great Depression, bankrupted farmers, and generated the most protests that any Federal Reserve Chairman has ever received.

    Senator Obama’s choices make a few things clear. It seems that his intention is to raise taxes (not just on the rich as he has already voted to raise your taxes this year), spend your money on policies that will feed the hungry as opposed to help them be able to feed themselves, and drive up prices for energy and oil.

    The last 2 come from the fact that Senator has voted the most extreme liberal of the entire Democratic Party. He is not bi-partisan according to his record. Thus the Democratic Party opposes any domestic drilling for oil, preferring to use corn ethanol. That means that we will continue to drive up the price of oil – funding some of the enemies of America with more money than ever before – slowing the economy as businesses contract to offset the higher energy cost, and the cost of food will go higher since the price of corn is increasing. That’s inflation as I understand it. That’s hurting the average American. Higher taxes, higher energy costs and higher food costs – that is what I understand he is being advised to do.

    There are other questions about Senator Obama that I have, but these are some of the more prominent right now. This is what the news media wants America to focus on. And just these reasons are enough for me, even though I have several others.

    But is that what you want? Is this what you expect from a President after the polispeak is gone and action is required?

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, July 22, 2008

    Senator Obama overseas - polispeak and votes

    So Senator Obama has gone overseas to visit Iraq for the first time in years. His first trip to that nation was done with little fanfare and lasted less than 48 hours. This time he will spend another 48 hours in the company of 3 broadcast news agencies, dozens of reporters, and supplied with help by reportedly 300 foreign policy advisors.

    Now tell me this isn’t a farce.

    It’s a whirlwind tour of the Middle East with enough press corps to equate to several fire teams, not counting the hordes of military soldiers that will be flanking the whole group. But the question is can Senator Obama learn anything new? Can he find out any first-hand information about where Iraq stands and what America should do in the near future?

    Well in truth neither candidate has a great position on Iraq. And as noted by a recent USAToday editorial

    “It's difficult, for example, to imagine a President McCain insisting on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely if Iraq's government demands that they leave. Al-Maliki is acknowledging the reality that most Iraqis and most Iraqi politicians want U.S. forces out, at least as soon as they are confident that their own government can protect them.

    At the same time, it's equally difficult to imagine a President Obama insisting on an inflexible withdrawal timetable if that means squandering security gains won with great American sacrifice. Though Obama has repeatedly insisted on a timetable, he has pointedly not said that every U.S. troop will be gone when the timetable ends. In fact, he has promised to leave a "residual force" of undefined size in Iraq, and carefully left himself an escape hatch in case the situation worsens. "You've got to make sure the country doesn't collapse," he says.”


    So what are the realities of the situation then?

    Well for Senator Obama I would think they include the following:

    Senator Obama is the Democratic Party line. His votes are not only partisan, they are the extreme left of his party. Thus he was a strong backer of the comments by Harry Reid



    Of course Harry Reid was wrong. The surge has worked as anyone with eyes can see. And now Senator Obama has to find a way to tactfully state the Reid and Pelosi were off their rockers. But he can’t say this in a way that agrees with General Petreaus (an enemy of strong Obama supporter MoveOn.org – which would make them enemies of the U.S. government no?) or the Republican Party, or Senator McCain who has visited Iraq 6 times and actually has a frame of reference on the events there.

    Senator Obama must avoid making it seem like his trip is a polispeak ploy. It’s obvious to everyone that this trip is not a Congressional fact finding trip but a means to allay the fact that he has no international presence or experience. Senator Obama is spending 1 week to create the impression that he is knowledgeable of international facts, and Presidential in the manner that he acquires them.

    His whole goal is to gain votes on the backs of soldiers that are following the orders of the Commander-n-Chief. Thus by standing near a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan he looks Presidential.

    Of course if the trip looks like the blatant posturing it is, then he will get a negative backlash. You can’t look Presidential standing on the bodies of American soldiers. You are obviously spinning polispeak when insurgents act up as you proclaim them defeated and our job done.

    Thirdly Obama wants to impress Europe. Both because of the fact that so many Americans have roots in Europe and that our economy is directly tied with the fate of those nations.

    “It will not be a speech about campaign issues,” an adviser said. “He’s not going to address campaign issues in terms of other candidates, it is not a speech about American politics, and so it’s not a campaign event. We’re not trying to recruit support from the crowds that are coming. It’s not a campaign event.

    The point of the outdoor rally is that the senator wants to speak directly to our allies and to the people of Europe and the people of the world and it would be inconsistent to do that and try to limit the attendance for that event. There’s a great deal of interest in his visit. We want to accommodate that interest.”


    In fact this is a campaign speech. He is campaigning for the support of world leaders and corporations – who would then lend support to him and hopefully impress centrist Americans that would otherwise avoid his liberal policies.

    If this is not a speech about American politics, what the hell is he going to say? He may not frame the speech in terms of McCain, but he will in terms of America and so it’s just another stump speech. Take out the polispeak and that’s all it is, but if his campaign makes it any more obvious it will backfire.

    Will this all work? Well it depends. If you are of the mind of say Pete Hegseth maybe not

    “Obama frequently decries the danger of “dogmatists” and “ideologues” in public policy, yet he himself has proved consistently uninterested in putting himself in situations where he might be confronted with the hard complexities of this war.”


    If you are of a mind as say Peter Beinart then maybe

    “This is not to say the security improvements in Iraq are illusory. It’s just that the war’s realities are too elusive to grasp on a brief trip led by people with a vested interest.”


    Overall I have one overriding thought, this is political candy meant to do one thing – elect Senator Obama. There is almost nothing Senator Obama can learn with the media following him like puppies and the speed at which he is traveling. He isn’t there to learn anything substantive (lest he have an opinion that does not fall in line with Democratic Party lines, or worse contradict his far-left campaign speeches – more than he already has), he is there to look good. In the words of Fernando

    “It's better to look good than to feel good."


    And damn if Senator Obama isn’t being made to look good. But I wonder if all the bluster will lead to an Obama Presidency, and if it does will we be able to say this quote afterwards

    “I hope when you are my age, you'll be able to say - as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. Our lives were a statement, not an apology." Ronald Reagan

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Thursday, July 17, 2008

    The political center - where are our answers?

    So before I go further let me mention some up-coming news. I am currently in talks with a New York State elected official about holding an interview. I cannot say more at this time, but if there are further developments I will be happy to inform you all.

    But looking forward to the Presidential race, there is just so much going on, or so some might feel. In fact very little has gone on since the field of potential candidates finally dwindled to 2.

    For the most part all that has been going on is more of the same. Each candidate is in the process of moving towards the center on the political spectrum in an attempt to garner more potential votes. This move is old news for Senator John McCain who has already shifted on positions like religion and the Bush tax cuts. For senator Obama there is more recent and immediate moves.

    As I mentioned to a friend of mine recently

    “America is generally in the middle of the political spectrum. The average person is conservative on some views and liberal on others, but the balance of issues are neutral. Because of this we have both candidates running to the center.

    Senator McCain has long been known as the Democrat’s Republican. He’s made deals that infuriated the Republican Party over decades, because he felt it was the way to get needed laws passed. As such the media, that formerly loved him only 2 years ago, has made a lot of bluster about any further moves to the center. But he hasn’t far to go.

    Senator Obama is different though. As the most liberal Senator currently in office, and a voting record that is absolutely the liberal ideals of the Democratic Party he has much further to go. This should be caught by the media as major position changes. But it is severely played down.”


    Senator Obama has changed his position on the number of troops to be in Iraq during his first year in office. He has jumped around on his view of Iran. And he has back off solid pledges of townhall meetings and public finance. This does not make him a horrible candidate, but it does make him a politician.

    So much so that I found this political cartoon to be an accurate example

    Photo found at http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080714/OPINION/807140309/1048

    But the real questions for both candidates are the ones that really are not being answered. Is raising taxes in an economic downturn an effective plan, will bailing out troubled mortgages resolve the crisis, how will Social Security get paid for as the number of retirees grows to levels never before seen.

    Those are just a few questions. And no matter the side of the political spectrum you reside on, these are the questions that need answers. My only thought is when will we get these answers – before or after the election?

    Mark my words, the candidate that comes closest to giving this answer – without fear of offending some in their political parties – will ultimately be the next President of the nation.

    But what issue is most pressing for you? What issue is the one that will decide the vote for you? Tell me, and let’s see where we are as a nation. Let’s define what the center is and remind the politicians that their ultimate responsibility is to address those concerns.

    Labels: , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Friday, July 11, 2008

    $12 a gallon of gasoline: the real scare

    Here we go, the polispeak is in full force. Senator Obama has suddenly realized that Iran affects the price of oil. In fact he has been advised, recently one would assume, of the following:



    Now let’s ignore the fact that both the Democrats and Republicans share equally in the lack of alternative energy sources for America in the past 40 years. Neither side can point a finger as ultimately both sides failed the American people on this issue, multiple times.

    Rather I want to focus on a scenario.

    Senator Obama has made it clear time and again that he wants to speak with Iran. Let’s say he is President (which is not all bad) and he does speak with Iran. Say the meeting goes ok, or so we are lead to believe. They promise not to create any (more) nuclear weapons. And then they go out and “shut down the Straight of Hormus”.

    What does President Obama do? Speak with them more? What argument or negotiation can he make that is better than the, at least, $300 a barrel price of oil in the mere first minutes of the blockade? What would be better than the probable $500 a barrel price that would come easily in the first day?

    Considering that Senator Obama has repeatedly stated that a strong offense, ie military, is not the means he would use first – and/or possibly ever – what recourse does he have?

    Well Democrats have said that higher oil and gasoline prices are good. Because they will force America off of oil. That we need to use alternative energy. So the thought of $12 a gallon for gasoline must be thrilling to them.

    Of course if this is true then you have to wonder if President Obama would say anything to Iran. Or if he could say anything that he felt was better than having higher oil prices.

    At the same time remember this. If oil suddenly went to $300, heating oil 3x overnight. Gasoline goes to $12 and people will horde it in a manner that would make the 1970 look like a vacation. Millions would not be able to heat or cool their homes. Tens of thousands of businesses would close overnight. Unemployment would rocket past the levels last seen during the President Carter Administration. The cost of every good in America, or sold overseas, would be so high that a gallon of milk would cost like buying printer ink cartridges today.

    So while Senator Obama is trying to use Iran as a scare, and a source of blame only on Republicans, remember the facts.

    Democrats are as much to blame as anyone. Democrats want oil prices higher. Obama wants to talk to Iran. Obama does not like to use the military (even in the case of a 9/11 type of incident).



    Diplomacy while businesses shut down, cost of everything skyrockets, and people freeze. That’s a really great plan. And every American will he stateside to experience every second of it.

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Monday, July 07, 2008

    Professor Tremblay supports Senator Obama with polispeak

    I love polispeak. It’s my own descriptor for the inventive and nuanced manner in which pundits, candidates, and often bloggers discuss politics. It’s worse than spin, and almost always is based in facts - usually after it’s been spun through a blender and strained.

    I cannot say that I am immune from this. Like every single pundit, blogger, and politician I hold an opinion, thus I am biased for or against various issues, policies, and/or proposals. I try to be honest and clear in my view. But not all are.

    Here is a case in point. Professor Rodrigue Tremblay on globalresearch.ca has an impressive title. One would assume he has his facts in order and is presenting them clearly. But bias seeps in apparently, or the Professor is using faulty information. So sadly, those that rely on his opinion are being misguided. Of course they may not care, since we all tend to go to the source we prefer for answers we generally want.

    Still some things are facts and they should be stated correctly.

    First, in the quotes he uses of Senator McCain and Senator Obama, the bias becomes clear. He quotes McCain speaking on Iran alone. He then quotes Obama speaking about retreating from Iraq, and then the issue of Iran. It may not seem like a big deal, except in doing this he creates the impression that McCain has nothing to say on Iraq. That only Obama has a solution, which is false even if you don’t like McCain’s solution.

    Considering he is using his title, as he is due, I have to believe he is aware of the effect of his selective quoting. Thus he is purposefully guiding the reader to a conclusion that he endorses, rather than allowing them to make the choice based on fact. I presume that either means he does not believe his readers can make the choice based on facts themselves, or he believes they will make a conclusion that he does not support based on the facts. But I could be wrong.

    He then goes on to correctly point out that race is a major issue in this election. That the racial past of America provides perhaps the biggest hurdle, and makes any presumptions of polls useless.

    Having set the stage to enforce the idea that race should not hinder this candidate (which I agree with) he then jabs at the current administration. While true that the President has remarkably low approval ratings, he skipped over the fact that the Congress – led by Democrats for 2 years now – has even lower approval ratings. What may be most revealing is that neither the President, nor the Congress is leading the nation in the right direction – meaning that both political parties have failed the general public substantively at the same time. But to say that detracts from his theme, though it is more grounded in fact.

    He goes on to note that both Presidential candidates are moving along their party lines. That both are swaying towards their centers to gain more of the general populace. The impression is that in Senator Obama moving from the hard-core liberals of the far-left he is moving directly towards the center of the nation. The main complaint is that he is being a politician, which is what he is. Of course this ignores the fact that studies done over decades find that the majority of Americans are neither to the extreme right or left politically. Americans generally are centrist, perhaps leaning overall to the right (conservative) with exceptions on some issues. But that isn’t important to understand the moves each politician is making is it?

    [by the way, Senator Obama has been rated, multiple times, as the most liberal Senator. So a shift towards the center keeps him firmly liberal and off the national center. Senator McCain has consistently been viewed as left of his Party’s center, and thus his move places him generally at the national average.]

    Of course this all leads to the Iraq war. As already set up, Professor Tremblay has a skewed view on this issue. To further that view he then directly misquotes Senator McCain, with a quote that has been misused and explained for over a month now. But why let good rhetoric go unused even if it is false?

    “Indeed, McCain voted for the Iraq war in October 2002, and he would be very happy to continue Bush's policy in Iraq, even to the point of extending the military occupation of that country “one hundred years” into the future.”


    Yes McCain did vote for the war, as did almost every politician serving at the time – Republican or Democrat. He did not make a separate choice, nor was he the only voice. In fact I recall many video clips of Senator Clinton making an impassioned plea for the war, based on her extensive review of the facts. Thus the Democratic Party was no less involved than Senator McCain on this issue, and to isolate him is just a means of guiding the reader to a conclusion.

    And as I stated there is the misquote. McCain did not imply or state there would be a military occupation (interesting choice of words there) of Iraq. He did state that America could have a presence in Iraq for 100 years, just as we have in Germany and Japan for 55 years and counting, Korea for 50 years and counting, Viet Nam for 30 years and counting. Note that not one of these countries is occupied yet we have had a presence (which McCain stated) there for longer than some voters have been alive, and thus it would be no surprise to have a military base (ie presence) in Iraq either.

    But Professor Tremblay then goes on to point out what he wants his readers to accept as differences, each guiding them to his own desired conclusion.

    He uses Social Security. He implies privatization is a bad idea and that Government support of SS is preferred. But isn’t the Government regulation of SS the reason it is going bankrupt and has no solution. Has it not been the political foot dragging of both political party’s that has kept the impasse going for at least 30 years while the problem got worse? And aren’t IRA’s privatized yet working well for millions of Americans for decades? So how bad is privatization.

    On health care we are presented an idea filled with holes. Yes Senator Obama promoted Government lead universal healthcare. But name one department of the Government that has run efficiently or on budget in the past 40 years. If the Government has yet to run anything as simple as the Post Office or the VA in the past 2 generations, why do some suppose it will run our medical care better?

    And this implies that our healthcare is bad, which is a lie. We are leaders in the world with thousands coming to America for our treatments as opposed to waiting for Government run medical care in their own nations. So if other nations can’t get this right, why should we try it? Is cheap and/or free bad care better than proper care that costs more? And if the Government is willing to provide $5,000 in credits (which is the correct amount I am aware of) to help pay to get that better care why is it bad?

    As for abortion (which is not the sum of all women’s rights issues) I am conflicted. While I respect a woman’s choice, she is not the only voice in the matter. Responsible men, something downplayed severely by the general media but yet still existing, should have a voice as well. My opinion has nothing to do with religion or government. So I will leave that alone.

    As for Supreme Court Justices, individuals that should have no party affiliation and can make decisions as they chose for life, I believe that it is not a major issue. It may be a secondary, or tertiary consideration for President – but there are far more pressing questions that need to be asked. And keep in mind that Congress can block any potential Justice, as they have in the past and will in the future. Professor Tremblay seems to forget to remind his reader that the President’s choice is still under the sway of Congress.

    On taxes we again get a myopic view of the candidates. Senator McCain is proposing to cut taxes, Obama will raise them. That much is clear fact. The question is who is affected and how.

    According to the Professor, cutting taxes is bad. Yet that is the only plan that has been theoretically and in the real world effective in helping the economy and the Average American. Raising taxes, especially in a economic downturn has never worked and is theoretically dumb. Those old enough to have live through President Carter know that this can lead to 13% unemployment and similar inflation.

    But let’s take this to the real world. More money in people’s pockets is good. We all agree on that. Raising taxes prevents that. And Senator Obama has already voted to increase the taxes on those making as little as $31,850 or more. I would never call that rich. So in comparison we have one candidate willing to do what has worked for decades in various Presidencies and another that has proposed one idea, yet voted the opposite in the same election year he is running in. Or perhaps the Professor and I have different ideas of rich, as Senator Obama seems to.

    Lastly is the big question experience. The Professor would praise Senator Obama, who lacks experience, for surrounding himself with politicians that have the experience. But at the same time he denounces Senator McCain for that same experience. Don’t be fooled by the use of terms like lobbyist, both politicians have them.

    How can you say that McCain is bad for having experience, working with Democrats and Republicans to pass laws, and the relationships he has built over decades: and then praise Senator Obama for the lack of all these things – but the wisdom to have people with those same qualifications advise him. Is it not more logical to believe that an experienced leader would better be able to interpret and solicit advise from peers than an inexperienced politician from those that are his superiors (in age, experience, and political clout only – for those wondering the racial aspect of that statement).

    He then throws all his preconceived ideas out the window and suggests that Al Gore is the best Democratic Presidential candidate. I am unconvinced.

    Polispeak, it’s wonderful when a title and careful wording can be used to misquote, misinterpret and misguide the general public. But it should not provide you with the answer for whom to vote.

    And for the record, I have yet to decide whom I wish to be President, though I do lean to Senator McCain. I just dislike blatant polispeak and engineered writing designed to use the reader.

    Labels: , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Senator Barack Obama: the movie brought to you by Democrats

    Polispeak is never more beautiful and impacting than when it appears on the silver screen. Such are the thoughts of the Democratic Party and David Guggenheim. And to that end Guggenheim is in the process of filming Senator Obama, a film that will be presented at the National Democratic Party Convention and then hopefully (Dems think) out to the general public.

    And why not. Look what Guggenheim did for the doom and gloom polispeak of Al Gore. Since the movie An Inconvenient Truth (which inconveniently contains misstatements and inaccuracies) Al Gore has swelled in popularity and political power. He has sparked the fuel for green everything and the masses accept him as never during his political career.

    If Al Gore can be transformed into a media darling and political top cat, imagine what will happen to the already popular Senator Obama. You can almost see Democrats and Hollywood drooling.

    One definite positive will of course be the fact that some 10% of voters with their heads up their arse will finally be lead to understand that their email stating Obama is a Muslim is false. Too bad no one has made a movie warning these same people about emails that promise to give them millions from an overseas lawyer representing a dead person with their same last name. If these are the voters that the Democrats think will win them the Oval Office, they are in trouble and have their eyes shut to it.

    The thing that gets me is that there are some voters that will be swayed by a film, created by an Obama supporter (he has already donated cash to the cause) meant to be biased in favor of Obama. That’s not politics or a documentary, it’s a big infomercial. But of course how many millions are made off of infomercials each year??

    Perhaps the worst aspect of this idea is what it will mean in the future. Direct marketing of Presidential candidates will vie time alongside votes for American Idol (if that show could only end). Billy Mays will be preempted to present the latest pitch by a presidential candidate, promising to fix the world while you sit in your ever so comfortable sofa, if you just make a vote. And as technology improves even fewer people will take the time to use that technology to check out facts, instead accepting the polispeak spouted on their latest Iphone streaming video or satellite television piped into their cars.

    Look I have nothing against movies about Presidents, or even candidates. Generally the movies will give me a President I can respect, agree with, and is acting in the best interest and spirit of America. But the reality is that some writer dreamed up that candidate and the ones we vote for are severely more flawed. A movie hyping a candidate like the next hopeful summer box office hit only makes me wary.

    Is Senator Obama a good candidate? Well there is no question that he is better than Senator Clinton – a liar and highly manipulative. He definitely sounds great giving a speech. And he is young, which America obsesses over to the tune of billions each year. But none of that makes him a potentially good President.
    So rather than spending a stupid amount of money to hype Senator Obama as if he were Will Smith, why don’t Democrats spend one-tenth the money (and time) and just present a couple of fully defined plans they think will actually improve America? Or do they believe that Americans are too dumb to actually read?

    Well I know you my readers can. So what do you prefer, a movie highlighting a bunch of fluff or a couple of pages of facts? Which would sway you more?

    Labels: , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, June 10, 2008

    The questions of the party lines

    Lately my conversations with ultra-liberals have began to take a repetative tone. I’m hearing complete paragraphs of conversations that are verbatim. I’ve begun to wonder if it’s some kind of Ipod track that they have hooked up to their mouths. It’s as if their brains have shutdown to any original thought or the concequences of the party line.

    Ok so some of the conversations have not been quite that bad. Some. But there have been massive misconceptions, faulty facts, and a complete disregard for consequences.

    So let’s look at a couple of common quotes.

    Oil companies are bad for making big profits.

    Since when is making a profit a bad thing? Is that not part of the American dream? Isn’t that why every small business in America was created?

    But go deeper. Beyond the jealousy of the profits they make, look at the impact they have. Oil companies do not make more money with higher oil costs – OPEC does. Gasolines price is ~60% based on the cost of oil. In the past year oil has more than doubled in price; yet gasoline has only risen ~40% in the same time. That means the oil companies are doing a good job of keeping the cost down.

    The profits that oil companies make is not isolated to 2 people as ultra-liberals would like you to think. Millions of mutual funds and IRA’s hold large positions in these oil companies. When they make a profit (which is their job) their stock goes up and investors and retirees have more money. Capping their profit in fact will take money away from retirees and investors, thus hurting the average American.

    Capping profits will not stop the need of an oil company from making a profit. To get that profit they will need to cut jobs and stop research into efficiancies, exploration, and alternatives. That means the unemployed in the nation will go up. That will hurt the economy. And if they cut jobs, hundreds of other companies that work directly with this industry will have to cut back too. And by the way, the price of oil will not be forced down a penny while this happens.

    We need to leave Iraq now.

    As I have said many times that’s not only impossible, it’s stupid. You cannot end a fight just by walking away, not after people have died. Walk away and the orphans (possibly created by the people we are fighting and having nothing to do with our troops) will turn to the only people with power in the area. A great many of those people want to kill every American because we exist. They are the same people that created 9/11 and several other terrorist acts that have failed in the over 2300 days since 9/11. Those orphans will be fed hate against America, and I will guarantee will be committing terrorist acts against us in 5 years from an immediate pullout.

    Add to that the fact that if Al Quida and Iran get to boast about making the ‘cowardly Americans run away’ they will gain respect and recruits to their causes.

    We will have troops in Iraq for 100 years.

    Pay attention to what you are hearing and being told. Troops in Iraq is not fighting a war in Iraq. We have had troops in Germany for 50 years, Japan for 50 years, Korea for 40 years, and Vietnam for 30 years (ronding off the years). Last I checked we are not at war with any of these countries. Nor are we removing those troops and bases in any decade in the near future.

    President Bush has ruined America.

    How? As far as I have lived and am aware there is nothing I do today that I have not been able to do in the past. There is no restriction to travel, doing business, paying bills, dating, or any other aspect of life that did not exist 30 years ago. So how has America been ruined?

    We still elect officials and create laws. We still drive cars and build homes. We still criticize the government and elected officials when they do or porpose something stupid. We are till the most free nation in the world, with tens of thousands entering the nation every year for that reason (illegally or not).

    What I think is really meant by that is someone saying that does not like President Bush. I agree that President Bush may be the least articulate, least intelligent Presidents ever. I agree that he has failed the nation in several aspects. But he is not the horrendous life-threatening force that some want to see him as.

    So many want to live in the past. They can’t get past the decision, made by Senators and Cogress – of both political parties – to go to war in Iraq. But that was the past, as is who to blame. The 2008 election is about the future and answers to issues happening now, not in 2002.

    I want change. Real change.

    This is a really stupid statement. Unless the definition has been altered since I was in 3rd grade, the 2008 elecetion guarantees change. No matter who wins, change is a fact. The comment makes about as much sense as saying that a person is “keeping it real”.

    The statement should be ‘I want to change X’ or ‘I want a positive change in Y’. Better yet is the statement ‘I will change Z like this and it will be positive’. But if a politician were to say that then you might actually form an opinion on what they think and intend to do. Some would agree others not. You could lose an election (or gain a landslide) for such comments. Having a plan and a clearly stated objective is a boon and a bane.

    But just ambigously wanting to change things, since that is the only predictable outcome of the 2008 presidential election, is safe and allows voters to inject their emotions. That definitely will win an election. To bad that it makes no impact or potential steps torwards improving anything. It can’t since it doesn’t even attempt to define what it will change or how.

    In the 2006 mid-term elections Democrats were elected under the rally call of change. What change happened is that millions of taxpayer dollars were used to hold a multitude of Congerssional meetings on issues that never involved a single law being broken, the health of professional athletes, pointing the finger of blame at one political party or another. Please tell me how any of that prevented the mortgage crisis, put food on a table, or money in anyones pocket? But you can’t call them liars, because it was a change.

    Is Senator John McCain President Bush? No. So a 3rd term of Bush is a stupid and feeble statement based on capturing an emotional response and not the benefit of the nation. Is global warming real? Probably not, but there is nothing wrong with having a cleaner world. Can you fix an economy (ie giving people more money in their pockets) by increasing the taxes they pay? It’s never worked before.

    So when you think of the Presidential election think of this – How do you want to change the issues you think are important to America? How will those changes happen without hurting other Americans? Who has a plan to attain those changes? What plan is based in the reality (and not emotion) of the world today?

    Labels: , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, June 03, 2008

    Associated Press announces history making news for Senator Obama

    I had to stop packing for my move and work to present this:

    AP tally: Obama clinches Democratic nomination



    WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

    Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial divisions within the party.

    The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

    The 46-year-old first term senator will face Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the fall campaign to become the 44th president.

    Labels: , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, May 27, 2008

    Democratic Nomination - Path to where?

    Does anyone find it interesting that Senator Hillary Clinton, via husband former-President Bill Clinton, now claim that they have the most votes any Democrat has ever received before? The timing is almost laughable.

    First the Clinton machine claimed that they would win with little trouble. The pundits agreed. Then in November 2007 Senator Obama gathered some steam and Senator Clinton got caught playing all sides of an issue (whether she supposed giving illegal aliens driver’s liscences in New York State – she answered yes, no and maybe in less than 2 minutesin a national debate which I have posted on).

    Then the issue became the fact that Senator Obama was just playing race and was a minor character because he won in South Carolina. Race was a major issue, and gender was a common back drop. Both were reasons the Clinton campaign believed they would prevail.

    Then as Clinton lost states 2 to 1, the argument became that she was leading the Super Delegate vote. She pressed that Super Delegates would know that she was the better candidate and she would win.

    Then when she lost the Super delegates she now claims she has the majority of vote. Of course to get that math right you have to give her every vote in Florida (ignoring the votes that Senator Obama received) and all the votes that were in Michigan (ignoring that she was the only name on the ballot and the fact that 40% of Michigan picked uncommitted rather than vote for her).

    Is it interesting that she now claims that the voters in Florida and Michigan need to have their votes counted, when a year ago she agreed and pledged to penalize them – when she thought she didn’t need the votes? Does this sound desperate at all? Isn’t the ship sinking, and not only is the captain going down, she is trying to take the crew and passengers too.

    The Democratic Presidential nomination has be filled with racism, gender bias, polispeak politics on vote rules, religious fear and hatred, and desperation all centered or initiated by Senator Clinton and her campaign. Can any Democrat truly say this is the kind of President they want? That you would ignore all the negatives and vote for her anyway?

    The more this race has gone forward the more I have to wonder how the Democratic Party will survive, and if it should. When the best that the Party can offer is Clinton and her tactics (which currently seem like poisoning the well because if she can’t win no Democrat should), or Senator Obama who has no real plan stated, but has snippets of ideas that are protectionist/isolationist and failed policies of the past?

    I really have to wonder is any Democrat now available really going to lead the nation to a better place considering the issues that face America. And I don’t care about the “Bush is bad”, “Bush has ruined America” crap that some toss about. President Bush is leaving office, thus that is the end of his policies. America is still free, and there has not been another attack on our soil. He may not be a great President, or overly smart, but he did what was needed at the time (and some of what wasn’t too). Instead of looking backwards, look ahead and tell me what can the Democrats do to improve the situation.

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Thursday, April 24, 2008

    An ev ening of politics and words in Binghamton New York

    I had the most interesting experience the other day. This experience leads me to ask a few questions. The first is whether the age of a Black person in any way influences their ability and/or propensity to use the N-word? The second is what rule or unspoken law mandates that African Americans must vote for a Democratic candidate?

    What happened is that I was out having a drink with friends. Now realize that I am in Binghamton, an area with approximately 3% Black population. So when a White guy came up to me and started to have a conversation, that I wasn’t really paying attention to, that somehow hit on the fact that he would not use the N-word – but his Black friend would – I wasn’t too shocked. Out here I often hear random Whites discuss with me how they feel about racial issues, and invariably they have a need to impress upon me the fact that they are not racists.

    Of course I stated my position. That the N-word is a vile word and no one of any race has a right or need to use this term. And at that moment his Black friend, who I will call Eric, popped up and mentioned that I was wrong. Eric’s assertion was that he had every right to use the N-word, because he is Black. When I said I am no less so and disagree, he was put off. He then felt the need to try to set me in place by letting me know he was 43 and born in 1964. To this I informed him that I was 40, born in ’68, and saw no way that age applied.

    Now in my eyes there is no way to justify the use of this term. Those of us born during the Civil Rights Movement never endured any of the hardship of those few that were in the Marches and having sit-ins. That is not to say that the 70’s and early 80’s were without incident (or even today). But I don’t compare it to the 1920’s or 1950’s. So being in the 40’s has no meaning to me. Of course someone alive from 1865 would have a better argument, as would anyone in their 80’s. The first because of experience, the second because of due respect for their age.

    Am I wrong? Does the meaning of this vile word change at all when spoke by someone with a darker skin than a lighter one? To me there is no difference in being punched by a person with darker or lighter skin, so there is no difference in the use of this word.

    Now a bit later in the evening, Eric was leaving and felt the need to walk over to me. There were 3 Black people in this bar and that was a lot. Though Eric made on effort to speak with the Black woman that was there. His comment was

    “Hey fellow Black man, you have a good night. And did you vote?”

    When I mentioned yes I was asked if it was for Senator Obama. I did not. I was asked if it was for Senator Clinton, with a bit of surprise and disapproval. I did not. He then asked with more than a bit of incredulity “Senator McCain?”

    Yes I did.

    This then lead to the question of why I did so. My response was why shouldn’t I. I was then told that he was a Republican. When I bypassed that obvious fact and asked why I should vote for a Democrat Eric then proceeded to inform me that he is 43, a homeowner, a business owner, and formerly worked as a senior executive. When I reminded him of my age, and mentioned that my casual attire did not reflect my personal success, he agreed that we both did were not reflecting our success in our attire that moment.

    Again I pressed the question of what Democrats have done for the nation and African Americans in the past 20 or even 40 years? I was then told that I was deluded, sold-out, and without common sense. Eric then walked away.

    At no point was I given a reason why I should vote for a Democrat. The unspoken comment was that since I was Black I owe Senator Obama a vote, as well as any Democrat. Now I am 40, a business owner, soon to be a homeowner, successful in my current and prior careers for over 2 decades. None of either of our personal successes were derived from anything other than our own drive and actions. So where is the reason to change my vote?

    I hate when anyone presumes or attempts to belittle my reasons for doing something, based solely on my skin color. Especially when they don’t have any counter-reasoning for me. Had Eric tried to ask me a question or give me a reason I could have discussed this with him. As you my readers know, I’m hardly a novice in covering the political environment.

    So am I wrong? Do I owe Senator Obama my vote? Is being Black an obligation to vote one way or another? If so why?

    I really want to hear the other side of this. The side that Eric was too busy trying to obscure with his personal successes to bother to credibly offer.

    Labels: , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, April 22, 2008

    Will Senator Hillary Clinton denounce Bill Clinton?

    In yet another display of racial insensitivity and polarizing commentary we have former President Bill Clinton making statements yesterday and today. Now I want to make something clear up front, that every pundit I have read so far has avoided on this latest issue (and which could be applied to previous ones).

    If the comments of Bill Clinton, husband of Senator Hillary Clinton, have no influence or connection to the actions and policies of Hillary how can the words and/or association of Rev. Wright – former pastor to Senator Obama – be relevant to Barack?

    Former President Bill Clinton said in South Carolina



    More recently he said



    He goes on to say (which I have not been able to locate on Youtube) in the same comment

    CLINTON: "… And, you know, do I regret saying it? No. Do I regret that it was used that way? I certainly do. But you really gotta go something to try to portray me as a racist."

    INTERVIER: “OK. Well thank you very much, Mr. President.”

    CLINTON: “Thank you. I hope everybody will go out to vote tomorrow. Buh-bye… I don’t think I can take any sh#& from anybody on that, do you?
    [The bold is my emphasis]


    And then covered it with



    So who exactly is using race as a weapon and a tool of polispeak in this Democratic nomination race?

    And Senator Hillary Clinton has yet to be asked the following questions:

    • Do you renounce and reject the comments of your husband?

    • Does your husband have influence on the way you make decisions?

    • Do you think your spouse’s comments accurately reflect the way you see America?

    These questions were certainly asked of Senator Obama about his wife and Rev. Wright. So why has no pundit or reporter asked her this?

    The Democratic Presidential nomination race has long ago devolved into a question of character and associations. The actual issues important to liberals and Democrats haven’t been spoken about in a month or so. That being a given, I ask why is the polispeak game not being played equally when the weight and importance given to what a former President is normally covered extensively? Why is the former President making comments, on behalf of Senator Clinton, where he is looking to avoid “take any sh#&”? Does that not imply the statements are merely being made to get a certain spin, and not the truth?

    This may have come out too late for the Pennsylvania Primary, but it is not too late for future primaries and the Democratic Convention. Be assured that if Superdelegates ignore these words and select Senator Clinton I will be mentioning this constantly up to the election. Because, former-President Clinton, I have reviewed the question and comments you made. And I’ve come to my own conclusion.

    I suggest that you copy this and send it to you loacal superdelegate if you agree. Because I at least feel that all candidates should be held to the same standards, and I really want to hear how Senator Clinton would answer these questions.

    Don’t you?

    Labels: , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Monday, April 14, 2008

    Senator Obama "bitter", and the other Presidential candidates

    So now we have the major news media jumping all over the words of Senator Obama. This time it’s in reference to his elitist comments about how small town voters across America seem to feel and are acting. While the comments are harsh, there is some truth in them.

    “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Barack Obama


    Having lived some 5 years no in a small town (that residents of the area consider a city for some reason) I have noticed that many are clinging and bitter. There is no question that in this town with approximately 6% non-whites and a large community of college students, there are bitter feelings. The average income is about $28,000 and jobs are scarce. Most jobs pay minimum wage, the downtown district is littered with empty buildings, and more than just a few homes are in disrepair even in the best neighborhoods.

    There is a huge hunting community though, and there are an abundance of churches and church groups. The main activity outside of these events is drinking. In a recent article in the local paper there was a story (during Black History month) describing that one of the local major companies recruited new workers and when asked what the recreational activities were in the area they stated ‘there are a lot of bars’. Such is this small town in central New York, and that is better than the surrounding smaller towns and villages.

    That says nothing of the rampant racism and prejudice. I have heard numerous stories from non-whites over the years, and experienced several myself. From failure to be served for over 15 minutes only to be skipped over to serve a White patron that walked up, to being called the N-word for speaking to a White person of the opposite sex, to having a drunk guy picking a fight – using the N-word to provoke the situation – and being told at the end that it was due to dressing better than those around [which happened to me]. Binghamton is a city dying for lack of good jobs, lack of foresight from the city council, and the failure of Senator Clinton to live up to her promise to generate 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York [in fact upstate New York has lost 30,000 jobs since she has been elected].

    So is Senator Obama wrong in what he said? From what I have seen here and in the area, no. The citizenry is quite bitter and angry. They want to see less jobs going overseas, fewer immigrants keeping job wages down, and virtually hate anyone – especially of color – that is living here and doing better. Mind you that is not everyone here, but it is more than enough to make things uncomfortable is you walk into the wrong place on the wrong day.

    But let’s consider this. If Senator Obama is out of touch or as Senator Clinton states

    “I do not think he really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you, and not looks down on you," said Hillary Clinton. "And after seven years of Americans feeling invisible to this president, President Bush, it is time that we leveled the playing field.”


    Is Senator Clinton better?

    Well we know as fact that she lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Sinbad and videotaped footage of the event have proven that – thus it’s not a misspoken statement as the polispeak would have you believe. We know that she had no impact or input to the Ireland peace talks, those who did have told us about that lie as well.

    We know that in the 7+ years that Senator Clinton has been representing New York State she has lied about new jobs, and her voting record reflects changing polls consistently. We know Senator Clinton is against guns, in speeches and votes. We know that the Clinton campaign has consistently and directly, in the form of Bill Clinton, used race as a factor in generating votes. The Clinton campaign has directly pandered gender as a solitary reason for votes. Is this “standing up” or “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”?

    But perhaps most important is her connection to the people. Senator Clinton, along with former President Bill Clinton, made $109 million. They paid only $34 million in taxes. That may be a lot, but it is far less than the highest tax bracket so they took tax breaks available to them. They also donated $10 million to charity – the Clinton Library – in effect giving them a tax break and keeping the money. All from those that claim that the rich (which she obviously qualifies as) don’t pay enough in taxes and voted to increase the taxes paid of everyone making $31,850 or more (which I know none that would qualify this as rich).

    Now both of the Democratic candidates have gone to good colleges and have law degrees. Senator Clinton spent her time after graduating on the board of Wal-Mart (which has fought unions – a big issue for Democrats) and being the wife of a rising political husband. Senator Obama spent his time working for the Chicago community and entering politics at the state level. Which sounds like it benefits the average guy more? Which sounds closer, since neither is similar, to the life average Joe lives?

    Of course if we were to really be fair about this Senator McCain really stands out. While his wife does have wealth, he was a soldier. While he was an officer and a pilot, he did serve his nation at a time of war, and stood by his fellow soldiers while having years of torture. He has served the public for 25 years, longer than some of my readers have been alive. He has never lied about being shot at, nor has he made a donation to a charity he runs. He has not voted to raise taxes of those that are obviously in the middle class (though he did balk initially at giving them a tax cut). He is not known for looking down at anyone, though he is known for his temper. But he is also known for breaking party lines to make deals he feels benefit the American public – which the Democratic candidates have not done, ever.

    So really, who sounds like they are looking down on the average American? Who is the least connected? Who has lied the least – or as the spin likes to say “misspoke”. Who has stood their ground and served the public the most, or in other word has experience?

    Obviously for the Republicans that is Senator McCain. For the Democrats I leave the choice to you, based on the facts. And as for the election, well that is your choice. No matter what you believe, your vote makes a difference. If we all are involved, since we all will live with the results, then I believe we will get the best choice for America. But if not, there will be no way to explain the next 4 years in some polispeak spin of “misspoke” or “mistake”.

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, March 19, 2008

    The Full speech of Senator Obama - 319.2008.1

    There are so many things I could say about Senator Obama's speech, and the response that the news media has had to it. But rather than do that, At least for now, I will provide you the full speech so you can see more than just the 15 second soundbite the media provides. It's short soundbites that got this whole situation started.

    "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

    Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

    The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

    Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

    And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

    This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

    This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

    I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

    It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

    Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

    This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

    And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

    On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

    I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

    But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

    As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

    Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

    But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

    In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

    “People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

    That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

    And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

    I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

    These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

    Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

    But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

    The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

    Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

    Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

    Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

    A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

    This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

    But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

    And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

    In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

    Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

    Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

    This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

    But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

    For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

    Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

    The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

    In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

    In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

    For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

    We can do that.

    But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

    That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

    This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

    This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

    This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

    I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

    There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

    There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

    And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

    She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

    She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

    Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

    Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

    “I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

    But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins."

    Labels: , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Sunday, March 16, 2008

    Rev. Wright, Senator Obama, and the media

    Wow. The media has finally gotten something that they have been waiting over a year for, and they are feasting. I’ve rarely seen such a universal and demostrative move by all the major media in the same direction.

    Of course this is all about Rev. Wright, the former pastor of Senator Obama. It is the first time that there has been an issue placed against Senator Obama that has stuck, and there is no question this is not going to be let go. I’m sure Senator Clinton is gleeful.

    Regarless on how you feel about the Democratic Party or candidates, you have you see that right now the media is jumping on this like white on rice. I have seen more 5 and 10 second clips of Reverend Jeremiah Wright than any other single issue ever. And in fairness, no one can be represented in 5 or 10 second clips of conversation. Thats a fact no matter what those 10 seconds of conversation discuss.

    I will add that I have reviewed a full 3 minutes of one of the sermons that Rev. Wright made and has been used often in news media. And in that 3 minutes there was roughly 15 seconds of material that was questionable and worthy of refutation. Of course review of one piece of controversial material is hardly a means of making a conclusion. But neither is the multiple 10 second clips without context, though media would like to portray that.

    What I am seeing is something that Senator Clinton has been attempting to do since November of 2007. Making the Democratic nomination a matter of race, and banking on the fear of African Americans to ensure a win.

    The Clinton campaign has approached this through multiple means, from rumor emails to photos of Obama in a native African garb. In each case she and her campaign have been shown for what they were doing. Race baiting and using deplorable tactics to fuel her raw ambition for power.

    This is differnt though. It’s an independent source, and a lot of them. Yet the question is how much of what Rev. Wright says is really wrong, or different than what African Americans (or just all Americans) think.

    As I have stated, Hillary Clinton, and former-President Bill Clinton, don’t know what it is to be poor and Black. They have not had cabs refuse to carry them or been called the most disgusting, insulting, and derogatory terms in the english language. They have never been called traitors to their race while being called too aligned with their race. And every video clip of Rev. Wright saying so is just factual, if a bit uncomfortable to White voters.

    But comments stating that the America created and spread AIDS, or that we caused the attacks on 9/11 are blatantly wrong. They are deplorable and insulting. Most importantly they are wrong.

    But does any of this have anything to do with Senator Obama’s politics? I have yet to see a connection made between the objectionable comments of Rev. Wright and a pattern of voting by Senator Obama. In the frenzy to finally have a negative that can be used against Obama, no media source has shown a connection that makes this a valid concern. I find this no better than what was done against Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith.

    Show me the connection. Show me where religion intersects with politics and I will call for any politician to be removed. Especially if those remarks infringe on the rights of an American citizen. But at the moment there is only video clips that last 10 seconds.

    Senator Obama has served on the Illinois State Senate, and was elected to the federal Senate. Rev. Wright has been a pastor for 20 years. I’ve heard no connection to problems with the pastor up until about a week ago.

    I have heard that Rev. Wright was in the lead against Apartheid when few were willing. I’ve heard he was an advocate of gays. I’ve heard he’s done many positives. So in combination with his negative remarks I take him to be just human and flamboyant. But I have yet to find him influential. But I can name several White Christian pastors and preachers that are more flamboyant, vocal, political, and questionable that are not given this same treatment.

    Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell are but a few of many popular names that have been promoting political ideals and laws since at least the mid-1980’s. Several have made scandalous statements repeatedly. And Republican candidates are loathe to confront or refute their comments lest they lose these votes. Yet I have never noted a day filled with videoclips of portions of their sermons.

    I am not standing up for Rev. Wright. But I am noting the diametrically opposed manner in which he his suddenly being treated and Senator Obama along with him. And I have to question why, after over a year of campaigning and 2 decades of sermons, is there such a furor now? What suddenly changed that every media station is suddenly learning this information that Chicago and Illionois have know for years. That have been available since the day Senator Obama announced his run for the Presidency?

    The only reason I see is the most sad and deplorable. This sudden focus and negative attention is because Senator Obama stands on the threashold of running for President, and because he is Black many are getting scared.

    I knew America is still racist in areas and in legal matters, but I thought this was still fair game. It would seem I and many were wrong.

    Labels: , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Friday, March 14, 2008

    $31,850 is the new definition of rich

    How rich do you feel if you are making $31,850 or more?

    If you are like most families and individuals in America, I imagine that you don’t. In fact I would say most would feel relatively poor. Not because of a lack of luxury items or failing in a competition with the Jones’ but because of a scarcity of essentials and a knowledge that loss of everything is possible.

    Americans in the middle class don’t feel rich because they are the ones losing their homes to the mortgage crisis. They are the ones incapable of affording better colleges (or sometimes any college) for their children. They are the families most often without healthcare coverage and unable to afford medical costs.

    And they are the ones that are going to feel even worse if Democrats, and the Presidential candidates Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, get their way. I don’t say this because of some ideal, or dedication to the Republican Party. I say this because that is exactly what they are voting for.

    “Senators voted 52-47 to reject a move to extend tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates.”


    and

    “Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.”


    So, if you make $31,850 or more you may not feel like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett but you are going to get taxed like them.

    This is not a surprise because for all the statements by Democrats that running scared from Iraq will turn the economy around, and their implication that universal healthcare is the same thing as free health care the facts are that more money will come out of our pockets to pay for it all. Your pocket, whether or not any of the things you will be paying for will provide a single benefit for you or those you know.

    This is what a Democratic President will provide. Some may believe that this is a small price to pay. Some may believe that all businesses should pay more in taxes. And some may believe that terrorists and those hostile to the existence of America will give up their fights just because we turn our backs.

    But I believe that increasing the taxes that the middle-class and businesses pay will not improve the economy. I believe that giving money TO problems rather than spending money to FIX the problems is foolish. I believe that turning your back on a bar fight will get your head cracked open from a chair smashed upon it. I believe that nothing is free, and some things are too expensive to be worthwhile.

    The Democratic candidates have marched across America saying they will only tax the rich. They have said that they will only affect big business. They have said that they will make America safer. All are great things. But the facts of their actions indicate they are lying if not confused.

    “Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.”


    So here is the big question for the up-coming election. If you aren’t rich at $31,850 and the Democrats are going to increase your taxes, what other plan proposed by them is equally skewed to your disadvantage?

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Florida and Michigan: More at risk than Democratic nomination

    America is a nation of rules. Rules and the ways that we break them. If we look at baseball, particularly the MLB, we have steroids and the homeruns that fans love. If we look at football we have videotaping and the Super Bowl that is the number one event year after year. In the most important event that happens once every 4 years, not the World Cup – which is phenomenal – nor the Olympic Games, we now have a similar situation.

    By that I mean we have Michigan and Florida. The event is the Presidential election. The leader of the free world and unarguably the strongest nation in the world is an event everyone should pay attention to. It’s an event that affects everyone. And it is the one event where the rules have consequences that are irrevocable.

    Yet Michigan and Florida, and by extension the Democratic Party, feel that the rules established are not applicable to them. There is no advocate of throwing out the rules greater than Senator Hillary Clinton.

    Long before there was a nomination race, before there was chaos in the Democratic Party, and before the Clinton campaign decided to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Senator Obama all the potential candidates agreed with the Democratic Party in penalizing Michigan and Florida.

    Those 2 states were told not to move their Primary dates. They were told that to do so would cost them their delegates. Everyone understood the outcome if they violated this. And they did it anyway.

    But today, they want to be in the game. They are demanding to have their delegates re-instated. They are devising plans to re-do their votes and alter the current nomination race. And in doing so they are laughing at the votes of every Democrat that has voted in a primary so far, in my opinion.

    If these states are allowed to ignore their penalty, why can’t any other state? Why can’t all the Democrats get to re-vote, and why can’t all the candidates that were involved earlier allowed to jump back into the race? If one rule is to be ignored, then what rule is valid?

    Where is the leadership that should stand up and say we are a nation of rules and laws. That none are above this, and that all are held equally to these rules. Because to do otherwise is to favor one candidate over another and to invalidate the votes of the public.

    Sour grapes, and a desire to feel important is not a reason to alter the outcome of what has happened. Political ambition and a desire for power is not a reason to manipulate the public. And in doing so once, a presidence is set to do it always. Thus we move from a Democracy to another form of government, paving a path to hell with supposed good intentions and the so called best interest of the people at heart.

    Some Democrats are claiming that keeping the penalty in place is disenfranchising the public. A year ago there was no worry about that. Before the Primaries there was no problem with ignoring portions of the party in those states. No cries of unfairness rang out. Because there are rules and penalties.

    But political favor and gain motivate the call for changing the playing field now. Any politician that says otherwise is a liar. This is a game for control, and the public is being used as pawns.

    No matter the outcome of any action that includes the delegates of Michigan and Flotrida, you the public and voters will be used and manipulated.

    That does not mean that you should not vote. It does mean that members of the Democratic Party should hold their representatives accountable. That you should make them aware that their power comes from you. That your vote is their ultimate power and anything that dilutes your power destroys them.

    Mark my words, if the changes being proposed for Florida and Michigan come to pass America will be damaged. Whether that is felt immediately in this election, or in a future election I do not know. But it will happen.

    Senator Clinton may need this kind of stunt, and may use her power to alter the situation, but that just makes me sure that she is unfit for the Presidency. If she, as a leader of the Democratic Party, cannot abide by rules she was involved in creating and agreed to then what in the world makes anyone think she will be willing to abide by any other law, rule, or decision of the nation? And how can a person without regard for anything but what they want, be trusted with the power of the most powerful and influential nation in the world?

    Florida and Michigan may not like the penalties, and Senator Clinton may prefer a change for her benefit, but America is a nation of rules and laws. That is something that must be remembered, because unlike a game for entertainment the Presidency is about our lives and there is no instant replay to correct a bad call.

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, March 12, 2008

    What makes a Clinton-Obama Presidential ticket attractive

    Previously I mentioned the top reasons why the combined Clinton – Obama Democratic Presidential ticket would not work. So now I will look at the counter-points. Again, the top person on the ticket is interchangeable.

    • 1) Save the Democratic Party. Unity can be created by the combination if handled optimally. The division in the campaigns so far can be ameliorated by the candidates that created the friction. Solidifying the African American base, the influx of the youth vote, a surge in Hispanic/Latino and women voters can provide a huge base for the Presidency, each of these groups having specific needs that each candidate represents.
    • 2) Leaving Iraq. A major focal point for many in America, without regard for their political preference. This is one of the top issues in the nation, with few in favor of how the war has been run overall. Some even believe that our leaving Iraq will provide stability in the region and lessen our chances of being attacked by terrorists.
    • 3) The combined ticket is expected to draw massive minority votes. African Americans have never had an elected official attain such a high level, Women have a chance to have a symbolic leveling of the political and cultural playing field, Hispanic/Latinos have a chance to be recognized. Each group has reason to feel disenfranchised and these candidates could be the answer to that.
    • 4) The youth vote as mentioned before is unprecedented. The numbers of younger voters has long been considered a pivotal factor in the last several elections. The actual presence of the youth vote, and their tendency to vote Democratic, could increase voter turnout by 20% and easily turn the tide in an even less than close race.
    • 5) There is a Democratic Congress in place now. If the Democrats are able to maintain control then having a Democratic President would embolden the attempts to live up to the campaign promises made to date. A Democratic President would be far more powerful under this Congress; and we would assume that far less time would be wasted on meetings to review non-law breaking acts in the government.
    • 6) The media is seen in the nation as liberal. So one could expect that as programs and entitlements are proposed the media will laud them in a positive manner with little argument. This will help rally public support for the programs. And it will help raise the political power of the party and Administration.
    • 7) There is a strong religious backlash in the nation. Because of the obvious and preferential regard President Bush has had towards his faith, many that dislike him dislike the emphasis. In addition many in the nation fear a highly Christian push in politics and law as they do not share this faith. Those that have felt excluded, or even persecuted (like Muslims), would prefer a less fanatical religious President.
    • 8) Hollywood would love this. From television Presidents to the movies, Hollywood has been reinforcing the image of a liberal President in office. Money has poured out in droves so far, and the combined ticket ensures that even more will be spent to make fiction a potential reality.
    • 9) Change. It’s the buzzword of this election cycle and everyone wants it. The fact that President Bush cannot be re-elected is not enough. A palpable and immediate difference must be in place for some people. What is more visible than an African American and/or a woman?
    • 10) This proposed Democratic Presidential ticket makes a statement against bias, racism, and outright prejudice. It makes many Americans feel better about their lives with a minority as President. The argument is that the world must be better than 40 years ago, even though nooses, the legal system, and city education programs all state otherwise.
    • 11) Free healthcare. No one has promised that, but that is what many are hearing. If everyone must be covered in the universal healthcare plans, then those in low incomes presume it will not have a cost to them. Others miss understand the source of the income to pay for coverage for every person in America. Who doesn’t want something that is free? Who doesn’t want to be able to go to the doctor when they are sick?
    • 12) Isolationism. Current promises by the Democratic candidates imply America retreating from the police of the world stance we have maintained for almost 2 decades now. A wall to the South, exiting Iraq, throwing out NAFTA. America would step back from the world and just deal with itself. That comforts many, even though it is obvious that this kind of retreat is impossible.

    While these may not be the only reasons one could have to want a combination of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, I feel they are the reading reasons. You may not agree, with me or the reasons.

    Whether you agree or not, only your vote will make the difference. Only your involvement in the process will make the best possible choice for America a reality. Be involved. If you like these ideals vote for them. If you don’t vote against them.

    What ever you do, just get out and vote.

    Labels: , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, March 11, 2008

    Why an Obama + Clinton ticket won’t win

    **I want to say hello to all my new readers coming from TV One's website and it's Presidential election page.**

    Here is a quick list of a few reasons why I feel the “dream Presidential ticket” means sure doom for Democrats come November. And by the way, the reasons don’t change regardless of which Presidential candidate is the lead.

    • 1) Racial and religious slurs. Obviously there have been multiple attacks and rumors that have been coming from one political campaign against another. No names need to be said, but the effect has been fractioning of the party, disenfranchisement of voters, and a potential explosion at the Party convention.
    • 2) The massive scandals that come with the Clinton’s. Do not kid yourself if you are a fan of theirs, everything they were accused of is going to come back. Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky and the rest. And add in new events like whatever is hidden in the current tax return and the records blocked by Bill.
    • 3) Absolute lack of experience. Both candidates are novices in the political sphere, especially when compared to the long record of McCain and his military record. Which of the three really has the experience to answer the 3am call? Expect to see that commercial before the election.
    • 4) Taxes will go higher. Pick your choice, but either way you will pay more to the government. How else will all those entitlements get paid for, like universal healthcare?
    • 5) For those that came up with the answer, “Leave Iraq and it will pay for it all”, sorry that’s not exactly right. You are correct that with either at the helm America will lose in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. Guaranteed the terrorists will be empowered. An immediate retreat from Iraq means that those left in the wake to suffer will join the propaganda that blames it all on America and attack us when old enough. Troops will need to be in Iraq to prevent total chaos (which is the real meaning of being IN Iraq for 100 years – like being in Germany for 50 now). So the money saved will go to setting up a permanent base and protecting/rebuilding from terrorist attacks.
    • 6) Any person that is against the idea of a Black and/or woman being in charge will vote against this ticket. For all the hopes and belief that America has grown, the fact is that many in America (of both sexes and many races) still harbor bias. Proof is in the wage differences, executive placements, legal system, movies, television shows, and on and on.
    • 7) Illegal aliens (or non-documented immigrants if you prefer – lack of a passport or green card is illegal) will gain citizenship and/or multiple rights of citizens. Possibly good for unions and Democratic voting blocks, I don’t see a benefit anywhere else.
    • 8) The stock market classically drops at the beginning of a Democratic Presidency. Depending on the ability of the Democrat, the entire term can be bad for the stock market, business, ultimately the economy and investors.
    • 9) Both supported (or refused to refute) Moveon.org and its insulting attack against General Petraeus and the Armed Forces. Obviously not good for relations with the Pentagon.
    • 10) The Party division created by the fight for the nomination, will not be resolved so simply. The real issues, and taking for granted of core sections of the Democratic Party, will not just go away. With either candidate at the top of the ticket some will feel they were robbed and betrayed.
    • 11) And lastly the egos of both candidates visibly and directly clash.

    Now these are all real and valid reasons that the Democrats will lose with this combination. That is not to say that either candidate, with a different Vice-President, is unable to win. I think that the odds of winning go up dramatically for Senator Obama without the burden of Senator Clinton. I feel Senator Clinton just can’t win.

    If either candidate does win, hopefully some of the issues may be resolved. Stereotypes and prejudice need to be removed. Barriers and small-mindedness needs to be broken. Others may be improved with time.

    If you favor the Democratic candidates, good. I’m not decreeing the outcome. But realize that this potential ticket has baggage and problems. If you want this to win, or any candidate, get out there and vote. Only your vote will ensure that the candidate you want will win. Only with your vote, and all those of citizens, will the best choice for America be determined.

    Labels: , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    The results after March 4th Primaries

    So Hillary Clinton won 3 states on March 4th. Senator Obama won the caucuses and 1 state. The net result? No real change, no answers, no nominee in the Democratic Party.

    For all the hoopla that the Clinton campaign has made recently, they really have accomplished nothing. Except for furthering the divide among Democrats, and showing the nation the extent she is willing to go to. And if the Republican Party is paying attention they are amassing a huge list of questions and points to attack whoever is the nominee.

    I’ve stated previously the multiple racial attacks, rumors, and outright lies in the Democratic race. Not one has come from the Republican Party. Almost all of them have come from the Clinton campaign. And as the nomination battle stretches on, things only look like they will get worse.

    Plans are already being made to have the agreed upon rules thrown out where they relate to Michigan and Florida. A favorite tactic of Democratic candidates, lawyers and court battles, are being spoken about on the horizon. Whispers of re-doing Primaries in those 2 states are whirling about.

    Of course this says nothing about the lesson that is teaching the young voters in this cycle. When a penalty is given for breaking rules, it really isn’t a penalty if candidates don’t like the rules outcome. It doesn’t matter what voters choose because the Democratic Party can use Super Delegates to potentially ignore their votes. And everything is considered fair game in getting elected, if race and religion is involved.

    I am left pondering a thought. Do Democrats actually think they will win the Presidential election? The current candidates are trading barbs about experience. Neither has any really. Definitely not when compared to Senator McCain. Expect to see the 3am phone call commercial again, and expect that the question will be if America wants a renown war hero and dedicated elected official to pick up that phone, or a candidate that might have watched her husband answer that call before or a candidate that has never had to make such a serious decision before.

    Democrats are making their party split along lines of race and gender. Race is a weapon in this election, used so far as a means to diminish and insult. Gender is an excuse to avoid answering questions, engender favor, and to claim bias when momentum is lost. So depending on which candidate is picked, a large portion of voters may lose interest in the election and not show up.

    And scandals are being created or re-surfacing. The failure of the Clinton campaign to reveal their taxes implies that they are afraid to let Democratic voters see where their money has come from. The failure of the Clinton campaign to release records from President Bill Clinton’s administration hints of other negatives. And questions of an association from the past, which has been investigated and researched for years in Chicago without a single claim of wrong-doing, are surfacing now as if they were a lightning bolt of wrong. But don’t forget that the Clinton campaign has taken stolen money from a fugitive of the law that was strongly involved with the campaign.

    Again what has been the net result of the wins by Senator Clinton on March 4th? Greater fuel for the Republican Party and Senator McCain. Greater exposure of the American public to the issue of race as a factor. Greater emphasis on the lack of experience of the Democratic Party. More division in the Democratic Party. And a lot more bickering on how and when to break rules.

    The longer this goes, the more I have to believe this will not be good for anyone but Republicans.

    Labels: , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, March 05, 2008

    Clinton campaign paints a blacker Obama

    There is no question that Senator Clinton desperately needs a win in Texas and Ohio. It’s a fact that has been admitted by all sides of the Democratic race. Nor is there a question that Senator Clinton has decided to do everything possible to get those wins. But even I would never have expected a move that is as racist and underhanded as what I have just learned about.

    Senator Obama is Black. Unless you are blind, and America is everything but that, it’s not a big surprise. But is he Black enough?
    Photo found at http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/did-the-clinton.html
    I’m not speaking about the cultural question that was debated when he initially began to run, asked generally by less educated African Americans. The question in this case applied to how black he actually is. Pigmentation and skin tone. Not a tan but how dark is he.

    It would seem that the Clinton campaign, as has been reported so far but not confirmed thinks that Senator Obama needs to be darker. So that’s exactly what they did to his image. Darken it.

    Why does that matter? Well if it’s an attempt to emphasize in the minds of White voters that Obama is just an African American, and to play on stereotypes, it’s a big deal. If it’s an attempt to make him seem more dangerous and framed in a racist visage, it matters.

    None ever question how pale white a Caucasian is, but throughout American history it has been a big deal. Going back to the original Constitution and the 5/8th’s line. It’s a wedge in the Black community and a way to be hands distance from other Americans. It’s a memory of America that everyone wants to deny and avoid speaking about. And it needs only a subtle push, like the photo re-imaging, to bring it to the forefront.

    America has gone no where if such a racist and vile tactic can be used and even worse if it works. And any candidate that would stoop to this level to win is despicable in my mind.

    If an ad … actually there is no similar scenario for this. There is no way to correlate the racial prejudice this action implies and relies upon to being pink or ‘moon tan’ white. There just is no comparison in the daily evidence of the magnitude of the action.

    I know some Whites will say, ‘I don’t get it.’ Of course not. They have never lived or observed it. They have not noticed when they do it. It’s so common as to be sub-conscious. But I think every Black American knows.

    This is repugnant. I can’t express that enough. After the multiple racial attacks from 2007, when Senator Obama announced he would run, to today there has been no end of the emails that alleged untruths. And the Clinton camp helped spread them. And the attempts to stereotype Senator Obama as a drug dealer, by the Clinton campaign. And the minimalization of Dr. Martin Luther King and every Black politician by former-President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton campaign. After all that, still there is a need to be even more racist with this act.

    Will this divide the Democratic Party? It should. What can you think of a party that condones the use of racism by its top leadership, while it talks out the other side of its face about preventing gender bias? How can any Hispanic believe that our bronze skin is seen any differently by those that would highlight that darker than white must be magnified and wrong. How much trust can you give a potential President that would throw huge portions of its own party membership under a bus, just to attain power? And what woman would feel safe with the thought that this woman would stab her partners in the back just to try to run for office.

    All the warm and fuzzy tears, and appearances on television shows, like the Daily Show, will never excuse or cover this kind of racism. And if color can matter, what would make you think gender, religion, ethnicity, or economic status won’t?

    As I said, this has not been confirmed. But you can see the videos as reported by Wired, and you can draw your own conclusion. Then ask this question…

    Do you want a President that is willing to use race, gender, outright lies, political differences and who knows what else looking out for what your children will learn and be able to do? Would you trust that kind of person enough to invite them in your home? Or work? And would a smile, a tear, or a joke make all that change?

    Vote what you think, but be sure to vote!

    Labels: , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Thursday, February 21, 2008

    Primary race results chart - 2.21.2008.2

    This is part of the I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign.

    For those wondering exactly how popular the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates have been so far, I found something that makes it very clear. At a glance you will be able to see exactly who won a state primary or caucus and what percentage of the voters.

    I hope that this tool will help encourage those that have not yet had the chance to be involved to get out to the Primaries. Especially in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island on March 4th.

    For those that have voted already, I hope that you stay involved in the election process. Whether your candidate or some other winds up as the nominee for President of America, your vote counts. The more each and every American is involved, the better the future for America becomes. I truly believe that.

    If you have not registered to vote, please go to I Love America That’s Why I Vote! and see the information for registering from anywhere in the nation.

    Labels: , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Senator Obama expands lead after Wisconsin vote, Clinton in trouble

    Senator Obama has swept even more states and continued his streak of victories with 58% - 41% crushing win in Wisconsin and an embarrassing 76% - 24% clobbering in Hawaii. While the final tally has yet to be finalized Washington State stands at 50 - 47 with 57% of the vote counted. This makes the number of states won by Senator Obama 24 to Hillary Clinton’s 11, and increases his popular vote margin and the delegate count.

    As it becomes more apparent that Senator Clinton cannot gain the Democratic nomination, something that far less than a year ago pundits expected to be a given fact, the internet is beginning to rally to Senator Obama. Consistently the internet, along with the predominance of major newspapers and television/cable news, has been quite liberal and Democratic in their political preference. That preference has long held that Senator Clinton must be the choice of the nation. But with the continued inspirational performances of Senator Obama, the tide has changed.

    I for one am amazed that it took so long to happen.

    Without regard to personal political affiliation or beliefs, Senator Clinton never had a chance of winning a Presidential election. The reasons are tumultuous and towering. Beyond the baggage that is the Clinton Presidency legacy, there are the numerous scandals that Senator Clinton has had individually. Add to this her outright lies (like my favorite – that she has 35 years of experience which is only possible if you co-opt all the years of public service that her husband was elected to) and derisive attacks and you get the reason why Rasmussen predicts an 80%+ chance of Senator Obama winning the nomination. And all of this does not take into account the 47% dislike that the nation holds for Senator Clinton.

    At this point only elderly (65 years of age and up) white voters stuck with Clinton in the Wisconsin Primary in any significant numbers. And I expect that even this group will erode from her shortly, because

    “Hillary began positively, but the minute she felt the slightest challenge from Obama, she went negative and dirty and then went into denial about doing it and then claimed SHE was the victim of attacks. Worst of all, she used Bill as part of the strategy. Even a hard-core lefty like me is repulsed when hearing Bill Clinton attack people and then act slickly sweet and innocent and paint himself and his wife as the victim.”


    Yet this has not prevented Senator Clinton from stating

    “I’m not going to just talk about what’s wrong with NAFTA, I’m going to fix it,” she vowed. “My opponent has taken to attacking me on NAFTA. The fact is, neither of us were in the Senate at the time (it passed) and I’ve long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA.”


    [In fact neither were in the Senate at the time, but when President Bill Clinton was passing NAFTA then First Lady Hillary Clinton was a huge supporter of the bill and the President. And if we are to go and accept that her time as First Lady is part of her “35 years of experience” then NAFTA must be part of that as well.]

    Nor has it prevented the win at all costs strategy that the Clinton campaign is known for.

    “On Monday, an aide even suggested going after pledged Obama delegates at the Convention – in other words, directly thwarting the will of the voters.

    After a disastrous PR flap, the Clinton camp denied that statement. But it’s fair to draw a basic conclusion: they are getting desperate, and are grasping for any method to win the nomination – whether it is ethical or not.”


    This is on top of the fact that the Clinton campaign agreed, with all other Democratic candidates at the time, on the penalties placed against Florida and Michigan in September 2007. But today they are trying to engineer the removal of those penalties to bolster their own flailing hopes.

    Given all this, with 2 debates to come and the March 4th Primaries in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island, I have to question why any continue to support Senator Hillary Clinton. Looking at all the comments and facts, without emotion or preference, I am at a loss. Perhaps one reason those 65 and older are voting for Senator Clinton is the fact that she is White and they are part of the generations that lived in a United States that supported segregation and Jim Crow laws. It’s an aspect that I have not heard discussed, for obvious reasons, but it has been a failed tool (race) used since the South Carolina Primary, so it’s worth asking.

    For those that still are unsure of whom to vote for in Texas and Ohio (the major delegate states in the next set of Primaries) the question to ask may be one that Senator Clinton asked of Senator Obama

    “What has he done? What is his experience?” – as presented in a Fox News clip of Senator Clinton making a speech on February 20, 2008


    The same should be asked of Senator Clinton. And when that answer comes up with an equal nothing consider this. She has been in the Senate longer, supposedly with 35 years of experience and has nothing to show for it. Add that to her attempts to break rules she has agreed to, personal racial attacks, her flips on issues important to Democrats (like her vote and support for the war in Iraq), scandals and 47% national disapproval rating.

    So I ask, why would a Democrat vote for her over Senator Obama? I’d like to know.

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, February 13, 2008

    Senator Hillary Clinton 'presumptive loser' of February 12th Primaries

    “My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!”


    Such a statement might have been the claims of the Clinton campaign in 2007, right up until November. Politically, the powerhouse of the Democratic Party was presumed the frontrunner. It was assumed by most pundits that Senator Clinton’s appeal among Democrats, and women in particular, was unassailable. And the African American vote was assumed to be locked up without much thought towards it.

    But as Bilbo would say
    “Every worm has his weak spot”.


    That turned out to be Senator Obama. He has endured smears and personal/racial attacks. He had battled the chuckles of pundits, and gained recognition on a national basis. His triumph is not complete yet, but so far 20 of 28 states have been won by Senator Obama. No matter the delegate math, that’s a landslide. Expectations are that the 3 primaries to be held February 12, 2008 will be another set of 60%+ wins for the Obama campaign. In fact they were 60%, 64%, and 75%.

    Yet delegates show a virtual tie among these 2 Democratic Presidential hopefuls. So what should the voters of the remaining Primaries be focused on?

    Well Hispanic/Latinos may want to consider why the Clinton campaign is so attractive. Based on my observations I would believe the most attractive thought is that the Clinton campaign will bend to whatever will is popular when it comes to illegal aliens. From her ‘every answer in the book’ response about illegal aliens and driver’s licenses, it seems obvious that there is no clear position. Thus a Presidential candidate that was supported by Hispanic/Latinos will owe major favors to this growing group of Americans.

    But considering that Senator Clinton has shown a decisive ability to do anything but maintain a real position about virtually every political subject since taking public office, I would not count on that. Because Clinton has been unwilling to take a stand in favor of illegal aliens, I believe that she will court them for the vote and abandon them in the face of national pressure if elected. It’s not like she has stated clearly that she backs anything, so she has no campaign promises to back out of. And considering that early assumptions of support from, and later minimalization of, African Americans has worked out horrendously, the Clinton campaign realizes that it needs a minority group to help shore up its weakening hold on Whites and the vital women vote.

    I believe that if these observations are correct, then Hispanics/Latinos will realize the lack of commitment by the March 4th Texas Primary. They will back Senator Obama, and it will be more than obvious that the popular vote and delegate count will be for Obama. Super Delegates (a silly idea in my opinion) will have no choice but to join the Obama camp lest the Democratic Party becomes more fractured and divided than has already happened in this election cycle (thanks in large part to former-President Bill Clinton).

    If the Democratic Party does settle down and accept what the current momentum and predominance of state results show, then I think they will have a great chance of winning the Presidential election. If not, then a loss for the Democrats is a virtual guarantee.

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, January 29, 2008

    What Senator Ted Kennedy endorsing Senator Obama means

    Well the Clinton political machine seems to have finally got in a pissing match they could not win. Polispeak aside, the endorsement by Senator Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan is a massive action. The entire Democratic nomination race may have taken a new direction that no one expected.

    The power of the Kennedy family is without question in American politics. They stretch from New England to California. They include Congressmen, Senators, and the Guvernator. Their supporters range in age from the pre-baby boomers to the first time voters that are a force in this election. The name of the family alone has more political clout than most candidates have had.

    According to some sources the Clinton machine had been looking to court the Kennedy endorsement. But they assumed too much. With the constant attacks on Senator Barack Obama based on the divisive issue of race, the insult to Dr. Martin Luther King and the slighting of JFK’s role in the Civil Rights movement, and the potential of driving a wedge in the Democratic party separated by race I think the Kennedy’s got fed up.

    I have no doubt that all of the above played a part in the decision of JFK’s daughter in endorsing Senator Obama. Then came what may have been the final straw if it’s true. President Clinton supposedly called Senator Ted Kennedy and asked him not to say anything. Which led to 3 Kennedy’s endorsing Senator Obama today.

    Arrogance can only take you so far. Manipulation and derogatory comments are only so effective. Especially when the Kennedy political machine spans the nation and decades in public office.

    The Northeast is now probably Obama country. California may be a new stronghold. Older Democrats, liberals, poor and all the other categories that the Kennedy name affects, that Hillary Clinton has previously had an edge on, are all in question. The Clintons must be as angered by these events as they are unsure of the win a mere year ago they presumed.

    Ted Kennedy’s speech was powerful and clear. He is a Democrat. He will support the nominee of the Party. And he is dedicated to do everything he can to make sure Senator Obama is that nominee.

    I’ve said before that I felt Senator Obama might not win. I’ve mentioned that the use of race as a tool to divide the Democratic Party and provide Hillary the win is an effective strategy. I know that the comments by Bill and all the various staffers have angered many. I know the attempts by Bill to minimize the wins of Senator Obama, and a great leader that was Dr, Martin Luther King polarized the Democratic Party. But this was unexpected. This is a wildcard that could be the beginning of a landslide that is enormous.

    Will this be close? Of course. Is momentum changing sides? I don’t think it’s stopped since the nominations process started on January 1st. But this is the first time I seriously think that the math and support behind Senator Obama is enough to give him the win.

    Regardless of political affiliation or guidelines you may hold, this must be impressive. And you have to say that now, more than ever before, that Rev. Jesse Jackson is not Senator Obama. That 2008 is not 1984. That we may see a Black President and that first Black President will actually be African American.

    It’s not exciting because I may or may not agree with Senator Obama, or that I may or may not want/need him to win. Rather it’s exciting because it means that in the highest office, and in the most visceral manner, America is becoming a land of the free and equal. And that is something that I think every American can appreciate and look forward to.

    Labels: , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Sunday, January 27, 2008

    Senator Obama wins South Carolina, possibly at the cost of the Democratic nomination

    Astounding. Senator Barack Obama has been called the winner of the South Carolina Primary. He has resoundingly beaten all the other Democratic candidates. The numbers are roughly 58% of those identified as Democrats, 25% of Whites, and 50% of those under 30 years old. I’m sure those numbers will change at time passes.

    So what does this mean? Well there is good and bad in these numbers. 78% of African Americans voted for Senator Obama, 17% for Senator Clinton. But Senator Clinton has been targeting the poor, uneducated, White and Hispanic/Latino vote. South Carolina has been used as a stepping stone for the Super Tuesday national votes.

    There is no question that former-President Bill Clinton has introduced race in a manner that was obvious and calculated more than anything in 2007. That is not so much a surprise but a signal. The Clinton campaign has consistently been seeding the racial divide in the nation, with subordinates making comments and passing emails that attack Senator Obama, for months. But it was Bill Clinton that brought this to a new level.

    As Senator Clinton disappeared from the major news coverage, Bill to front stage. Being a former President, there is no competition anyone can give him for media coverage of anything he chooses to say. And he said exactly the things that would emphasize to White voters that Obama is Black.

    Now why does that matter? Besides the fact that the majority of voters are White, it’s the fact that race still does matter in America. It affects our perceptions and is evident in our daily lives. Look at virtually any television show, cable or broadcast, and count the number of minorities on that program. You will virtually always see 1 supporting cast member that is Black, 1 will be Hispanic/Latino, 1 or 2 women, and maybe 1 in 5 shows have an Asian. Race matters.

    In addition is the fact that the attacks against Senator Obama, by a former-President minimize the importance of Senator Obama. Not because of his qualifications, but because he is JUST a Black candidate. It presumes that he is just a flash in the pan and not a serious option.

    And lastly because Bill Clinton is so revered by Democrats, his disapproval implies that there is something wrong with Senator Obama. In a nation that was built upon the thought that A White male is always right versus a Black slave, it makes an impact. And for those that say we have grown beyond that, just look at the numbers of African Americans that are still being proven innocent of crimes they have spent decades in prison for, solely on the basis that a witness said that they thought this was the perpetrator of a crime. Often that misidentification, by a White witness, is more than enough to convict a Black defendant.

    So now Senator Obama has been officially labeled the Black candidate. He is perhaps finally Black enough. Or too Black if you go by some small minds and the suggestions of people like BET founder Bob Johnson.

    So what will be the outcome? Obviously Senator Obama will continue forward, as will Senator Clinton and John Edwards. Edwards has no real chance of winning the nomination. So I expect he will drop out after the Super Tuesday primaries on February 4th. Without question I expect he will shift his support to Hillary.

    Major emphasis will be made that Senator Obama only is getting 25% of the White vote, ignoring his Iowa dominance and cross the racial lines popularity. And for those that thing Obama will get the Vice-President nod, I don’t think so. It’s not even an option.

    Obama is too popular, and a ticket that has 2 ‘minorities’ [White women are not a minority to me] is too likely to be beaten by a Republican ticket. Especially if Senator John McCain is the Presidential candidate.

    Overall I am upset by the numbers we are seeing. Because there is such a racial divide, caused by the calculations of the Clinton campaign, the Democratic nomination is now virtually assured of going to Clinton. And it means that it was won not because of qualifications, or the belief of the nation of who is the best candidate for the Presidency, but because of the lingering racism that is the backbone of this nation.

    I had hoped America was better than that. But the Clinton campaign has bet big on this, and I expect they have won that bet.

    At least Senator Obama will have made credible and real in-roads for the next qualified candidate. Perhaps then America will be ready. Though I would love to see that I am wrong, and race drops out of this nomination process. But like Pandora’s Box, once it’s been opened it’s too late.

    Labels: , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Friday, January 25, 2008

    Dennis Kucinich and the Presidential election: never the twain shall meet

    Another one bites the dust. The list of former Presidential candidates increased today with they loss of Dennis Kucinich from the Democratic Party. Such is the toll of the debates, Primaries, and Caucuses. But I have to give the man credit, he garnered about 4% in most of the votes, he had Viggo Mortensen as his celebrity support and he is not giving any of the remaining candidates his support at this point.

    I especially liked the fact he was the only candidate to speak about, in a nationally televised debate, the issue of an apology for slavery and reparations. When every Democratic candidate on the stage with him that night, there were 7 others, was asked if they would comment they all went dead silent. They wouldn’t even raise their hands on the issues. Cowardly. But Kucinich stated that he favored an apology, and reparations. And he made a quick but thoughtful answer as to why.

    He may be out of the race, and little is known about his positions, but I gained a lot of respect for him in that moment. Far more than the leading Democratic candidates that are campaigning in South Carolina, and using race as both a weapon and tool. The leading Democratic candidates that made wonderful speeches on Monday while celebrating the Martin Luther King holiday, yet could not address, in any manner, a basic question that has been in the floating in the background of American politics since 1869,

    But Democrats, of all races, should never doubt that the remaining candidates will be willing to take the lead in supporting their issues. Just as long as the popular opinion is in favor of the idea, it doesn’t cost much, and the Government does not have to admit any fault. Just as long as it won’t interfere with their ability to raise cash from special interest groups. Just as long as making platitudes of a certain theme on specific holidays will ensure that you go to that voting booth and give them your support.

    So the choices have whittled down just a bit more. With it the choices and diversity of opinion available to the American public. Such is the race for the Presidency of 2008.

    Labels: , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    I Love America! That's why I vote - first step - 1.25.2008.1

    The Presidential election is an import even in America. The up-coming 2008 election is even more important than most in my opinion. Readers of my political commentary at VASS are familiar with the fact that I believe this is a crucial point in the future of America.
    Found at the M V Consulting online store at www.cafepress.com/nova68
    Given this belief, I have followed and commented on various aspects of the Presidential candidates, the issues, my observations of average people discussing their concerns, and the truth that is often shaded or avoided by pundits, media and the candidates. Since 2006 I have dedicated an extreme amount of time trying to stay abreast of all the most relevant issues and news. More importantly I have tried to be neutral in my coverage of all of my posts.

    But that is not enough.
    Found at the M V Consulting online store at www.cafepress.com/nova68
    My comments and observations are meant to provoke thought and inspire those readers that have not voted to be involved. I do not question the reason for anyone to not have voted before, or for some time. I do not question the choice anyone might make for President. I respect everyone’s ability to go into the voting booth and choose whomever they wish, and for whatever reason.

    But considering that this up coming election will be so critical on a multitude of issues that will affect every American directly for the next decade at least, I feel more is needed. Again, I am not asking anyone to choose what I believe. In fact I have yet to endorse ANY candidate. But I implore you to be involved and to vote.

    I truly believe that it is thru your vote, that America will be able to pick the best choice for the nation and our collective future. Anything less will leave us all with a leader of the free world that is lees than what is needed. With what is at risk in the next 10 years that is too dangerous to ignore.
    Found at the M V Consulting online store at www.cafepress.com/nova68
    So I will be taking further steps to get American citizens to vote. Again, I’m not asking anyone to pick a side that I believe. Just to vote for what YOU believe.

    To that end, I have created a line of 61 consumer products that emphasize the importance of our votes. You can see a few of the products here, and each one will link you to my online store where you can see the full product line.

    Be proud, stand up and be counted. Don’t sell your vote, or allow it to be bamboozled from you. Show that pride and interest in the greatest good for America with the various t-shirts, mouse pads, mugs, kids clothing, pet cover, aprons, magnets, stickers and so much more.
    Found at the M V Consulting online store at www.cafepress.com/nova68
    And don’t think this is the only thing I will be doing. There is much more planned, and already a few other bloggers have voiced their support and interest. I will be going for the support of several institutions as well. I plan to work towards increasing the number of voters, because when all of America acts together we do the best things for our nation and the world.

    Keep an eye out for press releases and events coming soon. And they will continue all the way up til the votes are all counted and the winner announced.
    Found at the M V Consulting online store at www.cafepress.com/nova68
    And if you like what you see spread the word, display the products, and remind people that the difference in the last several elections was a mere handful of Americans. Your vote counts and it can make a huge difference.

    Labels: , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, January 16, 2008

    Presidential candidates try to buy cheap votes with money and religion

    And the political games go on. It’s a toss up between religion and money. Seriously, that’s what the Presidential candidates are selling, and your vote is the purchase price.

    On the Democratic candidate side we hear so much on how to fight the impending recession. There have been stimulus plans offered by Senator Clinton and Senator Obama that are all about money. The plans are very similar, Obama offering $250 and Clinton $500. Sounds great right?

    If you vote for either of those candidates on that basis, I am deeply offended. It’s one of the cheap tricks that politicians use to get a vote. In effect they offer nothing and hope to gain a lot.

    What the offer amounts to is a rebate on your taxes, one time. Sounds nice right. An extra $500 in your pocket. Except that it won’t stay in your pocket long. The hope is that you will go out and spend the money on buying something, thus helping the economy. But I think most Americans would rather spend the money on paying down on the car, mortgage and/or credit cards. You want to clear your bills, especially when the economy looks shaky and your job is questionable.

    So that won’t help the economy, your job won’t be more stable, and you end up with the same bills the next month. An example is say you own a home. You are behind on the heating bill, because of the huge increase in oil prices. You spend the money on the heating bill bringing you even, until next month when you have another high bill to pay. That rebate was a waste.

    Now if the stimulus plan was really meant to help you, you would get an extra $50 a week from your paycheck. That would likely mean a tax cut. You never hear that term from Democrats because it means less money for social entitlement plans. But if they did you would get an extra roughly $200 a month or roughly $2,500 (taking out a 2 week vacation). Which would help you more? Getting an extra (assuming the average American income is $27,000) 1.9% once, or 9.3% over a year?

    Mind you that this is simply a plan. Once elected there are innumerable reasons why the plan will not actually happen. So not only are you betting on the candidate winning, you are betting on them giving you a pat on the back versus actually helping you and the economy.

    Oh and if you think this is a new idea look back on any election year with a possibly bad economy and you will hear it. Even as recently as 2007 Senator Clinton came up with a cheap vote plan that got her some quick television advertising and fell of the earth as soon as she didn’t need it. You do recall that she wanted to give every child in America a college bond of $5,000 right?

    “Fifth, if the average college tuition is $22,218 (private) or $5,836 (public) and we assume 10% annual growth for just 18 years that means (forgive my math it’s been a while) $98,973 and $32,380 respectively. Taking $5,000 for 18 years at 10% (current rates are 4.75%) then Senator Clinton’s generous gift of your money generates $27,936. Now if my math is correct (which I’m sure I will be told if I am not) and interest rates go up to and stay at 10% (not going to happen) there is still a shortfall of $4,444 just for public school.”


    Of course the Republican party is little better. We are watching as every candidate is trying to implore to us that they are more devout than the other. They want us all to believe that their religion is a cornerstone of their moral base, while at the same time denying it could have any impact on how they would run the nation.

    Hogwash.

    First of all since when is religion of a candidate a factor in the qualification of a Presidential candidate? Besides the huge question posed to President Kennedy when else has it been an issue? Where do they connect?

    When you have a President you have a leader of a nation of dozens of religious faiths. He cannot favor one as that would alienate a swath of the nation. And it’s not his job. His job is to ensure the safety and prosperity of the nation. The spiritual health of any individual citizen is their own issue.

    I mean seriously, if candidate X can quote a religious tome does that make them any smarter? Will they be able to avert a mortgage crisis any better? Will they prevent the loss of jobs overseas, or prevent illegal immigration any better? No.

    The reality is that while we may be sure that candidate X may be more spiritually at ease with themselves it gives us no guarantee they are a good person or effective. To presume that a religious belief confers such is idiocy in my view. It just gives away a vote for nothing.

    I mean how do we know that because candidate X was in a church on Sunday, or whatever holy day applies, that they were devout? That they truly believe. That they weren’t just hoping, and planning, on a bunch of television cameras to be outside the event waiting for them to exit. That they didn’t take a nap during the religious on-goings.

    Cheap attempts to get your vote are popular, moreso now with 24 hour news and cable networks in the hundreds. There are so many opportunities to showcase an act that looks good but equates to nothing that deals with the actual function of the nation.

    I don’t dispute the religious belief of any candidate. In fact I discount all of their beliefs as I an not capable of understanding what they believe in their core. In addition, with the seperation of church and state in this nation, their religious faith is without any importance to their actions if elected.

    So when you think about it, there are many attempts to gain your vote on the cheap. Realize that and instead consider the actual plans, comments and history of each of the candidates. Race, gender, age, are all irrelevant factors. What they have done, and spent their lives doing is.

    Labels: , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, January 08, 2008

    Can Senator Hilary Clinton survive New Hampshire?

    The pressure in the Democratic Presidential race is definitely moving up. And it’s hitting Senator Clinton right between the eyes.

    Over the weekend, Senator Clinton seemed to get quite upset when, while discussing healthcare, John Edwards mentioned that he and Senator Obama are agents of change and that Senator Clinton was not. Her response was that

    “there are 7,000 kids in New Hampshire that have healthcare because I helped to create the children’s health insurance program.”


    Now I’m not sure how many people watched Fox News on Sunday when Dick Morris, who used to work for President Bill Clinton, refuted her comment. According to his live comments, Senator Clinton had nothing to do with what she claimed. He stated that it was in fact his efforts and discussions with President Bill Clinton that helped the kids in New Hampshire. Mr. Morris further stated that at the time, First Lady Clinton was overseas and had no involvement in the matter.

    It’s a strong accusation, and I have seen nothing that refutes or even acknowledges his comments. If it is accurate, then it is another case of Senator Clinton taking credit for the work of her husband as her own experience. It would be an example of desperation, as is her anger, as her hopes for the Presidency crumbles.

    And then on Monday we see this



    I believe this is a bad sign. Given that the Presidential race is stressful, and that losing in Iowa was a huge blow to her campaign. But the reality is what happens when U.S. military forces are killed overseas, while the economy is crashing, diplomatic efforts with North Korea are failing, oil prices are through the roof, and a tornado has just decimated a big city in the mid-west? Which sounds more stressful?

    And if this emotional moment is not real, which I am not assuming, it is a blatant attempt to cash in on being a woman in the worst way.

    Looking at it in several different ways, the outlook is not good for the “presumed nominee” (as claimed in polispeak by multiple pundits for most of 2007) of the Democratic party.

    Labels: , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Friday, January 04, 2008

    Mike Huckabee, Senator Barack Obama win Iowa

    This has been quite the remarkable night. You may not have heard this, but the Iowa caucus is over. More importantly is the advent of history that has occurred.

    I realize it’s 2007, so many may not notice but an African American has taken the forefront in the Democratic race for the Presidency of the United States. Others will likely focus on the more decisive win by Mike Huckabee in the Republican race, which is a surprise, but it’s not historic. Yes, historic and a massive statement about America.

    Never before has an African American done so well in an election bid. Never before has a state with an approximately mere 2% of the population being African American stated that the Black candidate is their first choice for President. Thank god we have come so far from the days of segregation, Jim Crow and random lynchings without any pursuit of criminals involved.

    Seriously, America is taking a step forward and it is needed. I was just commenting in a separate post, found at Black and White Blog, about the fledgling trend in states stepping up and making half-hearted attempts at apologizing for their role in slavery. I spent a good part of the night discussing the issue with friends. I felt that this was something that is the first step in America finally healing the festering wound that is racism in this nation. But this is far more in that direction.

    Just one year ago pundits were laughing, almost literally, at the prospect of Senator Obama running. Just 2 months ago, the pundits guaranteed the sweeping victory and absolute nomination of Senator Clinton as Democratic candidate for the Presidency. For the entire year there were constant cries of if Senator Obama was too Black or not Black enough. And today he stands in position to realistically win the nomination.

    Is America ready for a Black President? Not the crap assigned to President Clinton by pundits that obviously have ocular issues, but a real Black President. That question is more viable than ever before. I must admit a personal rush at the thought. That isn’t an endorsement, just an observation.

    Is he the best candidate for the Presidency? That’s a question I will answer only after all the primaries are done, and the candidates are announced. But he is an indication that the ‘old boys club’ of America is coming to an end. That’s something I never expected in my lifetime.

    The fact is that America must deal with the inequalities that minorities face everyday, and the closer Senator Obama gets the closer that day of reckoning comes. This is not a radical or bad thing. It’s a day that is 143 years overdue. Whether he wins the nomination or not, the closer he gets the closer America comes to being truly unified and approaching a better future for all Americans at the same time.

    There are many questions facing Senator Obama. There are many issues that America faces and he has not presented any plans or platforms that address these issues. As we go forward we will see if this was just a signal of what will come, or a real challenge to the glass ceiling that most minorities know. That ceiling has long been referred to as

    “If you’re White the sky is the ceiling, but if you’re Black the ceiling is the sky.”


    This is not the most political analysis I have ever made. I am excited about thoughts that have little to nothing to do with the actual potential of the Presidential race. I’m honest enough to admit that. But is America willing to admit that perhaps, after this adrenaline rush passes and the real questions get answered, a Black man may be the best choice for America? Would America still elect him?

    Well that my more emotional thoughts based on the Iowa results. Tomorrow I’ll get back to seriously evaluating the results, and the potential nominees.

    Labels: , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, December 19, 2007

    The question is who to vote for in 2008

    I was speaking with a young former military man today, and the subject of the 2008 election came up. This man is 22, a former Navy Seal, and interested in what will happen to America in the near term. He also has no idea who to vote for.

    Sometimes I forget that many people, of all ages, have not been following the Presidential race since 2006 like I and other bloggers have. That’s not because of a lack of interest, or intelligence. It’s because there is so little information out, and so little to get behind. There are plenty of YouTube video clips, charts on the net to chart where each candidate stands, and 30 second soundbites galore. But there is little substance and platforms for the average American to sink their teeth into.

    To an extent I hope that my lists of Pros and Cons of Republican and Democratic candidates are helpful. I hope that my letters to several of the candidates (of both political parties) helps to give further insight to what each offers the nation. But even if all that I have written over the past year and almost a half on this has been read by every undecided voter in America I don’t think it is enough. That is because all the candidates are failing America.

    They are failing us because they are playing partisan games, one-upmanship and preening like celebrities (with issues) more than attempting to be political leaders. And that benefits none of us.

    One example of this failure is in the question given to me by this young man. The question was

    “This war has gone too far. Especially since it was started over oil. I’m concerned about that.” – paraphrased but the essential elements of the question.


    My answer is simple, and not one politician has ever said this that I am aware of.

    Let’s say that the war was done only for oil, which is easily debated and proven incorrect. Why is that bad? Right now, estimates state that there may only be another 40 years or so of oil left in the Middle East. At this time there is not another alternative energy source that works. Not one. Lot’s of theoreticals but they are all only effective on paper.

    Given that fact, and there is no debate it is fact, then oil is the only reliable energy source in the near future. America has reserves and access to several major oilfields that have never been tapped. The reason is that we are using all the oil in the Middle East while developing alternatives for the future. If OPEC were to run out of oil, most every nation would be unable to continue to provide for the safety and quality of life of their people virtually overnight. Except for America and a few other nations. That’s because of our use of foreign oil.

    Taking a long term view, it is strategically important that we use oil from everyone else as much as possible, to guarantee that when the reserves start to dry up we will still be able to defend our nation, and continue to seek and create improved energy sources.
    So, having an ally in the Middle East that provides America cheap oil in large quantities is vital to our long-term survival. It makes sense for us to want to have control over a major oil producer.

    In addition, there is the question of money. Many want to point at President Bush and say it’s about him making money. The theory is that only oil companies will make money from Iraq. Those claiming this fail to recall that those same oil companies help fuel the American economy. They are part of the stock market, where tens of millions have invested their retirement funds, based on the thought they will bring in a profit. These companies employ thousands of people. They are paid to find, refine, and transport this fuel. This oil is used by hundreds of businesses that create cars, plastic, tires, perfumes and other products.

    Oil companies making more money, means that America makes more money. And for those that might want to “take the profits away from the oil companies and give it to the people,” they are both liars and ill-advised. If the profits are taken from the oil companies, you will not receive a check for your share of that money. In addition, your mutual funds, and the stock market will drop. Jobs will be lost, in dozens of industries. America will be hurt.

    It’s true, and all you need to do to see it is to look at the big picture and the long term view.

    But politicians won’t say that.

    How about tax reform that so many want to have. Several presidential candidates claim they will “remove the IRS” and completely convert the tax code. I feel they are misguided in the worst manner.

    Not that I think the IRS is a good thing, or that the tax code is working. But if it were to be removed it would impede the entire nation. Of the roughly 40% of the nation that is employed by the Government let’s say that the IRS, or any department, makes up 5% of all the people employed. Without the IRS they are all out of work.

    In addition you lose all the people that do oversight on the IRS, all those that do research on the effects of the tax codes, those investigating the loopholes of taxes, and those that prepare taxes for the average American.

    Say good bye to H&R Block and other similar corporations. And with their loss goes the benefit and impact they provide to the stock market. Unemployment skyrockets, and the stocks, mutual funds and retirements of millions plummet.

    The big picture, long-term view really takes all the wind out of the sails of a cute popular soundbite. But it’s far more honest. Because the fact is that any department of the Government is incapable of being removed or revised substantially. There are just too many lives, and economic implications tied to it to happen.

    What does that mean when evaluating Presidential candidates? That when you look at all the information and comments made you have to take a moment to review what they are really saying. You have to look at the long term effects. And you have to throw out all the feel good fluff soundbites they all make. Because there isn’t a human being alive, ever, that can discuss all the implications of say nuclear weapons in Iran or illegal aliens in 30 seconds.

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, November 27, 2007

    Thoughts on the economic outlook of early 2008

    Well now that everyone has finished the turkey (minus a few leftover sandwiches), let it digest, and worked off the extra weight running around shopping at every store with a discount sale it’s time of me to get back to work. There has been a lot worth writing about, but let me start with a simple thought. The economy.

    The economy is perhaps not the simple part of the thought. It has far too many factors involved, and minds far greater than mine have debated endlessly about what will and does make it move up and down. But as a man who pays attention to the events and has a decent hold on current events I’ll throw my 2 cents in.

    I had a friend recently ask me what I thought would be happening to the economy, and my answer was it’s going to get bad. Perhaps recession bad. And I added that the current group of Democratic candidates may only make it worse.

    I say this because of several factors. Not the least of which are, the housing crisis, the financial sector, the cost of oil, and potential tax ramifications based on the current plans announced by candidates.

    Let’s look at the housing crisis. While there are estimates that state the maximum reach of the crisis is on 5% of homes, I think it fails to take a couple of things into account. While only 5% of home mortgages have failed now, I would expect these are the early defaulters. I would guess that there are another 10-15% of homes in danger of default. Given that the Fed has lowered rates, these homes on the edge have gotten a bit of extra time, but that does not fix their problem.

    This leads us to the financial sector. Already several major banks are claiming huge losses due to the bad loans they have made. In order to recoup their losses and in hopes of preventing more credit is being crunched. This means that large- and mid-sized corporations will have less capital available to them, and some short-term loans may be called or canceled. That does nothing to stimulate growth. Plus variable loans to the riskier ventures will invariably go up to offset the losses in the home sector. Thus the purchase of houses must slow, the real estate markets will cease top be a haven for a while and money will have to flow into new areas for investment.

    Now when you consider that the corporations are getting higher cost for loans, or being denied, this is happening at the same time that costs for fuel are going up. A lot. That hits profit centers fast. Thus profit margins shrink at the same time that retail is hitting its greatest need for the annual shopping rush of the holidays.

    Keep in mind that small companies will be cut off from loans by banks since their credit and assets are too weak in a tight credit market. Add the higher cost of transportation and several small companies will fail to make it thru the end of the year, I expect. That will hit all the businesses that supply and help them operate.

    Also keep in mind that as I recall the market virtually never rises, or even maintains its level without the positive performance of the financial sector. As I mentioned that sector is already failing. As the dominoes fall I expect them to perform worse near term. Thus that is direct downward pressure on the market. And while the holiday sales will help retailers absorb the cost of higher fuel, the consumer will likely spend less (or buy items with greater discounts) because the cost of heating their homes and electricity and mortgages are all up.

    What’s the last piece of this puzzle? The Presidential race. We have a critical election where several nation defining events will occur. Already several Democratic candidates have expressed expanding entitlement programs. Those programs, like nationalized healthcare, must be paid for via taxes. Those taxes will come from companies making less profit and citizens with less discretionary income. (And a bailout of the mortgage crisis costs even more that needs to me recouped from taxes) This is beyond the fact that when Democratic candidates are elected (which could happen in 2008 – which is a bad thought) the markets normally react poorly initially, when looked at historically.

    Add all that up and you have a stagnating market, with reduced sales, higher costs, shrinking profit margins, higher taxes, horrible bond rates, and depressed real estate values. I call that a real problem. Especially if the tight credit, higher fuel costs, and higher taxes cause more home mortgages to fail than just the 15% low-end estimate I posed earlier.

    What’s the best plan? Well I used to tell my clients (back when I was a broker, years ago) that we can assume these events as facts and plan for the worse. Set up a plan to sit and wait for a couple of the trends to reverse, and take advantage of market overreactions where possible (the market is more emotional than fact driven even in the best of markets). Is that the best plan for you? I have no idea.

    Discuss this with your financial professionals, read what better minds than I say, and make up your own mind. Just remember, it’s all connected, and there is never a perfect answer.

    ** This can also be seen at Economist Blog where I am an occassional contributing author.**

    Labels: , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Sunday, November 18, 2007

    5 simple yes or no questions

    In light of the consistent reversals of positions, incomplete answers and anything but subtle switches of subject from the issue at hand I was wondering about a couple of questions that the Presidential candidates could answer yes or no to. No trick questions, no bias based on political affiliation. Just something simple that should be able to get a simple answer. And to be fair, I will provide a follow-up question they can answer in any way they wish.

    • 1. Do you believe the legal system in America is fair and balanced for all people regardless of their color of skin or economic bracket?

    • 1a. What will you do about the obvious media and legal imbalances exemplified by the delay and then subsequent media coverage of the Jena case and the initial criminal charges, the sentence of Genarlow Wilson, and the complete avoidance of the Megan Williams case in West Virginia?

    • 2. Do you find that the education system is adequate?

    • 2a. How will you improve the incredible failure that is evident in the higher dropout rates and lower reading skills found now in students across the country?

    • 3. Do you believe that religious fanatics who create violence are not motivated by monetary or political actions?

    • 3a. How can America protect itself, under your guidance, against groups that have the singular desire to destroy the nations existence because of their religious belief?

    • 4. Do you believe citizen taxes should be spent to benefit anyone but U.S. citizens?

    • 4a. Why should Americans provide anything, funded by citizen taxes, to individuals that have committed a crime by entering the United States without legal documentation?

    • 5. Do you agree that the work executed by Slaves in America provided the economic stability and physical labor that are the foundations of modern day America?

    • 5a. Are you willing to consider and work on reparations for African Americans, similar to the reparations made to Native American Indians and Japanese Americans interned during WWII?


    There are other questions that can be asked. Perhaps in the near future I will. But I would love to hear the simple and direct answer to each of these primary questions, and whatever answers is made for the follow-up. After all the soundbites, and incomplete answers we have heard in 2007 to date, on which the American public is expected to pick a Presidential candidate from each political party, it would be refreshing to have real answers.

    I can only speak for myself, but I can have more faith and be more willing to vote for a candidate that gives me an honest and direct answer as opposed to somebody that appears to be playing at fears and polls to get elected.

    Regardless of the answers, who do you think would actually answer these questions?

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, November 06, 2007

    What makes a candidate a President? - 11.6.2007.1

    **This can also be seen at Presidential Race Blog**

    I want to be President of the United States. You hear that from Republicans and Democrats. The debates are filled with candidates that want to lead this nation. And all but one of them is a woman, or Black. So what.

    Yesterday, the front-running Democratic candidate, Senator Clinton, came out in response to the Tuesday Democratic debate and lamented

    “We need to shatter that highest glass ceiling.”


    It was a plea for women to vote for her based solely on the fact she was a woman. It was an attempt to

    “…compete in the all boys club of presidential politics.”


    This commentary and the resulting backlash from Senator Obama come from the Democratic debate Tuesday. In that debate Sen. Clinton failed to answer direct questions posed to her. These questions were not asked because she was a woman, but because as the leading candidate for the Democratic ticket the public deserves to know the positions she holds. To date, Clinton has yet to answer the questions posed to her with a direct answer, and like any male counterpart she has been lambasted for it.

    But unlike any other male counterpart Sen. Clinton has diverted the attention to her gender, whining for support from women based on the fact that she is being attacked because of her gender. That is the worst kind of pandering I’ve seen in decades.

    "...the first time that people start challenging her point of view, that suddenly she backs off and says: 'Don't pick on me'. That is not, obviously, how we would expect her to operate if she were president." - Senator Obama


    Looking at it from a different angle, if Senator Barack Obama were to go out and state, ‘all African Americans should vote for me because I am the only Democratic Presidential candidate among the all White club of presidential politics’, the outcry would be immediate and intense.

    Does anyone doubt that Sen. Obama would instantly be charged with playing the race card? That he was pandering to Blacks, and that it was blatantly racist. He would be attacked by both parties and every political pundit in the nation. He would find no shore of safety, and his chances of being elected would be out the window.

    But Senator Clinton does not face the same level of scrutiny or punditry. Because she is a woman she has gotten a pass. Few mention she is pandering. Few are reminding the public that she has evaded the issues she still has not answered. She has calculatedly and effectively changed the argument from her indecision and attempt to hide her views in the hope of gaining votes and support from all sides. And it’s embarrassing.

    As a Black Puerto Rican man, I’m insulted by her actions. I am a citizen and as such I deserve to know where any candidate for the Presidency stands on critical issues that affect multiple aspects of the nation. I expect that any candidate for President should be able to handle difficult questions, giving answers that they believe are best for the nation, and standing up to the pressure that the answer provokes. Those that would seek to destroy America are hardly going to succumb to crocodile tears, or the fact of gender. In fact that may motivate them to take stronger actions.

    I cannot accept the blatant pandering for cheap votes for no reason of substance. Is there a glass ceiling? Yes, for women and African Americans, and every minority in the nation. It also exists in terms of the Presidency for various religions as well. But the fact a glass ceiling exists is the least reason that ANYONE deserves to be elected. If that were the only reason to elect a candidate, they should not run. It cheapens and weakens the nation.

    If Senator Clinton wants to prove her strength, answer the questions you were asked. Answer them without segues to other issues, or reliance on her gender. If it’s a yes or no question, don’t pick both and assume the American public is too addled to notice the difference. And make the answer public, not via subordinates and bloggers. They will not run the nation if she is elected, their answer does not matter.

    If Senator Clinton cannot give a real answer, cannot avoid relying on her gender to support her campaign, cannot stand up to the pressure of having a commentator ask her questions in an American debate, then she does not deserve the Presidency.

    Labels: , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Friday, November 02, 2007

    Where are the answers from Senator Clinton Part 2 - 11.2.2007.2

    Continued from Where are the answers from Senator Clinton Part 1...

    So the answer is NO. Senator Clinton would not make the pledge. Thus the possibility of Iran with a nuclear weapon just went up dramatically if she wins the Presidency. There is a window of action that Senator Clinton seems unwilling to take, which could give Iran a weapon that could kill millions of Americans. Add the fact they support the destruction of America and that is a scary thought, even if the percentage chance is only 5%.

    “MR. RUSSERT: [Following up the above quote] Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up because, in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?

    SEN. CLINTON: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.

    Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as the circumstances and processes demand.

    MR. RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

    SEN. CLINTON: Well, that's not my decision to make. And I don't believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.”


    So while it is possible for Senator Clinton to release these records, she won’t do it. Rather she wants to wait until 2012, after the entire term of this election cycle. Even if there is nothing to be found, it creates an appearance of duplicity.

    On top of that, if we recall the first quote you will recall that Sen. Clinton mentions 35 years of service to the public. Perhaps some of that work is in the records being withheld. If that is the case, and thus the Senator has more than just 5 years of service in public office, then why not let us know that? What is it she did with President Bill Clinton that both are ensuring we cannot know until after the 2008 Presidential term?

    Are we to believe that Senator Clinton does not speak with her husband, and thus did not know he would request to hide the information? Has she so little influence with her devoted husband that she could not get him to lift the ban? According to her answers it would appear both are true. And if not then as I said it is a purposeful act.

    Continued in part 3...

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Thursday, September 27, 2007

    When a laugh becomes creepy - 9.27.2007.1

    While most would agree that Jon Stewart is a liberal guy, and his Comedy Channel television program - The Daily Show - is equally of a liberal or left bent, he is not above pointing out humor in Democrats.

    In this case the wooden and cold demeanor of Sen. Hillary Clinton is where she hoists her petard. Nothing is more obvious of trying to capture votes on the cheap than perhaps the exact same response 5x in one day, calculated by pollsters and advisors as the latest 'thing to do'.

    Remember, this false emotion belies something. If it's not figured out what that is before the Democratic primaries, she will be one of the candidates for President. If she were to win, and her true emotions (and possibly motivations) are still only percieved as this same kind of response... who knows what could happen.

    Well if nothing else it's worth a laugh.

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, September 05, 2007

    Republican presidential debate on Fox News - 9.5.2007.2

    So everyone is ready for the Fox News and presidential candidate debates tonight. You have heard about this correct? If you have not I will make you aware. The Republican presidential candidates, with the exception of Fred Thompson, will be gathering tonight at eight o'clock to have a debate that will be broadcast on Fox News. This should be quite interesting.

    For all the anger and animosity directed towards Fox News the fact is that this one news cable channel is the most watched in the nation, as opposed to CNN which is also more aligned to the left in its political spectrum. This alignment makes this debate, interesting as it will not be similar to prior debates on CNN. In my opinion I would expect it to be a superior debate. More importantly, this debate will do what all debates are supposed to do, present the nation with opinions of the presidential candidates.

    The candidates will no doubt be in top form do to the fact that more people will be seeing this then perhaps several of the other debates combined. The questions that will be posed to them, should be far more topical, if not outright controversial than any they have received to date. I expect Fox news to challenge the candidates on issues including immigration, the economy, homeland security, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Hopefully this will be an opportunity for the presidential candidates to stand up and give a serious answer to some of these issues. Of course, the debate is structured like all debates these days in that soundbite answers are far more important than actual substance. Yet, if the questions are posed substantively then serious answers should still be presented. The combination of these potentials in one place makes this perhaps the most important debate to date.

    The fact that Fred Thompson will not be involved in the debate is a negative. Why he would not announce, running for the presidency prior to this debate bodes ill for his chances, in my opinion. I would have to seriously question his apparent reluctance to engage in debates with the other Republican candidates. The nation needs a president who is willing to stand out on issues of significance, and be honest with the public. Not engaging in debate prevents the public from being able to make an honest choice for quantifying the issues facing the nation in the near term future.

    The fact that the Democratic presidential candidates have, to date, refused to join into a debate run by Fox News is troubling. One problem is that the future president needs to be strong enough to stand up to terrorists around the world. What kind of president, would we have if they were afraid of a debate made up of reporters and newscasters in their own home nation? Another reason why I think they should is simply a matter of fairness. Multiple debates have gone on at CNN, which is almost inarguably a left leaning news channel. Most of the debates held on CNN have gotten atrocious viewership numbers. In my opinion, the Democratic candidates owe it to the public to appear on a cable news channel that reaches a wider audience, not just a friendly one. The Republican candidates have appeared on CNN, addressing a questionably unfriendly audience head on.

    Regardless of personal political leanings I think it is important for the general public to watch this debate. Hopefully this will add some clarity and direction for the upcoming primaries. I look forward to hearing what you feel was said, was not said, and was said well.

    This is what I think, what do you think?

    Labels: , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Monday, August 20, 2007

    What will we really get after the 2008 election? - 8.20.2007.1

    I read something that is quite interesting. It deals with the standing of the Democratic Presidential candidates, and the Democratic Party in general. It’s a view that is actually obvious, but no one seems to take on seriously. There is basically one voice among the Democrats, and that voice is far from the center.

    From the various positions Democratic candidates have mentioned, like national healthcare and retreat from Iraq, and their actions, like going to the Daily Kos convention while ignoring the DLC convention, we see a picture that runs towards the left. That is an important observation, not because that is a good or bad thing, but rather that it is not what the average American agrees with. The average American is acknowledged to not be severely right or left on the political spectrum, but in the center. There may be an issue that they will go to the left and another that goes right, but the balance is to the center overall.

    Given that fact, I have to wonder what will happen after the primaries. Given that the top Republican Presidential candidates are closer to the center than the extreme right, what will Democratic candidates do? It may be fine to be targeting an extreme vocal portion of an individual party to win a primary but that won’t work in a general election. Or will it?

    Immigration is a huge issue. Will the Democratic Primary winner that the view of the extreme left, and if they don’t how can they pull back from positions made so far? National healthcare affects millions of Americans, and the extreme left want a more socialized medicine, as espoused by pundits like Michael Moore. Yet average Americans do not want to absorb the cost or usual inefficiencies found in government run programs (I submit the effectiveness of the DMV and Veterans Administration as examples). And the question of an immediate retreat from Iraq, as has been promised my virtually every candidate, matching the desires of the extreme left and similar to the disapproval of the war held in the general populace. Still most military advisors note that such an action will lead to instability that will definitely cause more American military loses of life and eventually attacks on America itself. Can the democratic primary winner back away for an instantaneous retreat the extreme is calling for and still win?

    There are many issues and many views for each. I do not question which is right or wrong. I merely wonder that if presidential candidates have aligned themselves with extreme views of their respective parties, can they still serve the more centrist general populace in a manner they will approve of. I have to wonder that if extreme views are held today, and more centrist views are stated after the primaries, what position will a presidential candidate actually pursue after being elected.

    Maybe it’s me but I wonder which points of view will be the ones affecting the nation and our lives for the next 4 years?

    Labels: , , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Monday, July 02, 2007

    Can you find Presidential candidate's answers on issues? Part 2 - 7.2.2007.2

    Continued from Can you find Presidential candidate's answers on issues? Part 1...

    Am I shocked by this news? No. Long time readers of my site are aware that the Presidential candidates, in both parties, have seemingly avoided answering questions I have posed to them. They have ignored the copies of my letters sent by readers just like you, so far. Questions asking the very same type of things that they don’t have on their websites. Answers that I others believe are important for the next would-be President of the United States must have.See what the Presidential candidates have been asked and their response.

    To find out that a study has found that all the candidates won’t provide these answers is not a surprise, it’s a shame. How can any candidate ask you for money yet not tell you what they plan to do with the nation? Fear of not getting the candidacy just means they are too weak to lead the nation in the first place. If a candidate is afraid of how the public, or any part of it, will respond to an answer, then it probably not the right answer for the NATION. At least that is how I think.

    The American public is not stupid. We can understand more than a 30 second answer. We realize that solutions to the issues affecting us today and for the next decade are more involved that explaining the economy to a fifth-grader. Like Mr. Carl Reiner’s character in the original Ocean’s Eleven film said

    “So are you going to treat me like a grown-up and tell me what’s going on?”


    Well when are the candidates going to treat us like adults? Will we get some answers only after a President gets sworn in January 2009? Do we have to wait until after the primaries and our choices have been whittled away?

    42% of people can’t get answers, and the candidates aren’t speaking. Well I’m still asking. Take a look at the letters I have sent the candidates of both political parties. If they seem like sound questions you would like an answer to, copy it and send them to whomever you would like an answer from. When those answers come in, and they will, I will post them unaltered.

    Your vote counts, your voice is loud. Let’s remind the Presidential candidates that no matter how many corporate or lobbyist donations they get, we still elect them.

    This is what I think, what do you think?

    Labels: , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Sunday, June 17, 2007

    Some spin about the Presidential candidates Part 2 - 6.17.2007.3

    Continued from Some spin about the Presidential candidates Part 1...

    But why is Senator Clinton so polarizing? What makes this one candidate so despised on one side and loved on the other? Is it the anger some have over the war in Iraq? Is it the actions of President Bush that is the real motivation, masking the actions of Senator Clinton?

    Negative ads are bad. 30 second soundbite answers do no justice to the populace as we seek serious answers to serious questions affecting current and future generations. But to gloss over the failure in American politics as being a one-sided group of events is to be either naïve or ignorant of the truth.

    Both parties have corporate backers spending millions on promoting one candidate or another. All the backers will obviously want some kind of consideration for the winning candidate. All the candidates have weaknesses. Several have serious character flaws, and many have flipped positions that bring their real political standpoints into question.

    I don’t mind that everyone is interested in this Presidential race. It’s an important one. It will affect this country and the world at large for decades. But to look at it in a myopic view is ridiculous to me. I have yet to see a candidate that is not taking large funds from corporations and ultra-rich individuals that have a specific agenda. Not one of the candidates has been explicit in their positions on critical issues.

    By that I mean, while several have stated in no uncertain terms that they will remove our troops from Iraq, they have not mentioned how this will be done nor what they will do to ensure that future aggressors will be prevented from creating a base once we are gone. While several candidates have said they will seek to create a national healthcare system, none have mentioned how this will be funded, how pharmaceutical companies will be motivated to create new drugs, nor what will prevent this system from being run like the Post Office, VA, or the DMV [the inefficiencies of each are too vast to go into detail about].

    These are just a few of the issues that need to be discussed. Until there are clear answers, picking on either party or candidate is useless and worse distracting.

    This is what I think, what do you think?

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    What about the other side of the Carpetbagger Report - 6.17.2007.1

    Recently the Carpetbagger Report decided to take on the Republican candidates, speculating which was the ’scariest’. While this rundown of the candidates is scant on fact, and very much directed from a point of view that is opposed to the Republican Party, it does highlight some weaknesses of some Presidential candidates.

    Lopsided as it is, I have to wonder what are the weaknesses of the various Democratic candidates? If the Carpet Bagger is to be taken seriously then why haven’t they made the same kind of critique against a Party they support? An honest look at all the Presidential candidates reveals flaws in all hoping to run now, anything other than discussing both sides rings hollow to me.

    As an example of what I mean:

    Senator Clinton has flipped her position on the Iraq war as recently as February of this year. It is only recently that the demand to leave Iraq at all costs has come to fore. That qualifies as a flip-flop I think.

    Senator Obama has the least experience of the front-runners of the Democratic Party. A junior Senator, with few years and no real connections on an international basis.

    Mr. John Edwards has made a lot of money from sources that questionably profited on the poor. His cries of standing up for the less successful in America seems to contradict his lavish home and $400 haircuts.

    Anyone can pick on the flaws of the candidates, they are human so they have them. But to just pick one side and demonize them is unfair. The above is meant only to give a little balance to what is found on the Carpetbagger Report.

    This is what I think, what do you think?

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Thursday, May 17, 2007

    Letters to Democratic and Republican Parties - 5.17.2007.2

    This is a copy of the exact letter sent to Republican and Democratic Parties on March 30, 2007. This is part of my ongoing efforts to increase the number of voters and to have the best person possible elected as President of the United States in 2008.

    March 30, 2007

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I am contacting your organization today in the hope of being able to speak to a
    representative on several issues. The reason for this request is that I am the author of several blogs and owner of a website that discusses and features commentary and insights on politics and the up-coming 2008 Presidential election.

    In my discussions with both visitors of my websites, and various people in daily life, I have come to find that many are unfamiliar with the basic tenants of the major political parties. Many, in my experiences, find politics to be confusing and the various bits of information from televised news programs, whether found on broadcast or cable networks, to be to brief to be informative. As politicians and the various parties represent varying degrees, from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal, of their respective political viewpoints, many are unsure of what a Democrat or Republican is, or what the respective ideologies involve.

    To that end, as an aid to my readers and to help promote involvement in the Presidential election in 2008, I seek to have an interview with a representative of your party. I will also be seeking to have an identical interview with a representative of the [Democratic or Republican ]party. I will publish each interview, without alteration or editing of content, separately and fairly. I have not taken a position in favor of any party or candidate at this time. I have critiqued members of both parties in the past, on the blogs, for various issues. I have also written letters to Presidential candidates of both political parties, which are similar in content and balanced in tone. All of the letters I have
    written can be found at my website, www.vassconsult.com/politics/election2008.html ,
    which is a neutral site. Each letter is unaltered copies of what has been sent to each candidate, and any response will be posted unaltered as well.

    My belief is that the 2008 election is critical to the future of the nation. The
    candidate that provides the best outlook for the nation is the only criteria that I feel is important. The letters I have sent to the various candidates of both parties reflect that viewpoint. While there has been no response from any candidate at this time I feel that providing my readers with these questions helps them better evaluate their choice for President. To further that involvement in the election process and to help better the understanding of the political parties I request an interview with a representative of your party.

    The interview can be done via email, which may be easiest for all involved. I will
    provide a copy of the content to be posted, and the location of the posts, prior to their being posted to the internet. I am not seeking any funds, nor have I donated any funds to either party. If it is important, I will add that my sites currently reach in excess of 20,000 visitors a month and are growing in popularity, and it is verifiable that the blogs can be readily found on all major search engines. The website, mentioned above, is new and was started in March 2007.

    The sites that the interview would be found on are the following:

    www.blackentertainmentblog.com
    www.mvass.com
    www.vassconsult.com

    I look forward to your response in this matter and thank you for your attention.

    Sincerely,

    Michael Vass
    President - M V Consulting, Inc.
    Author - Black Entertainment USA, VASS
    718-344-6921
    info@vassconsult.com

    Labels: , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    What question has your Presidential candidate answered? - 5.17.2007.1

    I am so annoyed. And I think everyone in America should be as well. At least those that use the internet and blogging. We are all being used in a terrible way, and I have to comment on it.

    I have posted several of my letters to various presidential candidates from both parties, that have been sent since December 2006. I’ve mentioned that to this moment none have replied. I’ve even reported on how I have been ignored by my state senator, and received unsolicited mass mails, but not a single response. And I am not alone.

    Thousands if not millions have been contacted, enticed and solicited via email and the internet for one Presidential candidate or another from both political parties. I have no problem with that. I have not committed funds or an endorsement, personally or with my corporation, for any party or Presidential hopeful. But neither I nor the general public have received anything in exchange for these requests of support other than a couple of soundbites. Our vote is not that cheap.

    The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, immigration, homeland security, education, abortion and many other issues cannot be answered in 90 second bits. There is not a single intelligent person on the planet that can answer fully and honestly any of those issues in that time frame. It can’t be done. Yet both political parties hope that we will accept just that in selecting who will run for President in 2008. Even the selected meetings, chosen to highlight and benefit the various candidates, are structured to provide soundbites for the evening news, cable news, and bloggers. That just doesn’t cut the mustard.

    Why is this being done? Why does it cost so much to run for President? Because it has become more MTV driven than ever before. Debates are no longer about substance, but about who appears more Presidential. It’s not what is being said, but what gets quoted. And at the same time fewer people follow the debates and coverage than ever before. As a matter of fact, my informal questioning has brought me to the conclusion that fewer people today even know what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for.

    Drop the hot button question of how long we will be in Iraq, and tell me what the parties want? Does the American public want to end the war now or win and leave? What preparations are planned for the repercussions of either decision? What’s actually best for the nation and why? What can or will any of the candidates do to improve healthcare or education in the inner cities? What does it mean to be a mainstream Democrat or Republican? Most people I as these questions haven’t the slightest idea, but they know one party or another is better for the nation. Almost invariably I get quoted a soundbite or commercial for one person or another, without any clue as to what context that soundbite applies to. We are being bought cheaply.

    I think this is enough. We deserve better answers and more of them. If hiring bloggers with ranks similar to mine are good enough to solicit the public, then mine is good enough to give a response to. And it’s good enough to inform you the public. I’m not just picking at the Presidential candidates I’ve sent letters to, but also the political parties I sent a letter to [on March 30, 2007 – to info@nygop.org and nysdems@nysdems.org ]. I will post the letters that I sent out to the Democratic and Republican parties.

    I am left with a question, why do the candidates and their respective parties seem afraid to give any response? Why don’t they want to answer direct and important questions? Why do they not want to be responsible to the people they wish to govern?

    So I ask you this, read the letters I have sent. Look for the candidate of your choice, and send them a copy of my letter (via email, link, social bookmark, or printed mail as you chose) and ask them why they can’t respond. Ask them why some of the things that will impact you and your children only deserve a 90 second incomplete answer. Ask why a soundbite is worth your financial support or more importantly your vote.

    If you earned a promotion, raise, commission, higher grade or whatever and you were given an incomplete 30 or 90 second response, you would ask for a better response. So am I, with your help.

    I look forward to your responses.
    This is what I think, what do you think?

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, May 08, 2007

    Recent Democratic and Republican debates Part 2 - 5.8.2007.2

    Continued from Recent Democratic and Republican debates - 5.8.2007.1 Part 1...

    The debates couldn’t change the mind of a hummingbird, and that’s the fault of the producers and moderator. And when I was watching the Republican debate I was in a public venue. I had one person; in a crowd of 20+ people ask once what I was watching. There was no interest, and of the 3 people that I saw glance at the debate and listen for a second, they turned away just as quickly. That is the fault of the number of soundbites being bandied about and the total lack of importance that emanated from the event.

    This is why I have made my letters [found at the M V Consulting, Inc. website], questioning several of the candidates. I have real issues in mind, things that affect me and the nation as a whole. I have asked for answers on issues that affect minority communities, business, healthcare and more. And so far not one candidate has responded since December 2006. As long as we do not demand real answers to these important questions, I don’t think any of the candidates have the balls to respond.

    What that means for the nation is anyone’s guess right now. One thing I can say is that those that won’t ask the questions now can’t complain about who and what we get later. Our children, our grandchildren, and we will be impacted for decades by the actions of our next President. Do you want your life, and the lives of your children, to be in the hands of someone who can’t answer a question in more depth than 90 seconds, and who won’t respond to a question from the citizens themselves? Think about that.

    If you agree with me, send your candidate of choice a copy of one of my letters and ask them to respond. I’ll post any response, unaltered, as soon as I receive it. Let’s remind these candidates that they are elected by the people, and are responsible to the people, not special interest groups, unions and rich donors.

    My vote will not be sold on the cheap. I won’t just shrug my shoulders and flip a coin. I won’t send out my hard earned cash to the first candidate that asks for it. Neither should you. Help the nation and send out the letters, let’s remind them where the power in this democracy really lies.

    This is what I think, what do you think?

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Recent Democratic and Republican debates - 5.8.2007.1

    OK, I’ve played a bit of hooky. The good weather has gotten to me. But there has been something that has bugged me. The recent Democratic and Republican debates that were broadcast on MSNBC. Did anyone even see them?

    My problems with the debates range from execution to interest. The debates were poorly run in my opinion. Far too many stupid questions of little relevance or impact were provided to both political parties. I mean questions like ‘who grew up with a gun in their home?’ is not relevant to whether or not the candidates are for or against gun control. [This question was asked of all the Democratic candidates, answered by a show of hands.] Another choice question that said nothing was ‘what would be your favorite tax to cut?’ [This was given to the Republican candidates.]

    Questions like the above are hardly worth the time. Speaking of time, it was poorly managed. There was only 90 minutes for the entire debate, which hardly provides enough time considering the number of candidates. Added to this was the mere 90 seconds to answer a question, unless the question was cherry picked from the internet and then there was merely 30 seconds to answer. Talk about soundbites. There wasn’t enough time given to any candidate to say anything but a tagline answer. That is the candidates that were given an opportunity to answer.

    Several times a question that was supposed to be asked to all the candidates was stopped mid-way through the group with a new question asked. Or the current frontrunners were directly selected to answer specific questions with lesser known candidates completely ignored. This was more obviously and painfully shown during the Republican debate. Mr. Romney dominated the airtime, with what I gather as the most questions asked and the most time to answer.

    It was a joke. This wasn’t a debate; it was an extended free advertisement for each candidate. The only real question was who could look more presidential. An example is when the Democrats were asked what they would do if America was attacked 2x on the same day. It’s an odd question, why 2x, isn’t once enough? The answers were boilerplate and along party lines. Not one candidate had an answer that was straightforward. I mean what does, ‘I’d evaluate the situation and take action once I knew who was responsible.’ Really what does that mean? Every candidate answered with this response to some degree or wording. Not one said they would retaliate with force, or that they would ensure that the culprits would be chased and brought to justice regardless what rock they might hide under. I was in New York City when the Twin Towers were hit; I know and knew several people there that day. I don’t want the Presidents’ response to an attack on the citizenry to be rounds of talks at the U.N. Timeouts don’t work for children and it definitely won’t have an affect on a terrorist or nation seeking the removal of America.

    Continued in part 2...

    Labels: , , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, April 25, 2007

    Comment by Rudy Giuliani - 4.25.2007.1

    The Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party are in a rage. I know no surprise. What might be the reason this time? Comments from a Republican Presidential candidate. To be specific Mr. Rudy Giuliani. The comment that has caused this rage is reported as follows, “if a Democrat is elected, ‘it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there.’ But, he said, if a Republican wins, ‘we will remain on offense’ trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and ‘trying to stop them before they do it."

    So far all the Democratic hopefuls have defended themselves and claimed that this is a false comment, that it is an attempt to inspire fear and capitalize on a tragedy. I find that interesting since I cannot see how it is wrong. Every Republican candidate has said the same thing as Mr. Giuliani to some degree. Many Democratic lawmakers have also said this. So I must ask, how is fighting a war in a manner similar to a wrestling or boxing match a winning strategy? How is fighting on an exact and unyielding timetable, that does not consider the ramifications from the aftermath of suddenly abandoning a fight (or call it troop withdrawal if that feels better), increase the safety of Americans at home? I have yet to hear an answer on how that will happen. I have yet to hear how retreating (defined as: an act or process of withdrawing especially from what is difficult, dangerous, or disagreeable) makes us safer as a nation. If a Democrat can answer that direct question I may change my opinion, but to date not one has.

    To be fair, no Republican has an answer on how long troops will be needed in Iraq, or how much money will be required to stabilize that nation. Not a single guess, though I believe it will take 5-10 years if the current pace is maintained. I can’t even guess at the cost, maybe 3x what has been spent to date. It’s not cheap, but then again “freedom is not free.”

    I have to say that I’m not surprised. The current name-calling was apparent since before the mid-term elections. Some may recall when I mentioned, “What exactly is the Democratic platform on Iraq. No longer can the statement “we need a change” be the answer. The fact is we need a detailed description of what that change is. And it will be the Democratic Party that must be held accountable for what they define as needed change.”

    To date we have been given an answer, though it is hardly detailed. The answer is leave Iraq as quickly as possible. But Democrats will not accept accountability for this decision. Rather than defunding the war which would pass, if it were the voice of the people to end the war without winning as they say it is, they are delaying providing fund. They are pushing forward bills that are known to be vetoed by the Commander-and-Chief and blaming the President for delays. This is while stating on national news (which has been shown world-wide to friends and enemies of this nation alike) “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” While in any war there are days of large losses, it does not mean that the war is lost. There are numerous examples of this in every war including both theatres of WWI and WWII.

    But if Majority leader Senator Reid is correct, how do we stop Al Quida and other groups or nations that oppose the American way of life from gathering strength and attacking our nation again? While winning the war may not be popular it does hold the foresight that may protect the nation from some major attacks. What protects the nation if we run away? Where is the foresight that will keep Americans safe in their homes and jobs? It’s not enough to make a half-step; we must know what the next part to their plan is. Only then can we, the citizens, then make a choice on what is the direction the nation should take. That is non-partisan, and in the best interest of the nation. Anything less is just politicking and will cost lives, I believe.

    It’s not a Republican view to continue to fight, nor Democratic to retreat. They are views to secure the ability of America to maintain its security. But the former looks to the future, the latter just the present. If we chose a President that can only see the trees and not the forest then I fear what may happen as our children become young adults and inherit our unfinished gaffes.

    This is what I think, what do you think?

    Labels: , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Wednesday, January 24, 2007

    Final part of Democratic response - 1.24.2007.3

    Finishing post from parts 1 & 2...

    ...

    The emphasis on change is fine. To question the plans in place is great. Of course that is based on being able to actually provide a plan in place of the one given. It’s of no use to cry sour grapes, in my opinion, when you have nothing to offer in its place. And as well worded as the comments may be, how hopeful for change, it is meaningless when not one Democrat has offered a single plan, in detail of any sort – including leaving, as a counter-offer to consider. I think the reference to Viet Nam and Korea is correct, though not for the reasons intended by the Democrats.

    And lastly, I am offended. I do not believe ANY political party should have the indigence to threaten the President of the United States. How dare them. To state that if the President does not do what their party wants (not what the American people want or is in their best interest) they will ‘show him the way.” Who do the Democrats think they are? They are referring to the Commander-and-Chief. Respect is due. Whether or not they block everything the President wishes respect is called for. They have forgotten their place; they are one of 3 branches of government. They are no greater than any other part, just as is the President. To speak in such a manner is to not give the trust given to leaders in the past, to not seek out the best option for the nation, to be partisan above being patriotic and rude. That is what I think.

    Senator spoke for the Democratic Party. Given that, the Democratic Party has spoken poorly. I am sure they are hoping for few viewers of they comments, few reading the newspapers and internet copies of the President and their response. I am sure they are counting on the few seconds long soundbites to be in their favor, promoted by the media, and convincing the general public that they have the ‘average man’ in mind. Well I am an ‘average man’ and I do pay attention. Their comments failed to sway me, rather they evoked my anger. Maybe my readers, you will think different. Somehow I think not.

    This is what I think, what do you think?

    Labels: , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Democratic response part 2 - 1.24.2007.2

    Continued from part 1

    ...

    Moving on, Senator Webb makes an interesting statement. Senator Webb discusses how his father, his sons, and he were all military men. The Senator served in the Marines during Viet Nam. I respect the service that he and his family have given this nation. The Senator may well have served with my own father. I or others in my family may have served with his children. That has nothing to do with what the President has decided. His patriotic decisions are not in question, nor those of his family. It added no value to his later statements. I say that with respect, as I do respect those decisions.

    But the Senator goes on to mention how the American people had leaders that made wise, informed decisions. That our past leaders placed our troops in harm’s way after careful consideration. I have to ask how this is different than what President Bush has done? And I must ask Senator Webb where that trust was during the Viet Nam war, when the liberals of the nation wanted to cut support of the troops and had daily protests, and called our returning soldiers ‘baby killers.’ Perhaps Senator Webb never encountered the massive attacks against our troops and our leader then, but I know for a fact too many others did. How is the position of the Democratic Party today different than the beginnings of what happened during the Viet Nam War? And where is the trust for our leader today?

    The Senator further draws on the action in Korea. How that war was ended ‘positively’ as an example of what to do today. Perhaps I view this differently, but what some viewed as a draw then is a huge loss some 50 years later, today. We left Korea, a stalemate. We never finished the war; we had a cease fire and have been there since. Korea is divided into a north and south, there is a huge DMZ, manned by tens of thousands of troops, mines and strategic missiles. How much has that cost our economy? Added to that fact is that North Korea has never stopped preparing to continue to finish the war with America. That has lead to the nuclear weapon test and potential nuclear arsenal, in a nation that hates us and will support anyone that would fight us. This is the positive reaction that Senator Webb referred to as ‘positive’ and seems to state we should emulate.

    Senator Webb stated that diplomacy should guide our actions in Iraq, that we should move out soldiers off the streets, but we should not rush to leave. Yet there has been rampant talk by Democrats to cut funding (which I feel is not supporting the troops) and/or to cap the number of troops, and to create a timetable that has our troops home in a year. All of that before the President even mentioned his new plan. That is not trust in our leader. That is not supporting troops. That is leaving, that is what I call running away.

    Continued in part 3...

    Labels: , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Saturday, December 16, 2006

    Letter to Senator Clinton - 12.16.2006.1

    This is a copy of a letter sent to Senator Hilary Clinton. If and when I receive a response I will post it without edit.

    December 16, 2006
    Senator Clinton,

    I am a citizen, former military, an entrepreneur, and resident of upstate New York. As we approach the 2008 presidential race, more and more of the talking heads on television are commenting that you are the leading hopefully for the Democratic Party. Based on that I would like to ask a few questions.

    Before I go any further I must mention that I am the owner of 2 blog sites, and co-author of a third. The site that pertains to this subject the most is the www.mvass.com site. This letter, along with any response I receive, will appear in at least that blog.

    If you review the site you will see that I have followed your progress and commented on several actions. While these reviews may be critical, that is due to my desire to promote the best government possible with disclosure to the public that consists of detailed relevant commentary. I invite you to review the site and respond to any comments I have made. My focus is not personal, as I do not know you, and has always centered on the actions or comments of your office and fame.

    With the above said, I wonder why should anyone expect that you would run for the Presidency? While many believe that as a female candidate you could cause more women to vote than what is normally found in an election, but that is not a valid reason. To say that you are one of the few Democratic political figures that have name recognition and little negative exposure is also a good thing, but not a reason.

    What legislation have you initiated, that has passed, that has benefited those living in NY state and/or this nation? When I say benefited I ask that you demonstrate the actual improvement and not the projected improvement that a study or poll has stated. Obviously any recent legislation (less than 6 months) can’t be expected to have necessarily had an immediate effect.

    As a key Democrat I ask, what your party has done for African Americans in the last decade, and more importantly since you have taken office. What legislation has passed that benefits African Americans that was initiated by the Democratic Party since you have gained office? To be fair, what legislation has the Democratic party prevented that would have harmed African Americans (in NY state and/or the nation) and how did the party derive that this legislation was harmful?

    What are your positions on the platforms? I have heard several soundbites for multiple politicians and none seem to really mean anything when thought about, at least to me. In the recent mid-term elections many Democrats seemed to have won, in my opinion, on the basis that they were for a change in policy. Yet none seemed to have an answer as to what that new and different policy was or could be. In a soundbite such an answer may work, but that is not a reason to be elected for, especially not presidential candidates if such a choice were up to me.

    In addition I ask what are you doing to help small businesses? What are you doing about improving the public education available in New York State (especially city schools)? What are you doing to address the drop-out rate of African American males? And what are you doing for Latino/ Hispanic Americans on the above matters?

    Lastly, what is your position on the various laws and actions that are in place or proposed to impede illegal aliens from entering this nation from our southern border only? Do you agree or disagree with the thought that more should be done to protect our largely unwatched northern borders, especially since there has been evidence of how dangerous this lack of attention has been.

    Senator Clinton, I look forward to your responses on these questions. I also plan to ask these questions, or similar ones, of Senators Obama, McCain, and any other candidate for the presidency (actual or rumored) throughout 2007.

    Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

    Sincerely,

    Michael Vass
    info@blackentertainmentblog.com
    President – M V Consulting, Inc.

    ** This is seperate of the above letter. Items of interest relating to Senator Clinton and or the Democratic Party found on this site:
    what-about-afganistan
    stem-cells-ect

    vass-thoughts-on-senator-clinton

    elections-for-06-and-08
    patriot-act-and-politics
    reparations-for-black-african
    A few words on politics, war, and Dr. Martin Luther King
    Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech
    election-year-stories-for-2006
    senators-obama-clinton-and-mccain
    which-woman-for-president
    no-votes-for-senator-hilary-clinton
    Senator John Kerry 'jokes' about the military - 11.1.2006.1

    Labels: , , , ,



    Ask for ad rates

    Tuesday, November 07, 2006

    Did you think of this before you voted? - 11.7.2006.1

    So it’s election day. Politicians are running amuck trying to convince people how wonderful they are, or how deeply they believe in whatever gets the voters out and for them. I hope everyone has considered what the candidates really are standing for before they made their vote.

    Here is an example. There has been a lot of legislation out lately about trans-fats and concern over energy drinks. Trans-fats are supposed to be so terrible that they cannot be used in restaurants in New York City. Of course there is no legislation preventing trans-fats from being made or sold. So politicians have put a lot of time into deciding what food you should eat. [Remarkably I didn’t notice any comment from Senator Hilary Clinton. This is rare for her considering it was in the news and dealing with NYC. Probably some pollster let her know that it would make her look like she was a Senator for New York and could separate her from voters in the mid-west.] I expect to hear about how the 500 energy drinks will be limited soon as well. The reason being that some choose to use them like a drug, trying to get a buzz. The reward for such actions are heart-palpitations or caffeine poisoning. I don’t doubt this will be another hot topic that will get resolved near term. Not like there was much else for local, state or federal government to do.

    Some might say why didn’t I discuss any of this before the election. I simply have to mention this: Election year stories for 2006,Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech, Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain, War on terror poll - Part 1, Which woman for president?, Immigration and student aid for college.

    And yes I know the archives are a bit off. I’m working on getting it fixed. Lots to do, little time. Bear with me please.

    Labels: , , ,



    Ask for ad rates
    Ask for ad rates