Now that we have entered 2009, the time for details has begun. President Obama has now stated that he intends to make 40% of the proposed stimulus plan, that was championed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from $50 billion to its now $800 billion level, business tax-cuts. That is the first logical and reasonable thing I've heard about this plan since its inception.

Some $300 billion dollars will target businesses by cutting taxes on new workers hired and accelerated depreciation among other thoughts. The tax break from hiring new employees is critical. Tax on employees is one factor that cannot be controlled by an owner and is devastating to the bottom line. If this proposal, which is short-term, could be made more substantial - by being proposed long-term or matched by a cut in corporate taxes - it will have a definite impact on the economy. But that is not thinking like a liberal Democrat.

If President Obama goes to his consistent style of thought, and Speaker Pelosi is able to forge ahead with her plans, we will see more of the compartmentalized thinking that dominated the election speeches. That is the thought that there is no connection of one economic plan with any other part, nor that new deficit widening spending or raising taxes might counter any other stimulus proposed. Listening to the Democratic leaders one would believe that each of these things are isolated and do not interact, but in the real world they always do.

Thus if corporate taxes are raised, any gains created from a tax break on new employees will evaporate and those new hires will quickly become unemployed again. But it will buy the politicians a few months of back-patting on the lowering of unemployment.

But the majority of the new stimulus plan is still solidly in the realm of polispeak. Only in that realm is the thought that $500 for singles and $1000 for a family able to turn around a mortgage crisis, credit crunch, and shrinking economy.

The last stimulus plan, which was completely ineffective, came about as a direct payment of money from the Government to the public - which will be repaid in taxes at a later date. That money was used by the majority of Americans to stave off mortgage default and pay down on debt. This time President Obama believes that by directly cutting payroll taxes for 4 months it will have a bigger impact. Which is perhaps even more dream-like an expectation.

That equates to around $120 per month, or $240 for families -

"The $500 tax credit would apply to the first $8,100 of wages, meaning a worker who earns $24,400 a year and is paid twice a month would get about $60 extra per paycheck for four months."

While that is not insignificant, it is not a factor either. If the average person in America has $6,000 in debt currently, and basic monthly costs of some $1500 to live the extra money is 1 night out, or 2% payment on the debt not including interest, or 1 month of cell phone service. Which seems most likely for a person to do?

From what I have heard across the nation a free month of phone service, or paying down on the auto insurance, or electric bill, or catching up with the cable bill, or having a bit of extra food, or paying on the car loan, or replacing clothing are higher priorities than going out for drinks and a dinner. Sure some may buy an new video game, but they may well be doing so because they will be losing cable and thus the game is their only entertainment.

The fact is that stimulus plans that depend on creating money to give to the public, that will need to be paid back via taxes, will never work. Unless the nation were to get $6,000 per person it will never work. The current individual debt and the interest on that debt is too high. And any amount below the current debt load is too small to invest in anything - even if consumer confidence were there.

This stimulus plan is a failure just as much as the one proposed by the Bush Administration was. There is no improvement. There is no greater gain. Money given to the public will garner no positive lasting effect in the economy any more than the last one did. The only thing that will happen is the polispeak will be positive for a time. Great for politicians, but ultimately bad for the public.

If this stimulus were to be a real fix, corporate taxes would be reduced, new employees would create a tax break, accelerated depreciation would be tied to new equipment purchases, and Government would not be directly involved in the daily actions of private business. But that too is a pipe dream. Just like watching the Dow go above 9000 any time soon.

Labels: corporate taxes, Nancy Pelosi, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, President Bush, stimulus package

It’s amazing how in the last 24 hours the Obama political machine has spun around and launched polispeak that turns almost a 180 from yesterday. All of this revolving around the bailout that is being worked on today.

Yesterday, Warren Buffett compare the current financial crisis to a Pearl Harbor event in America. He strongly felt this was a serious threat to the well-being of America. President Bush called for television time at 9pm to put pressure on Congress to get the bailout done, by speaking to the public about the status. And then come the Presidential candidates.

At 8am yesterday, Obama suggested a bi-partisan announcement to support specific controls in the bailout plan. At 10am Warren Buffett made his comments, at 11am the President made plans to speak with the public. At about 2:30pm McCain made a press statement



The Obama campaign immediately releases an email that clarifies their position at 8am. At 4:40pm Obama has a press statement that states



And since that time the polispeak wheels have been spinning. Democrats have been stating that the Senators are not needed. That the bailout will be resolved without them. That they have no need to do the jobs they were elected to office to do. Or at least they should be working on both situations.

Now maybe it’s me, but if this bailout could cause a depression equal to the Great Depression as many of the best financial minds believe don’t you want the next President and your Congressional representatives to be doing their jobs? Do you believe that this is their first priority?

President Bush believes it is. And thus he asked both candidates to come to the White House, along with both Parties Congressional leaders, to ensure a deal can be made as quickly as possible. Because as Warren Buffet said yesterday in various interviews, this is not something he would want to see take weeks to resolve. It’s too important and dangerous. So bi-partisan agreement is required.

But it seems the Obama campaign is ok with dividing its attention. And supporters are trying to make this seem like McCain is not doing his job and acting on America’s benefits first. They are questioning why Gov. Palin is not continuing the campaign in place of McCain. The answer to that seems obvious, she is not running for President. And since Senator Biden also needs to do his job, it is more bi-partisan to allow both campaign to stop while both work on this.

Yes, a President multi-tasks each day. Yes you must deal with many events at once. But priorities are important. And approving political ads or practicing for debate questions while you speak with say Chris Dodd on the phone about what compromise or terms of repayment are ok for the bailout presents itself as the wrong kind of order to me.

But I asked an average guy about this today. He is a cable repairman, doesn’t follow politics much, and I have no idea of his politics. He heard of the bailout, but had no idea how that could affect him and America. He heard about what McCain and Obama were planning to do. In his words

“They both sound like politicians to me. It’s all just political showing off.”

I asked him about the bailout, and he mentioned he wasn’t sure what it meant to him. I clarified the point, giving him the comments of Warren Buffett (who he had heard of) and detailing what a Depression would mean – 4 out of 5 people he knows would be without jobs, and possibly homes, within 2 months. That is the worst case scenario.

I asked him again, based on that severity, and the fact that all 3 Senators involved in the Presidential race still have jobs in Congress, how he felt. He still could see the political nature of both their actions. He further said

“But that [Obama] doesn’t seem right, if it’s that important.”

How important could it be? Well in a press conference on the 23rd it was stated that several Democrats would not vote on the bill if McCain did not (5:05)





If this bill must be bi-partisan, and it must be resolved as quickly as possible, and it should hold safeguards that ensure that the crisis is ended and we won’t need to spend another trillion dollars in a month, then both Presidential candidates need to work on this and not their campaigns. I think so.

And I really think that Obama should have thought so too, and not need the President to call him to bring him back to D.C. to do the job he was elected to the Senate to do.

If this is not the single most declarative statement of which candidate will act for America first, which has their political gain first then I don’t know what is. No amount of polispeak can hide bi-partisan action, and a politician doing the job they were elected to do. But if you disagree, I would love to hear that argument.

Labels: financial news, President Bush, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Warren Buffett

Politics is an amazing arena. It’s the only business in America where lies, misperceptions, misspoken statements, and polispeak are valued assets and critical winning strategies. And that’s true of every political party and elected official from local government to the highest office.

I mention this because of a conversation I had with a woman today. She is interested in getting her voice out to the masses for this election. She believes it to be very important, and thus she is also interested in creating a blog. To that end she contacted me and eventually we discussed the Presidential candidates.

Now in this discussion it came out that she prefers Senator Obama over Senator McCain. There’s nothing wrong with that. When I asked her why, the reasons she gave were very telling. The only reason involving Senator Obama was the fact that he would provide change, every other reason in our 2 hour discussion focused on a belief she had on Senator McCain. I feel that much of what she believed is similar to what others believe as well.

While there is nothing wrong with being for any one candidate, the reasons should be well defined. Let me clarify.

These are the reasons she felt McCain was a bad choice. He is too old, he had cancer, he must suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), he is another President Bush, he is a warmonger (my paraphrase), he is non-partisan, he won’t change anything, and he has a temper. This is the summarized version of her reasons why Obama should be President.

Now while Senator McCain is old, it is well known that he is very physically fit. Many pundits and politicians admit that he is in excellent shape for his age, more than many that are decades his junior. And his genetics – as viewed by looking at his mother who is in her 90’s – show a propensity to remain active and mentally intact for another 20 years. Add to that the fact that Presidents have served at his age before.

And by the way, is Senator McCain is senile for calling Sunnis Shiites, then what is Senator Hillary Clinton when she repeatedly comments on barrel rolling planes and sniper fire that never existed? If that is not senility, or a lie what do you call that? As opposed to mixing up the names of 2 groups of people that most Americans can’t tell you the difference between or even spell.

In looking at his cancer, he had a skin cancer that was non-lethal. It was removed. He is currently free of any cancer and has been for years. There is no reason to believe that he would get cancer again, but there are many politicians that have fought cancer and continued to serve in office. There has been Presidents that have suffered ailments during their Presidency and still governed effectively.

But to combine the 2 questions of age and cancer into one solution, that is why there are Vice-Presidents.

As for being a warmonger, that is a harsh inaccurate and politically driven perception (though again I note that she did not call him that - others I've spoken with have). Groups like Moveon.org and Code Pink may feel that such a title may applie to McCain, but then again they felt the same about Senator Clinton and EVERY other politician that has not advocated the immediate retreat from Iraq. It would be far more accurate to say that as a former military officer, a decorated veteran, and a former POW Senator McCain has a far greater appreciation of what it means to fight for our country than most politicians or civilians. Considering that he has a son that has actively served in Iraq recently, he appreciates as much as any parent the fears of an active war. Thus I am left to conclude that if he believes that it is important for America to win if possible, and/or to exit in a manageable manner – and is willing to risk his own son – that he believes such steps are in the nations best interest long-term.

It’s well known that Senator John McCain has a temper. He has had words with many Senators and politicians over his 25 years of political service. Then again so have many Presidents. In fact it is now more publicly acknowledged that President Clinton had a horrible temper. According to Dick Morris, who used to work for President Clinton, he was struck in anger by the President. Since Mr. Morris said this on national cable television and has not been sued or asked to retract his statement I am led to believe it was true. So we have evidence that recent Presidents have tempers, which did not prevent them from their duties.

To go back to the military past of Senator McCain, which Senator Obama has never had a day of, I was told he had to have PTSD. This was a point that was brought up multiple times. The woman I spoke with could not see how anyone that went through what McCain has could not be so afflicted. Yet in 25 years in the Senate there has been no incidence ever reported. Not one politician, of either party, or an aide has ever noted anything that would be likened to PTSD. I wouldn’t say that McCain never has a bad memory, but like many veterans he has lived a productive life without incident. So why is that a fear? PTSD is not like LSD. It doesn’t suddenly crop up one morning with a cup of coffee. There are symptoms and signs. This is what my father dealt with, and as a man that did have PTSD, suffered from Agent Orange, and lost an arm and leg most would never have been able to tell as he worked on his small farm and daily interactions. But when things were bad, there were always signs.

Suffice to say that I feel this is an unwarranted and probably politically motivated issue.

I’ll combine the question of whether McCain is another President Bush and whether he is non-partisan. Don’t take my word on this but look back a year and a half. Look back 2 years. Read how the liberal media lauded Senator McCain, and Republican were angry with him, for breaking party lines on various issues. Look at how the media positively covered McCain as the most bi-partisan Republican and as the kind of Republican Democrats could work with. Look at the multiple laws he has passed and tried to pass. Count the number of times McCain was called a moderate, and conservative groups that backed President Bush whole-heartedly were angry with McCain.

The fact is that the main thing that has changed is the media and pundit perception of Senator McCain. What he did has not changed, but the perception has been molded by the media, just in time for people who don’t follow politics daily to just notice.

Last is change. Everyone is speaking about change. Which is just dumb. No matter who is elected change is guaranteed. Neither man is President Bush so change is a fact.

But on one hand we have a candidate without experience (relatively) as compared to one with over 3 decades of service to the nation. Of course I was told that Senator Obama can surround himself with people that have experience and he can make decisions based on their knowledge.

So why is McCain faulted for his experience, and that of those he would have around him, since Senator Obama would be drawing from a pool of politician that are just as embedded in “old” politics as McCain? The only real difference is that McCain has his own experience to balance against the opinions of those around him, and Obama does not.

Now I don’t fault anyone for picking any candidate. I am happy that many are getting involved because I agree that this is an important election. But I want to emphasize something. Picking a candidate based on current soundbites and a set of rules that apply only one way is not picking a candidate that is in the best interest of America.

Check the facts, learn about the candidates for yourself. Look at the vote where Senator Obama voted to raise the taxes of everyone making $31,850 or more (and Senator McCain voted against) and ask if that is rich. Ask why every multi-millionaire and billionaire that advocates higher taxes have never given a single extra dollar to the government than they were required to – in fact a few have preferred to give their money to charities instead. Ask how Senator Obama will pass bi-partisan laws with a record of voting highly partisan and liberal. Ask if you prefer a President that is historically moderate or liberal – with a populace that in all honesty is middle of the road depending on the issue.

If you look for those facts, and ignore the pundits and polispeak; if you ask those questions and come to an answer for yourself, then that is who you should vote for. And it’s when you vote on that basis that America will truly get the best choice for America’s future.

Labels: 2008 election, Code Pink, moveon.org, Polispeak, President Bush, Presidential candidates, PTSD, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, tax increase

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: 2008 election, Crude oil prices, Democratic Party, Iran, Iraq War, OPEC, President Bush, Senator John McCain

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: Democratic Party, President Bill Clinton, President Bush, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

So in the 4th day of the start of the unofficial race between Senator McCain and Senator Obama the barbs are continuing to hit their marks. Of course the start of the race lies with President Bush.

It must be said that President Bush was wrong as he spoke overseas. A U.S. President should NEVER discuss the internal political matters in a foreign state. It weakens any potential President in terms of foreign policy and is little different than when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to affect policy when she visited the Middle East.

Going beyond that, I do have to wonder about what Senator McCain first stated

‘What does Senator Obama expect to gain…’

Seriously, what does he expect? If an American President speaks to any nation that promotes terror, they elevate that nation. Without a clear ability to gain something of equal importance, direct talks hurt America.

I gave a friend this example,

“No one is concerned about the threat of Papua New Guinea today. But if the President of the free world went there and spoke to their leader about their military and goals, it would instantly be news. New Guinea would instantly have more political power than other nations in their region and be more involved with every world power. Now imagine if you just change the country to Iran.

Imagine Iran saying that America was so afraid they had to talk, tail between their legs, to the powerful Iran. And so on.”

The fact is that Senator Obama is wrong on this. He is wrong to make the comparison about President Kennedy. While it is true that there were talks to remove all future nuclear weapons from Cuba, and to discuss the cold war, it wasn’t because President Kennedy was a talkative guy. President Kennedy threatened and near took America to war, over the missiles and Cuba. It was the Cuban Missile Crisis that created the talks. So it was the threat of force, and only that imminent threat that got talks going.

When you compare President Kennedy’s motivation to talk to the USSR to the plans of today’s Presidential candidates, he doesn’t match up to Senator Obama. Maybe those to young to recall the incident will not realize this, maybe those older have romanticized the event, but President Kennedy did not just start talking, and the threat of the post-nuclear USSR was far more tangible than Iran at this moment.

So think about it. How does elevating Iran, a nation that denies the Holocaust and desires the death of Israel and advocate the overthrow of the American political system, make America safer? What argument could Senator Obama provide that would suddenly convince Amenajad (President of Iran) top change his mind or tactics? Especially since he claims these beliefs are part of how he views his faith?

I’m sorry for Senator Obama’s fans, but such a plan or even the idea is idealistic and based in a fantasy world that has nothing to do with the here and now. It may sound nice, and is preferable to the current status or violence, but it’s about as attainable as buying a gallon of Ethanol in New York City or a snowstorm at the equator.

I’ll compare Senator Obama and Senator McCain in depth shortly.

Labels: Cuban Missile Crisisis, foreign policy, Iran, Israel, Middle East, President Bush, President John F. Kennedy, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, USSR

So I’ve been quite busy in the past week creating 40 blogs and a few search engines for a client of mine. It would seem the timing was perfect as there has really been nothing new in the political news. Every candidate seems to be stuck in the mire of the problems from a week or 2 ago.

There is the problem of Senator Obama with Rev. Wright. This is not going to go away, and you can bet on it being an issue in the general election. I’ve already said that this is really not something I think that should be such an issue. In reviewing some of the video that Rev. Wright had used against him, much of what he said was not untrue or offensive. It was just not nice to White Americans or the Government.

Now I know that there is now news that Rev. Wright has written pro-Hamas comments. I have yet to read this. But, sight unseen, I would guess that like the highly selective 10 second clips used to attack the reverend there is a high probability that these comments may be few in number, and contain a high percentage of truth. That is not to say I agree with all of what he says, just that the 30 seconds of coverage the news media is giving to Rev. Wright is highly biased. As many who have read my Black Entertainment USA blog know, I believe that a medium that purposefully minimized the existence and representation of all non-whites to roughly 2% of their population – mostly in a negative exposure – is biased.

But again I ask the real question that the news media seems to avoid as they inject race into this Presidential election. Does the voting record of Senator Obama reflect the negatives that the news media is focusing on? In my research the answer is no. In fact, Senator Obama’s voting record is nearly identical to Senator Clinton’s. So there seems to be no reason to be any more or less for Senator Obama than before this publicly reviewed relation to a former Marine, clergyman, and activist for the poor, lesbian/gay, and African Americans.

As for Senator Clinton, well she is still a liar. And she is still caught in the fact that her trip to Bosnia was a direct lie. A person can misspeak about a date or time, a name or place, even how well someone reacts in a situation. But saying you are being shot at and that you and your child were essentially racing for your life is a life-altering event that no one would forget. Like being in the Northridge earthquake.

Here is an example. I liked in California and was in the Northridge quake. My home was roughly 5 miles away from the epicenter. I may be misspeaking the distance to the center. But when I tell you that the quake started like a jackhammer going off at your feet, and then grew to feel and sound like a freight train inches away from your face – that is a description of a life-altering event. I may misspeak how long the initial quake lasted, which felt like 5 minutes at the time, but I and describing a life-altering event that every 3 minutes on the minute the quake had an aftershock. And the fact that I and 2 other friends were so afraid that slamming a door shut caused us to jump for about 2 days after the fact is confirmable by at least 6 people, and in no way is exclusive. That is a life-altering event. Senator Clinton lied.

But I am not surprised. And it is important. Unlike the separation of Senator Obama and Rev. Wright – as seen in his actual voting record – Senator Clinton lied to the nation repeatedly (at least 3 xs). She has sought sympathy and endearment. She is trying to create courage and importance. And it is all just a false façade to gain votes.

Just as her lie about affecting the Ireland Peace Talks was proven false, so has video about Bosnia proven her a liar. And Sinbad broke the story, not the news media that would have let the story stand if he did not publicly challenge her.

Now there are many reasons to vote for or against any candidate. I’ve detailed many over the past 2 years on all the candidates. But there are a few things that I think everyone can agree are not qualities wanted in a potential President.

We do not want a President that is a criminal nor aids and abets a criminal. So far as has been proven only one candidate has done this. Senator Clinton. The criminal was Norman Hsu, whom she took $1 million from to aid her campaign and struggled to avoid giving back to his victim (the money was stolen – which were separate new charges for Hsu).

We do not want a President that lies to the American public. Senator McCain may make momentary mistakes between the name of Iran and Iraq – which every person discussing the 2 has done in conversation, Senator Obama may not have been at every one of the sermons that Rev. Wright made (3x a week for 20 years). Maybe hearing a rant against the nation (like the ones made by Jerry Falwell after 9/11) or against a group of people (like the claims about AIDS made by Pat Robertson) is not something someone would want to admit – like being caught cheating on a wife. But to stand in front of the American people and to repeatedly and directly lie is wrong.

When President Bush stated America needed to remove the weapons of mass destruction he lied (to some degree) and that has created huge resentment in America and at least some of the Democrats. When former-President Bill Clinton stated under oath and on television broadcasts to the nation that he did not have sexual relations with Monika Lewinsky he lied. And when Senator Hillary Clinton made up events in Ireland and Bosnia she has lied about her ability, courage, and experience. If a Republican, Democrat or Independent was upset and livid about the first 2 events and wished they could take back their vote from those 2 Presidents – why would any voter elect a potential candidate that has proven a willingness to repeatedly and unabashedly lie to America??

We do not want a President that will take our money and/or waste it. No one likes to pay taxes. Nor does anyone I know enjoy watching their money go to individuals that do nothing deserving of those tax dollars being spent on them. Yet in an economy that is obviously troubled (at the least) Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have voted to increase taxes for those making $31,850 or more. This increase does not account for creating a universal socialized healthcare system (which will cost taxpayers and individuals more), the wars in Iraq or Iran, or the mortgage crisis. So imagine that as jobs become harder to get, in an economic slowdown where fewer new jobs will be created, more taxes will be imposed on taxpayers and small businesses.

Imagine what will happen if all the social programs that Democrats wish to put in place become fact, and wages go up, while there is less income available to pay bills and smaller businesses that cannot afford the taxes or employee wages go out of business – firing even more people.

These are the issues that face the next President. And there are more issues, like education for our kids, the number of illegal aliens in the nation, and security of our homes. That is where the focus should be for this election. Instead we are hearing about the comments of a non-elected official, momentary misquotes in a live conversation, and ignoring the breadth and depth of lies.

Well I have at least another 40 blogs to create. So I will be a bit slow on posts, by no means am I forgetting to write. Maybe by my birthday, in a week and a half, the news media will focus on the important facts.

Labels: Bosnia, Ireland, Norman Hsu, President Bush, Presidential election race 2008, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Sinbad, tax increase

I had an interesting conversation last night with a guy on the current status of the Presidency and the up-coming election. It’s a conversation I’ve had many times and I think needs to be discussed in a broader manner.

The crux of the conversation dealt with the anger this one guy had with President Bush. In his opinion, which I have seen mirrored in the media and on many blog sites, President Bush has driven the nation into the ground, broken laws, and involved us in a war that we have no place in. In this opinion America has been lessened by the actions of President Bush.

I disagree.

First I suggest that there is a separation that needs to be made from the emotion some carry with the actual effects of President Bush. While he may not be liked, that is not the same as what he has done being bad for the nation. Much like President Nixon, who was massively disliked in the 70’s, time and a review exempt of emotions shows that he did many things that were in the best interest of America and he was in fact a decent President.

President Bush finds himself as the second President to be involved with an openly disliked war. The fears of mothers and loved ones for the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is no small thing. But that does not mean that President Bush has done something wrong. Nor does it mean this is not in the best interest of America in the long-term.

America needs oil, a moderately peaceful Middle East, and a beachfront against terrorists that would kill every American man woman and child for no reason other than they exist. And as I mentioned in conversation, if this were likened to a bar fight the Democrats want to shout “I am done, I give up” then turn and walk away. Those same Democrats want to ignore the fact that in the middle of a fight, your opponent will likely not stop, and given the chance as you walk away back exposed will strike you over the head with a barstool. Just because some want to stop fighting, our enemies so not.

Perhaps some would prefer to fight terrorists on American soil. Perhaps they would be more motivated in attacking our enemies after they have taken down our skyscrapers and killed our children in schools and school buses. Some are disheartened because in attacking these vile individuals there is a cost of some innocents, as is true in every war.

But I say that I do not want to risk the hundreds or thousands that would die in America. I do feel badly for the tens of Iraqis and Afghans that die as a result of hiding, abetting, and/or ignoring those that attack America. But I feel far worse for the thousands that died in New York. Is it fair? Maybe not, but I love America far more than I do any other nation.

Some say President Bush has taken America down a dark path. I disagree. I would say that America has not changed course since arguably WWII. Less debatable is that America is still tracking the same direction that we have been on since the 1980’s. Every President, Democrat or Republican, has not deviated from this course. Some Presidents have just had worse media coverage, and more difficult events to deal with. (And with all honest and lack of emotional predetermination the next President will follow in that direction as well)

President Clinton attacked Iraq. America was the police force of the world during his administration. The Tech Bubble was created during his fiscal watch, and the resulting crash was caused by his in/action. President Clinton allowed Osama Bin Laden to live and kill thousands of Americans, and he lied to America directly. But I don’t see the passion for the laws he actually broke; and I do hear compassion about the actions he took that allowed Saddam Hussein to kill thousands of Kurds, cost thousands of Americans their jobs and homes, and embarrass the nation in front of the world.

All of this is not to say I agree in a blanket manner with President Bush. He deserves criticism for his actions in Katrina (or more accurately failure to act), and scrutiny on the powers given by the Patriot and other Acts.

America is at a crossroads. The decisions at the feet of the next President are huge and long-lasting in their impact on every American life. But to blindly pack every problem facing America on the back of one President is to potentially open the door for the next President to fail at various points even more regrettably.

Labels: Iraq War, osama bin laden, President Bill Clinton, President Bush, saddam hussein

So Hillary Clinton has done it again. For the second time since the start of the Democratic nomination process this year, she has won a race that no other Democratic candidate has tried to be in. Even more importantly, the crucial number of delegates that will decide who is the party’s nominee, has not changed as Florida had 0 delegates to give.

This was generally known beforehand. All the Democratic candidates had previously agreed with the DNC not to compete or advertise in Florida. That there would be no delegates up for grabs. And at this moment not one candidate has entered Florida under that agreement, except Hillary Clinton. Something that The Nation had a few words on.

“Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process. Effectively, she is saying to Democrats in states that will participate in February 5th's "Super Tuesday" primaries and caucuses and in the two dozen states that have scheduled later votes: You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.”

But after the significant and embarrassing loss in South Carolina, the intense backlash against the Clinton’s for their continuous and race based attacks on Senator Obama, and the impressive and highly publicized endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by Senator Ted Kennedy the Clinton campaign needs a win.

Does the Florida result mean anything?

It depends on how you want to look on it. There was nothing at risk for any of the candidates, except the ability to say I won. Everyone was following pledges that they made previously and thus saved money for the use on Super Tuesday, except Senator Clinton.

But the Clintons do have a reason. Like their veiled actions in Michigan, they are looking to use their results to their advantage.

“On the Democratic side there is less and more in the results. While Senator Clinton did win, the race was hardly in existence. 2 of the major candidates were not available as a choice, half the number of delegates are possible and everyone knew it.”

In that case and in Florida the Clinton campaign is gambling that eventually the full delegates available will be released, and as the winner she will claim those delegates. The other candidates have respected the decisions of the DNC and are working with what is available.

But this seems to be a bit of a trend for Hillary Clinton, and her seeming win-at-all-cost efforts.

There are her actions in Michigan, which resulted in a huge turnout and nearly 40% of the voters choosing uncommitted instead of Hillary. There are her appearances in Florida. And there is the legal action that suddenly “just happened” to occur right after Senator Obama received an endorsement from that states biggest union.

Some could call that desperation. Especially when that is coupled with attempts of her campaign to incite images of stereotyping, terrorism and marginalization based on Senator Obama’s name, book on his life, and color of skin. Others would call it smart politics. In Florida it was called a win by Hillary.

One thing I will say is that it does set the tone of the Democratic race and what may happen on Super Tuesday. And I must pause as I consider this thought.

Many Democrats are livid with President Bush. They claim he has broken the law and done whatever he wishes with the Presidency. Yet Senator Hillary Clinton has continuously broken or bent the rules in multiple Primaries to date, and engaged in arms distance morally corrupt racist, Islam phobic, gender baited attacks. As the opinion of The Nation said and I quoted above

“You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.”

If that statement is true, how is it different than what Democrats say about President Bush? How is it better?

Labels: Democratic National Convention, DNC, Florida Primary, President Bush, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy

What a day yesterday was. 300 off the Dow Jones Index, an attempt by a couple of unions to change the course of the Nevada Caucus and Bob Johnson apologizes to Senator Barack Obama. What could possibly happen next?

Well the financial news is something that I expect every Presidential candidate to comment on. There will be more calls for rebates from Democrats, and Republicans will try to promise to keep the tax cuts put in place by President Bush. None of this will actually have any affect on the markets, because only one of them will have any voice on the matter, but that will happen in 2009. That’s a whole year of pain and actions by the Fed and our current President to try to sway the downfall.

As I’ve stated previously, this is neither a surprise to me, nor is there a quick fix that will resolve it. All the hoopla that the various candidates are sure to spin is just an attempt to get panicky voters to choose them.

I restate what I said previously about the ‘stimulus packages’ that have been mentioned to date.

“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.”

Plus several of the leading candidates of both parties have all flipped their positions. Democrats that hated the tax cuts and called them ineffective for months are now introducing their own plans to boost the economy. And Republicans that disliked the tax cuts are now in favor of them.

But I’m sure you will hear a lot more about specific plans before Monday arrives.

Just remember this, no matter what plan is announced oil is still nearly at all-time high levels, many mortgages are still failing and/or at risk of failing – and not all of them are sub-prime. Food prices are increasing as ethanol production is diverting corn and wheat to this less efficient alternative fuel source and with recent laws mandating increased usage on a national level we can expect even higher prices. The financial sector is not done writing-off their losses for making the bad loans, and more money will be coming from overseas to prop them up.

Net net, there is no quick fix and any candidate who wins will need to realize they will be walking into a mess. I would suggest you don’t look at who has the best ‘sounds great’ plan, but who can deal with multiple issues best.

Because the fact that attention is now turning to the economy, which has long been a issue of importance among citizens according to my polls, does not remove the importance of all the other issues America faces. Our next President must deal with a difficult economy, illegal aliens, a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and keeping the nation safe against insane fanatics that want us dead because we exist.

The pundits and candidates may like to address only one popular poll issue but America is more than just one thing. We need to pick the best person for every issue in America, and those that we are not expecting.

You get one vote, make it count.

Labels: aliens, democrat, Dow Jones Index, financial news, Iraq War, Nevada Caucus, President Bush, Republiocan, Senator Barack Obama, U.S. economy

While in New York City recently I visited with several old brokerage friends. During that visit we all discussed the market and what may potentially be on the horizon.

One broker, whom I respect and consider quite sharp [even when I disagree], had an interesting comment on my predictions. I believe that the move to junk rating of ACA, the probable $6 - 12 billion loss at JP Morgan [significantly higher than expected], eventual losses from Citigroup – which reinsures itself, oil breaking $100 a barrel, and the multiple overseas investments will all hit the market in mid-January 2008. Thus I think a move to 11,000 is more than probable.

My friend disagrees. His view is that if I am correct in these outcomes, then the Fed will be forced to lower rates further immediately. He feels that this is the only way to stem the problem that is the mortgage crisis. This is especially true when you consider the increase in credit card debt.

“All the people with million dollar homes that would be refinancing and getting an extra $200,000… They find it hard to change their lifestyle quickly. That says nothing about most people who are feeling deflation. And add those paying the mortgage with their credit card and you have a market that needs the Fed to cut.” – Paraphrase

Sound reasoning. But I don’t think a bear market is avoidable.

The fact that the mortgage crisis is far closer to its beginning than end. I expect that there are far more homes in danger than has been seen to date. Even with the highly selective mortgage bailout stated by President Bush, many are going to be at risk. Credit card debt can only float for so long. With the added pressure of oil at or above $100 per barrel, which I expect mid-January as I stated above, more will fail even if rates are lowered (less than 2 points).

Add to this the fact that financials are at high risk. The early infusion of foreign capital may look good now, but this does nothing for future and continuing losses. It’s window dressing. With re-insurers like ACA in trouble and Japanese banks are unwilling to help bailout the shortfall (due to very limited exposure to this risk), the sector will be weak. Historically if financials are stagnant or falling so goes the majority of the market.

That says nothing of the potential of a Democrat becoming President. Again historically a negative pressure on the market. It is even graver with several prominent Democrats nearly promising to increase corporate taxes (or outright take their profits – especially oil companies).

The Fed can lower rates, but that will not stop the general malaise I see coming. At the least the first half of 2008 will not be good. A move to 11,000 seems inevitable. If I am correct then the question is this.

Will those experiencing deflation outweigh the inflation fears? And if more people lose their homes how much of our financial institutions are we willing to sell to avoid the harshest realities of a crash?

Labels: ACA, bear market, Citigroup, credit card debt, democrat, JP Morgan, Michael Vass, mortgage crisis, New York City, overseas investments, President Bush

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: American economy, Democratic Party, election 2008, H and R Block, Iraq War, IRS, Middle East, President Bush, Presidential candidates, Republican Party, tax code

When will oil prices break thru the $100 a barrel mark? That is a question that Europe and America are considering now, even as OPEC has decided to hold production levels steady, and the question of an American recession loom on the horizon.

Though President Bush has taken action to halt the mortgage crisis, the demand and cost are still serious issues. So serious in fact that BP has just inked a $5 billion deal with Husky Energy to take a position on the huge oil sands reserves found at Alberta oil sands deposit. Previously the cost and difficulty of oil sands had prevented BP from getting involved, but with oil at nearly $100 a barrel there has been a need to change.

Oil sands are a mixture of sand, water and heavy crude, which is difficult and expensive to extract. But the partnership expects to be able to produce oil at a cost of about $40 a barrel.

Even if America, and subsequently Europe, falls into a recession the demand for oil is likely to increase (though more slowly) as technology consumes more and more. The expectation that future innovation in the recovery of oil from oil sands is probable.

Recently the Energy sector has been targeted by analysts looking at the S&P 1500 as the top sector recommended. And if the mortgage crisis fails to get worse, while America avoids falling into a recession, demad for oil will likely increase as the winter storms start to affect consumption. The demand for cheap and plentiful oil, without the influence of OPEC and the turmoil of the Middle East politics, is on the horizon.

Given that, the outlook for global energy stocks seems positive in the near-term at least.

“We like the outlook for raw-materials and energy shares very much,” said Pat McHugh, who helps manage about $310 billion as a portfolio manager at MFC Global Investment Management in Toronto.

Labels: BP, Husky Energy. OPEC, mortgage crisis, oil sands, President Bush, S P 1500

The ripple effect from the mortgage crisis here in America continues to reverberate around the world. As in China and Asia

“With the chance that U.S. markets will be receiving another rate cut by the Federal Reseve, Hong Kong rallied and took much of the Asia markets with it. Even the Chinese banks, which are expected to raise the reserve ratio to a high of 17%, gained with expectation”

the actions by President Bush and the expectations on the Fed have affected gold prices and stocks.

“This re-iterates that in America they will do anything to stop sub-prime. It has put confidence back into the US market, and that is why guys are going out of gold.”

Even with this resurgence in confidence, and the prospect of lower rates in American and subsequently the rest of the world markets, there is still the possibility that a recession is in America’s future.

Several factors remain in the air that will influence the outcome of the economy and the price of gold and gold stocks. Sales for the holiday season, and the amount of discount being provided by retailers, are being watched closely for clues on year end and first quarter corporate numbers. Energy prices, which were recently as high as $100 dollars for a barrel of oil, has helped to put pressure on the economy as well.

“When will oil prices break thru the $100 a barrel mark? That is a question that Europe and America are considering now, even as OPEC has decided to hold production levels steady, and the question of an American recession loom on the horizon.”

Not to mention the predictions of Goldman Sachs

“Goldman Sachs said today that investors should sell gold in 2008 to take advantage of the steadying dollar.”

Yet with all of this gold rose above $800 on Tuesday. To say that speculation is in the air is the least of things. With so many factors inter-related, geo-political unknowns and the impending primary voting on the horizon there is no surprise that February gold futures contracts were recently quoted at $855.

Will the futures contracts be accurate? Will America fall into a recession? Will a Democrat be elected President? No one is quite sure, but the answers will become apparent very soon.

Labels: 2008 election, china stocks blog, Energy prices, February gold futures contracts, Federal Reseve, Goldman Sachs, mortgage crisis, OPEC, President Bush

Continued from Where are the answers from Senator Clinton Part 2...

Before the primary elections occur don’t you think you should know what experience was going on for 30 years that the Senator claims but did not hold any office for. Don’t you want a President that will do everything to protect America from a nation that has repeatedly stated they wish our destruction? A nation that is actively building a weapon who’s only purpose is mass death? A nation that felt a need to kidnap our citizens, unprovoked, and that actively denies the Holocaust?

Or what about a President who’s answers are direct enough that anyone can understand how they answer a yes or no answer.

“MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense.

SEN. CLINTON: It –

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.”

Like I said, I’ve seen dramas with less twists and turns. And some though politics are boring. Well if you want excitement, vote for a President that you don’t know where they stand. If that isn’t enough adrenaline, don’t vote.

Just remember that once someone is elected, you have to live with that for 4 years.

Labels: election 2008, political debate, President Bush, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton

Continued from What are Democratic Presidential candidates saying about Scooter Libby? Part 1...

Mr. Edwards stated,

“Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today…”

If this was a mistake, then the crime was incidental. Therefore the punishment should not be as severe. Even so, there are consequences that are being enacted on Mr. Libby. Unless losing the career that was the basis of one’s life is inconsequential.

Senator Obama stated,

“This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law…”

Mr. Libby did not commit treason. He was convicted of saying he spoke to people he told the FBI he did not speak to. National security was never an issue or question and was never considered in the charge against him.

Gov. Richardson is quoted,

“There is a reason we have laws and why we expect our Presidents to obey them. Institutions have a collective wisdom greater than that of any one individual. The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking….”

President Bush followed the law, commutation is one of his priviledges. The President did not reverse the collective wisdom of the jury, there was no pardon. The one individual he did modify was the judge who imposed the punishment. I do not see how this is disdain.

Senator Clinton said,

“Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent….”

This is an interesting person to be speaking about a commutation after the well publicized pardon of Mr. Mark Rich that President Clinton made. Even so, again the President (Bush) was well within the law in commuting PART of the sentence. Again, there has been no connection to a cover-up or politicizing of national security in over a year plus of this case. What one man lying to the FBI about who he spoke to months prior has to do with the Iraq war is beyond me.

I have not written this as a pro-Republican view, nor is it against the Democratic candidates. I seek to work through the soundbites and rhetoric to reach the actual fact and comments being made. Politicians love to evoke emotion to obscure the facts of an issue, or to divert the conversation to a subject they prefer to speak about. That is not good enough for ANY candidate that wishes to be President of the United States in my opinion.

Perhaps I am alone in this thought, but this seems to have been a waste of the governments funds. The use of our taxes has a better use than a multi-year snipe hunt, the capture of one individual in a lie that affects nothing, and rhetoric from candidates that is meant to whip up emotions for the exclusive benefit of the politicians themselves.

I felt it was a waste when President Clinton was being persecuted for lying to the nation, on live television, about getting oral sex, I think no different now. There are far more important issues that need to be discussed, in depth, and far better uses of our money.

Just something to keep in mind as you hear the Republicans and Democrats waste our time and your donations speaking (or making ads) about this issue.

Labels: Gov. Bill Richardson, President Bush, President Clinton, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama

Well the big news among the Presidential candidates today is all the buzz about Mr. Scooter Libby getting a commutation of part of his sentence. I have not seen comments from the Republican candidates, but I will comment and provide what I found on the Democratic candidates.

First of all, what is commutation of a sentence? It is part of the powers of the President. It is similar to a pardon, but it is not that. Pardons nullify a sentence, effectively removing a juries decision. A commutation lessens the punishment for the conviction, effectively modifying a Judges decision. I want that to be clear as many pundits, besides the candidates, are wording their responses as if this were a pardon. Another example of soundbite politics, trying to confuse or obfuscate an issue in order to sound better to voters.

Let me also clarify why there is a mention of this case in the first place. Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI. After tens of thousands of dollars were spent looking for a conspiracy in the leak that might have revealed a covert agent, this was the only charge made. Depending on your political leaning Mr. Libby was either lying on purpose or lied as a consequence of a bad memory on events several months prior. The conviction was 30 months in jail, $250,000 fine, and a loss of his ability to act as a lawyer – forever.

President Bush removed the jail sentence. That’s it. Mr. Libby still has a conviction on record, still cannot practice law, and still must pay the fine.

Now as for the comments, Senator Biden said

“…I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.”

The rule of law says that the President can commute or pardon any federal prisoner. Where is the law disregarded?

Senator Dodd said,

“…The only ones paying the price for this Administration's actions are the American people.”

It was the Democrats in the Congress that claimed and pursued a conspiracy, that was never found, which happened to cause this event. If there was no pursuit of a conspiracy that no news media in the nation could find, Mr. Libby would be working today.

Mr. Edwards stated,

“Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today…”

Continued in part 2...

Labels: John Edwards, President Bush, presidential candidate, Scooter Libby

Continued from Senator John Kerry 'jokes' about the military - 11.1.2006.1 ...

Considering how I feel on this matter I asked several people their thoughts. An older taxi driver thought Sen. Kerry should learn to ‘shut up if he can’t figure out what to say’ especially since there isn’t a Presidential race for another 2 years. Not too far from what many election-motivated politicians are saying. But as I received a haircut I saw a major revelation.

The barbershop is African American owned and run. Everyone in the shop was younger than myself, beyond that I can’t say more as I don’t know. When I brought up this subject, not one person out of the 9 there knew anything about the issue. I found this surprising as I do know the barbershop has a cable fed television. When I mentioned the comments, the response from President Bush, and the follow-up by Senator Kerry I asked what were their thoughts.

Virtually no one had a thought. One man did say that he though that Kerry was wrong, but he disagreed with President Bush. When he was asked about why he felt like that he said he wasn’t sure. So I pressed on. I asked if there was a draft would he serve, his reply was I wouldn’t have a choice. I corrected that he could refuse or run away like some did during Viet Nam. Given that option he thought about it and said yes he would. 2 other younger men (I’m guessing 18 -23ish in age) said no. Their reason to not do it was that they disagreed with President Bush. These young men felt that the war was about oil and that President Bush failed to protect the nation, as opposed to President Clinton. Then they asked me if I thought Senator Clinton could win an election for President.

I mentioned a couple of choice comments on her, and I mention that while we were not attacked in America there were many things happening during the Clinton Administration. This was confirmed by another man.

In an effort to be more consice I’ll summarize the rest of the conversation that basically only dealt with the two 20-somethings. We discussed Senator Clinton (and her voting record as well as announcements on popular subjects), North Korea and its nuclear weapons, the future oil needs of America (and the untapped reserves in Alaska) and the world, the media’s manner in providing information, and the full comments of the 2nd stripper in the Duke rape case (some of my comments can be seen at Duke allegations part 1). In each case and on every subject these men had no idea about the background of the subject.

To be concluded in Barbershop thoughts part 2 ...

Labels: African American, President Bush, Presidential race, Senator John Kerry