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: Democratic Party, foreign policy, illegal immigration, Iraq, M V Consulting, national healthcare, political poll, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Republican Party, U.S. economy

For those that missed it, here are the speeches made by Senator McCain and President Obama after the election results were announced.

Senator McCain Concedes


President Obama victory speech pt 1


President Obama victory speech pt 2


Both were very good speeches. I though Senator McCain was exceptionally gracious and supportive of President Obama.

President Obama set the bar high. Let's hope that he can match or exceed it.

Labels: President Barack Obama, Presidential election race 2008, Senator John McCain

President Obama has won the 2008 election. I am as elated by that news as any African American or minority in America right now. But at the same time I am looking at what the nation said last night.

At 6pm initial exit poll results started to flow and there were several important facts that were provided by the polls, granted that the information was slanted as all exit polls have been shown to be.

While 93% stated that the economy was negative right now, only 47% thought the economy would improve in 2009 and 40% supported the $700 billion bailout package that is still working it’s way into the economy. This bailout may be part of the reason that 73% disapproved of the job the Democrat-led Congress has done. And it may also be part of the reason that 70% predict that taxes will be higher under President Obama.

And that’s the important thing to note. The economy was the single most important issue among those polled. 62% felt the economy was priority #1. It was that thought and the thought that Senator McCain would continue the policies of President Bush (50%) resonated with the masses along with the feeling that President Obama was in touch with them (57%).

Honestly these are dumb reasons.

Several key Democrats presided over the downfall of the mortgage crisis, thus directly requiring a bailout, which had it’s creation in the Democratic policies of President Clinton and Democrats pushing loans to people that did not qualify to receive them. Somehow this escaped the public notice. As did the thought that there is nothing to stop a Democratic President with a liberal agenda and voting record, backed by a Democratic Congress, from creating more bad policies that even more Democrats may ignore in favor of Party unity in a time of an economic downturn.

$1.2 trillion dollars may well look cheap before the next 4 years are up. Especially since President Obama has promised to expand the Government by $837 billion and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is waiting for the inauguration to present a $300 billion stimulus plan (at least, it may be higher by then based on her comments). That means 2009 may well start with a Congress approved budget, passed without consideration in full, with a stimulus plan that doesn’t work in an economic downturn. That’s another $1.1 trillion and that does not include anything necessary yet. And all of it must be paid by the American public at some point soon.

Still 51% felt that Obama’s policies were just right (obviously they didn’t have a calculator handy), though the polls also showed that 60% felt that Senator John McCain and not President Obama has the experience to traverse things properly.

And for those like Harry Reid that want to say that President Obama was elected as a statement of the people, the polls (which skew Democratic) stated that only 30% of voters picked President Obama because he shared their views. That’s piss poor low. What is more accurate and clear is that voters made a statement about President Bush – whose disapproval was just 2 points better than Congress at 73%. Sadly he wasn’t the one that was up for election so the point is moot.

It was the economy, and the promise of President Obama to provide money to low income Americans even if they don’t file taxes that made the election – which was stated in the poll by the 51% that thought the Government should do more to solve problems. So the more that pundits and politicians alike explained why this plan to offer the equivalent of welfare at the cost of the economy, the more it guaranteed a win for President Obama. For the 81% that feared that their family finances would be hurt by the mortgage crisis/credit crunch, it was like manna.

Don’t get me wrong, millions were voting in this election (in excess of 105 million by the last count I saw). Not all of those that voted agreed with all of the above. But more than enough did to provide President Obama with the win. Also in that group are Americans that voted for Obama based on race – some 47% believing that President Obama would mean an improvement in race relations for the nation. That part I hope is true, both for selfish and national reasons.

But while the electoral vote was huge, and will be the focus of comments by Democrats in justifying their agenda and giddy news media, the popular vote was quite close. For most of the race up until the well after 11:39pm there was only a 3% difference in votes (which was the margin I had previously mentioned I thought would decide the election). This was no landslide victory.

The nation is still as center-right as it was yesterday. But it will be lead by a left of center Government in the Executive, Legislative, and potentially by the end of 4 years Judicial branches. That means higher inflation, higher taxes, Government run healthcare (equal in stature and performance to the way the VA is run), retreat from Iraq and likely Afghanistan, legal abortion at any stage (so effectively an alternative contraceptive), gay marriage, public votes for unions, higher electricity costs, and no nuclear power. Oh I forgot fewer coal plants, higher demand for electricity due to electric car mandates and less supply, more ethanol gluts, and limited if any domestic drilling.

Doubt me if you will but just keep track of these items as the next 4 years go by. In fact I expect the 111th Congress to vote on these 4 items in January or February

2nd stimulus plan
Tax code change for people below $200,000 - $250,000 and corporations and investments
End of secret ballots for unions
Passing the Fairness Doctrine – effectively either limiting free speech that does not express liberal views or glutting media with liberal speech that would not make it without Government intervention

Some may find all the above appealing. But almost half the nation did not, and with reason. Reasons we all may well learn very quickly.

Not to mention the crisis that Vice President Biden promised to occur. And that President Obama would seemingly fail at, again as VP Biden promised.

But I could be wrong. The economy could rebound without help, or inflation and slowdown. The stock market might not sell off another 1000 points by the end of the inauguration in January. Americans might just go right out and spend all the credit they can find this holiday season and Wind energy may become effective in 6 months (much to the benefit of Nancy Pelosi’s stock account). I hope I am wrong.

Because I honestly want the First Black President to be the greatest President ever. I want him to be seen as a strong leader. A world leader that will defend America with force if pushed, with wisdom to improve – or at least stabilize – the economy. A President that lifts the nation such that teen pregnancy and high school dropout rates fall lower. A President that inspires small business start-ups and job creation. And if he can convince China to join us in cleaning the earth, and ensure quality healthcare I’d love it.

Throw in reparations and an apology for slavery and I’d be tickled pink.

But we all know that isn’t going to happen. But we will get change. And I will blog about the positives, negatives, promises kept and broken. And I’m more than willing to eat crow and say I was wrong – especially if the First Black President can sustain history in the manner I described above.

We will see. It all starts in 76 days.

Labels: Congress, mortgage bailout, Nancy Pelosi, President Barack Obama, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, tax policy, U.S. economy

At 11pm, with the announcement of California, Senator Obama has garnered 297 electoral votes and is thus the next President of the United States.

It is a historic moment. Millions never expected to be alive on the day that a Black man could be President. 389 years ago all of the African Americans ancestors were considered property, 143 years ago we became free and recognized by law as equal to any other human being - as we should always have been.

It has been a huge change in the past few centuries. And it has been accomplished by an extraordinary man. No matter what you may think of his political ideas, there can be no question that Obama is the embodiment of a different America than even just 10 years ago.

This is the First Black President. President Obama has broken the highest ceiling in the nation. He has become a symbol that truely, finally, in the most real sense any American can grow up and become anything they choose to be if they strive hard enough for it.

This is a night to celebrate. It is a moment of history I cannot bring to words. It is something that will resonate for lifetimes.

I hope that this will signal a growth in America. In our culture and society. I hope it is the first step in a future that regardless of economics and othe issues brings about the end of the race issues that have plagued America since our birth.

Tomorrow is another day, and we can dispute the politics then. But tonight there is only one thing to say.

World, say hello to the 44th President of the United States, President Barack Obama.

Labels: President Barack Obama, Presidential election race 2008

So far the votes are on-going, but at least Fox News currently calls the election 200 - 90. With the loss of Ohio to Obama, McCain virtually needs the entire mid-west and west coast to win the election.

While the electoral vote leans strongly to Obama, the popular vote is a near total tie. Currently it's 15.9 million to 15.8 million. So while the electoral vote is in favor of Democrats the people are evenly divided.

If Obama continues to hold out the lead he has currently, which seems likely, that means that we will have a Democratic President, who is the most extreme liberal in the Senate. He is also the 4th most partisan Senator. But once elected the facts will no longer matter.

I am not too happy right now, and I'm making plans for where I need to move my money as I expect a 500 point drop in the stock market by January and another 500 right after the inauguration.

But it's not over, and McCain still is in the running. Florida, California, Texas, and many other States have yet to be called - or even close voting.

More soon

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

The early results are starting to come in. At 5:30 the first exit poll results I have heard of (from Fox News) have been announced for Ohio, Indiana, and Virginia. These results are based on 10% of the vote. As with all exit polls there is a tendency to exaggerate Democratic results, and at this early a stage nothing is concrete.

So if you haven’t voted yet, there is still time. Don’t let early poll results sway your choice. Any result at this point will change, guaranteed.

But that said here are the results.

47% expect that race relations will improve if Obama is elected President

70% are fear/expect another terror attack

62% are worried about healthcare

68% favor domestic (offshore) drilling

70% expect higher taxes if Obama is elected

In addition the voting is turning out with 10% new voters and likely will hit 130+ million voters this year – short of my hoped 150 million but a record. So far 36% of all voters have been White men.

With 10% of the vote as represented by exit polls, not actual votes,

Indiana – 73% for Obama
Ohio – 69% for Obama
Virginia – 63% for Obama

Of the White male vote, which is an Obama weak point

Indiana – 44% for Obama
Ohio – 47% for Obama
Virginia – 39% for Obama

Late deciders may be very critical in the eventual tallies. So far it seems that late deciders made up their minds within the last 3 days and account for 7% of the vote.

Indiana – 52%
Ohio – 54%
Virginia – 44%

Based on all this little can be said for sure. If this trend continues Virginia will go to McCain. Ohio might slip to Obama. Indiana is a toss up. But it seems that late deciders are very mixed on who they chose.

No data on Black voters, women, age groups, or any other category has been released yet.

More throughout the night.

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

As we all head out to vote today, and I do urge all my readers that are American citizens to vote, I stopped to notice a couple of the better quotes of this Presidential election. Now I won’t go all the way back to the Primaries, just looking at the McCain and Obama campaigns since they each got the nomination.

Each of these quote reflects an aspect of the candidates. And I think these sum up my thoughts about the campaign well. I invite you all to send in your favorite quote as well. I’ll add them up and let you know what is the winning vote (not counting my selection) and if that matches the winning candidate.

Should be interesting.

From best to bottom for me are:

Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago. – Senator John McCain during debate with Obama

I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich. – Senator Obama on the question of his socialist ideals

I'm looking forward to meeting [Joe Biden]. I've never met him. I've been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, the second grade. – Gov. Sarah Palin

Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left. – Senator McCain stump comment

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities. – Gov. Sarah Palin at RNC

What the naysayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you. – Senator Obama at DNC

I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody. – Senator Obama to Joe the plumber

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

The eve before the Presidential election. And the media is losing it’s mind.

As I was playing in my Monday night 8-ball pool tournament (I’m currently 12 for 12) and happened to look up at the television. It was about 7:30 and on ABC News there was George Stephanopoulos and a reporter. The 2 were discussing projections of who will win the Senate races in various states. This is a day before anyone has voted!

Tell me how ABC is not influencing voters a day before they go to vote. All of this ‘projection’ was based on the early votes made so far. And the early vote is never the majority of a State’s vote. Just doesn’t happen. So they are telling the public what might well amount to blatant lies once votes are done on Tuesday. Unless they influence the voters to not show up, since the outcome has already been decided – by that news media organization.

While ABC News is busy trying to garner Democratic votes, in an act that has never occurred in an election ever before, there is more news hitting the air.

Senator Obama has apparently stated that he will bankrupt coal power plants. This of course will drive electricity costs through the roof and leave tens of thousands unemployed. I’m shocked that this has been so well hidden up til now.



This goes along with the plans of Senator Biden to end coal power usage



The defenders of Senator Obama will rant away about Fox News publishing this video and how not to trust Fox News, but those are Obama’s words coming out of his mouth. The same is true of the video of Biden.

I have raised these issues before over the summer. This is not new information. But for some reason Senator Obama was never connected with what he has said.

Under an Obama Administration the American public will pay more for electricity, as a punishment and a means for reducing energy use. In the next video you don’t need to pay attention to the editorial words added, just listen to what Obama says.



Again these are the words of Senator Obama.

When you go to vote tomorrow remember these facts:

• Obama is in favor of higher electricity prices to force people to conserve energy
  
• Obama is aware that his plans could cause higher unemployment and difficulty for Americans
  
• Obama is aware that the higher costs would be felt directly by Americans and not corporations
  
• Obama promises to raise costs of corporate taxes, but does not believe this will be passed on to the public
  
• Obama does not believe that the higher unemployment will affect America negatively since he will take money from Americans to give to Americans he chooses
  
• Obama disagrees with secret ballots, at least when it comes to unions
  
• Obama supports spending more money the Government doesn’t have to create another stimulus plan (Nancy Pelosi’s idea, cost $300 billion and increasing, did you notice how well the last one worked, and you will pay for that from taxes)
  
• Obama defends Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the others responsible for lying to the public in July about how safe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were – the failure of which led to the bailout you will pay for in upcoming years
  
• Obama’s foreign policy plans are disputed by his Vice Presidential pick Biden
  
• Obama voted in March 2008 to raise the taxes of every American making $31,850 or more
  
• Obama believes the Government that can’t run the post office or the VA can make better healthcare decisions than you can
  
• Obama believes the Government can run a healthcare department efficiently, yet there has never been a department or agency of the Government that has cost less than the year before in 40 years – paid for with your taxes
  
• Obama has never explained his relationship with the self-admitted terrorist William Ayers – who helped launch Obama’s political career
  
• Obama and Biden routinely punish news agencies that ask questions they don’t like – Florida television, and newspapers alike can’t ask questions any more even if you want an answer to that question
  

Every item is something I have covered about Obama since 2007. Every item can be found on my blog, or you can search the net and verify it yourself. Every single item is an important issues for the next President of America.

Are these issues you can live with?

You get one vote, make it wisely. Be informed.

Labels: ABC News, George Stephanopoulos, news media, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden

I find it interesting as we come upon the 2008 election to reflect on what has occurred in this year. From the surprising Democratic Primaries up til now there has been a shift in politics that will never be undone. I never thought I would see this in my lifetime, and now I look forward to the fact that it will happen again and again.

Obviously I am speaking about Senator Obama, his rise in prominence, and the potential of his becoming the First Black President.

It’s a proud moment for every African American. Especially for those of us that have lived decades without the chance even being a glimmer in possibility. This in many ways is the culmination of the struggles of the 1960’s.

To bad that I won’t vote for him.

And that is the big thing. I have been slammed by associates, readers, and too many others on this one point. The non-acceptance of my decision to not vote for Obama has been a sledgehammer in my blogs and my personal life. You would think I was stabbing someone.

This has been a very personal election, unlike any other in my life. I’ve been questioned, insulted, disputed, and more often than not cursed. Were it not happening to me I’d even say it was sort of funny.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told I’m not Black. That I’ve done something wrong. That writing about the issues, and noting the problems I have with Obama’s policies is somehow a disservice to my race. I’ve even been told I’m un-American. And of course there have been more than a few racists that have misused my words and thoughts for their own twisted ends.

But tonight I was just sitting back writing and listening to my MP3 (I bought my first one just this year) and James Brown’s Say It Loud came up. I listened to the lyrics several times and then read them.

Uh! With your bad self!

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!

Some people say we've got a lot of malice
Some say it’s a lot of nerve
But I say we won't quit moving until we get what we deserve
We have been bucked and we have been scorned
We have been treated bad, talked about as just bones
But just as it takes two eyes to make a pair, ha
Brother we can’t quit until we get our share

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!
One more time!
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!

I worked on jobs with my feet and my hand
But all the work I did was for the other man
Now we demand a chance to do things for ourselves
We're tired of beatin' our head against the wall
And workin' for someone else

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud

We're people, we're just like the birds and the bees
We'd rather die on our feet
Than be livin' on our knees

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud

I’m Black Puerto Rican and I’m Proud. I’m also insulted that I have to make such a statement because of my political beliefs.

I have worked hard, lived through fights, slurs, been denied jobs, and been homeless twice. I’ve gained an education, never been hooked on drugs, lived overseas, been part of the military, and helped more than a few on my path to where I am today. And every day I’ve lived I woke up as Black Puerto Rican as the day before. I have no illusions, and no problems with that.

But to try to discredit my lineage and birthright because of a political position is just absurd. It pisses me off.

This election is not about righting the wrongs of racism, segregation or any other race based issue past or present. Obama is not Malcolm X, Martin Luther King or any other civil rights activist. Electing Obama will not suddenly make police forces in L.A., New York, Philadelphia or anywhere in the nation treat Black, or any other racial and ethnic group, any better than the day before. And racists won’t wake up with larger minds or a better understanding of humanity.

I respect and admire Senator Obama. He’s accomplished things I wouldn’t try to do. The fear of being murdered, especially before I could enact positive change on some issues is too strong in me. He is going for it anyway and that takes balls.

But that does not mean I must follow blindly and accept his every word and policy as best because he said so. His path was no less difficult or extraordinary than my own, and that of millions of other non- and White Americans. As such he is subject to the same critique as anyone. In fact I would consider myself much less of a man, and less of a Black Puerto Rican, if I did not judge him in the same way I would anyone else.

Listen to that song. James Brown didn’t ask for any corners cut. He didn’t demand obedience to a color, in fact he demands the opposite. He demands that we empower ourselves and live by the standards we create. That everyone that meets us shows the same respect and dignity that we exemplify individually and as a group.

And when I have lived a life of just that, how dare anyone try to denigrate me for that.

Obviously I am speaking about a few people. Many have sound reasons for believing in Obama. Many never considered race and they came to a separate decision than mine. And I respect that.

But that’s not who I am talking about.

I’m talking about the people that loved me when I supported Senator Obama over Senator Clinton in the Democratic Primaries. They also ignored my support of Fred Thompson and Senator McCain at the time. They ignored my strong Republican views. They only saw my race and that of Obama. Some where White, and some where not.

It’s those same people that have abandoned my blogs, or attacked them since. And I have to wonder how they came to see me as any less of a man, no matter my color.

When America comes to a point where race is more important than the man or the message, the nation is in trouble. Just as the nation was falling in the late 50’s and 60’s the same threat still exists. And when that same color-focused blinders are on and any deviation is attacked we return to the same dangers that existed a mere 40 years ago.

Maybe I’ve followed this election for too many years, been too involved in trying to cover the facts that too few have the time to see. Maybe I’m up to late every night and day for you my readers. Maybe I need a vacation as my skin is getting a bit thin.

So yes I’m venting. But as that may be, I’ll get some sleep and be back at it tomorrow like I have for years now. I hope to see you all then.

Labels: African American, Black Republican, James Brown, Michael Vass, Presidential election race 2008, puerto rican, race in America, Senator Obama

As the hours count down, and over the weekend I hope that tens of millions will be searching the web for information on the Presidential candidates, I wanted to revisit the most controversial point of this election. The deep tan Obama has everyday.



At this point most people know who they will vote for. Already the votes are coming in. But to say that those with an issue on Obama’s race are only Democrats is a misstatement to say the least. Racism is not a political face. As much as many want to isolate the political parties by color the fact is Americans of all walks of life hold views and political affiliations of every type.

That said, I do note that Democrats do seem to love to discuss Obama’s race far more than Republicans. They love to attack him on it (ie. the Clinton’s and their campaign), and defend him from it – even when no one else is discussing the issue.

The big part of the video that I find important are the 30th – 45th seconds. The fact that saying you are not for Obama leads to near persecutions. If you are Black and say this people nearly jump out of their skins, especially if they are a Democrat. Because there should never be anyone that questions Obama – just ask Barabara West, The Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, and who knows who is next (besides Fox News of course). And according to the implications of the Obama campaign and supporters they are all racist and anti-Black. Hogwash.

Honestly I don’t see the issue. But because I am Black, and Puerto Rican, maybe that is the reason. After having lived a lifetime of comparing and voting for politicians that are of a separate race voting for a politician of any race is no big deal. They all get to be scrutinized and fact checked. They all get to be considered, and then a choice is made.

Some seem incapable of using their eyes while thinking. You might notice those people as they can’t chew bubble gum and walk either. And they won’t vote for any reason other than race. All they see is skin color, and they will vote for or against just because of that. Most aren’t honest enough to say this, but the few that are get the gold stars among the special ed crowd.

I just have to wonder. How does the color of a person change the person? At what point does a Harvard educated lawyer get less intelligent when viewed by a racist? How does his skin make him less intelligent especially since he has already proven that he is far more capable than most.

Look, Obama is just a man. He is running for President, and he has a set of qualifications. Some would say those qualifications are enough, other don’t (like myself). It is only those qualifications that are relevant. His clothing, the shoes he wears, his favorite television show, his favorite opera or square dancing are not important to whether or not Iran decides to build a nuke. Having a mole on him, going on vacation and getting a tan, having or lacking a tattoo, having a scar from childhood, growing a beard and more could and do not have anything to do with international interest rates, the level of the Dow Jones, or picking a Chief Justice for the Supreme Court.

And if you think, based on his answers and policies that Obama fails to have the right answers, that is not racist. No one should call you such because you made a decision, based on facts.

Being called a derogatory term because of your race and/or the race of someone else has never been fun. Normally it’s been a negative for Blacks, but right now that pressure and resentment is mostly on Whites. While it feels bad, and the irony is intellectually stimulating, it is not a reason to vote for a President. Hundreds of years of Slavery, and over 100 hears of Jim Crow and Segregations, and another nearly 50 years of “red light, green light” with race relations and laws will all not be smoothed over, forgotten, or absolved because Obama is, or is not, President.

Race relations in this nation have yet to get resolved. A President with a tan does not resolve the issues. People talking and confronting the issues resolves race relations. A President resolves domestic safety, energy policy, economic strategies. Voters should not confuse the 2 thoughts.

Ok, the thoughts have gone all over the place on this post. Take that for what you will. And remember to vote!

Labels: Dallas Morning News, Fox News, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Senator Barack Obama, Washington Times

I heard about this vide that was being sent across the net and I was just waiting to see how long it would be until I received it. I didn’t have to wait long.



Of course this is a video created by and circulated originally by my friends at MoveOn.org. What lovely people they are. But this video was sent to my by a reader I don’t know, Donna (last name withheld).

I’m happy to know that I have made an impact.

In all actuality I am amused that I received this video. But if you look at it closely you see it’s a bit insulting as well.

First off it equates a vote for Senator McCain as a non-vote. That’s a pretty high pedestal to be standing on, but considering that MoveOn has attacked the very military that protects its freedom to say what it does, I’m not surprised.

Be clear, a vote for Senator John McCain is no less a vote than for anyone else. And not voting for Obama does not make you a racist, if it is based on issues and not the fact that he is Black. Even if you are African American it’s ok to disagree with the bigger Government, spend today tax tomorrow, Government knows best policies of Democrats and Senator Obama. This is not akin to a mandate of your Blackness, its not part of the commoditization of Black culture.

But if I were to be the responsible party in a McCain vote, which by my numbers and expectations is a real potential, I would not be upset. I made my opinion clear, and my reasons. And I have yet to hear an argument, or policy, that gives me pause for that choice. (I would also love the attention and income that such responsibility would provide my blogs and company)

I love the way this video equates a loss for Obama as a national outrage. It completely ignores the fact that nearly ½ the nation (according to polls of committed voters, and who knows about the undecided votes) does not agree with Obama’s policies. If this video is conveying the outrage that might occur in San Francisco, Berkley, or Eugene, Oregon then I will sleep well at night.

In fact in looking over this video again I can see why MoveOn made it. It’s an attempt to scare, cajole, and/or shame voters to vote for Obama. It’s like high school cliques in video form. If you don’t do this you won’t be part of the massive crowd of kids that think they stand out and are different – even though they wear, speak and act exactly the same. How dare you have a brain, know the issues, and have an opinion they don’t like.

The fact that it goes so far as to use religion to slam home the thought that even God must like the politics of Obama. Please. It’s a bit hypocritical for an organization that would support the removal of all hint of religion from all aspects of the nation and public life, to use it as a selling point for their political views. God doesn’t care about politics, Moveon, unless every verse I’ve read in all religious tomes are wrong.

Some would say “Mike, this is just funny.”

No, it’s a targeted attempt to use subtlety and humor to force an opinion onto people. To give the impression that voters have an obligation, instead of a choice, on who to choose for President. It’s the classic move of some liberals and Democrats, to support freedom of speech until someone disagrees with your position. They then need to slam them hard and force them to change their mind to their side, or else. Kind of like what the Obama campaign did to Florida reporter Barbara West, among others.

The best part might just be the absurdity of the thought that McCain would bomb some ubiquitous goat herder. Though the counter thought of Obama sitting down with Iran’s President - to ask him to play nice with Israel, stop making nukes to bomb America, cease funding terrorist groups that plan to kill all Americans (including pacificst and Democrats), and if he is still listening maybe raise the cost of oil so Americans can’t afford it and be forced to use less energy until some new discovery makes an alternative to oil possible – that is terrifying and real.

Of Course MoveOn wants to really sell the Republicans are evil thought. And reinforces the thought that a vote for anyone beyond Obama, and democrats, is a non-vote. MoveOn has a personal gripe with President Bush, and so he is one of their biggest scare tactics. But be honest, to have ANY President mention your name in a positive manner while speaking to the nation is an honor. I wish I had that much influence. I may be a megalomaniac but I’m not insane. (Though I hope to get Bill O’Reilly to comment on a post or speak about me one day. It would be fantastic for my business.)

I will say this, if MoveOn.org is for Obama it is yet another reason not to vote for him. They are the most extreme far-left political group short of communists in China. Ok, that was a bit overstated – maybe the North Koreans and Castro. Of the political opinions they hold that I am aware of I know only 1 person out of about 10,000 in my life that agrees with them. Talk about outside the curve.

So the future I fear is an Obama win. His tax plans will hurt my business and the national economy. He will promote a healthcare plan that will make my health about as important, and as high a quality, as regular mail. He will endanger American lives, and lead us into a war within 5 – 7 years because of his weak stance on foreign policy. He intends to give more to those that do less. He is unbending on his views, and uncaring about other political opinions. He is duplicitous in what he will say to the nation to achieve his goals (though not as bad as Hillary Clinton). And all of that, if not quite a bit more, can all be found in following his campaign since his announcement to run for the Presidency – something I have followed virtually everyday.

I respect Senator Obama. My dislike of his policies is not personal. I admire the fact that he is a Black man that has overcome many obstacles to reach this point. I think he is an incredible orator. And I do not question his intelligence. But none of that is enough to cause me to vote for him.

Voting is always important. Choose who you think matches your hopes for the nation. There is no stigma, no social pariahs. You cannot be singled out, and all the bad jokes and peer pressure in the world will not make someone else’s opinion your vote.

A vote for McCain is as American as a vote for Obama. A vote for Republicans is as valid and honest as a vote for Democrats. A vote is your Right, exercise that Right. But don’t let stupid gimmicks disguised as a joke curb your opinion, nor limit your right to vote. Be informed – from both sides – then get out and make your voice heard.

Labels: moveon.org, Polispeak, political ads, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, That's why I vote, voter registration

For those that missed it here is the video of Senator Obama’s 30 minute ad.



I will note one thing for now, the only reason this was made and ran on 3 broadcast television networks was because of him breaking his promise to accept public financing.

Labels: Polispeak, political ads, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama

You know what? I’ve been following the Presidential election everyday for 2 years now. It’s been serious and informative. It’s been important and annoying. And I am tired.

So for a brief moment of complete levity I present the following videos. Because sometimes we all need to relax from the stress this election can bring.



and now the candidates please



Ok, now go vote!

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

In response to my post on Barbara West’s interview with Senator Biden I have heard many people excuse the response of Senator Joe Biden, and defend Senator Obama’s flexible tax plans. Even more have chosen to attack or dispute the questions of Barbara West.

First is a fact that this election seems to have avoided, at least in the sense of the major media. There are few questions that can be asked of candidates that are unfair. Any question that is based in whole in the words and meanings of a candidates statements is always fair and deserving of an answer.

In addition it is the responsibility of the major media to ask the candidates tough questions that some or all citizens have. When the media in question is more local those questions should be more locally motivated, but otherwise the questions should be asked. This has rarely happened with Senator Obama, even as far back as the Democratic Primaries.

The statement in question is Senator Obama definitely stating and standing by his desire to “share the wealth” of Americans, and doing so via Government mandate. This is beyond taxation and a statement of redistribution of wealth forced upon Americans. This is in no part an ideal of Democracy. The closest style of Government that reflects such attitudes is the socialism that Karl Marx discussed and wrote of – communism being a far more extreme form of that same government style.

Taxes are not meant as a means to check the power of Americans. In fact it is impossible to do so as a billionaire is still drastically wealthier than the middle class or less Americans. Yet they have only one vote and are equally as restricted in their campaign contributions. Taxes are a means by which the Government is able to enact policies it believes are in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

Barbara West did not ask the same question twice because the first is speaking on a Gallup poll and the effect of the Obama tax plan. The second question on the tax plan is asking to clarify the distinction of the tax plan versus socialism – which really does not exist as redistribution of wealth is a core point of socialism. That is the reason I believe that Senator Biden refused to answer the question, besides the fact that he was visibly upset at being asked tough questions which is rare for the Obama campaign.

And it should be noted that virtually every independent study of news coverage of the election has shown that Senator Obama has been treated with an unfair bias. He has been asked fewer tough questions and has had less complete investigation of his policies and past political votes.

Were the major media fair there would be questions on how Obama could claim he is a moderate when he has been consistently ranked by his voting as far back as the Illinois Senate as extremely liberal, as an example. The media has avoided coverage of several gaffes by Senator Biden that refute or question Obama policies. The media has failed to ask for clarification of several controversial or unclear policies and statements of the Obama campaign. Even right now you can go to Yahoo and see a poll result for the Presidential election that is unmatched by several of the most reputable polling companies including Rassmusen.

But the question at hand is the comment of “sharing the wealth”. There is no question of what Senator Obama has meant. He has repeated and defended his belief. Such a belief is liberal at the least and socialist in definition. It is effectively a cap on the productivity of all Americans.

A friend of mine explained this to her son who asked what it meant as follows:

“Say you were to do a job, like rake leaves, and be paid $20 for it. The guy across the street did nothing but watched you. Before you get paid the Government would take $15 dollars out of your $20 and give $5 to the guy across the street that watched you, and another person like him down the block, and another. But you get to keep the $5 for all your hard work.”

Her son felt this seemed unfair since they did nothing. I agree that giving people money that they did not earn and cannot justify, based on the will of the Government, is unfair. And in my experience, having lived in Moscow and Tsblisi while the USSR still existed, it does reflect aspects of the socialist style of Government.

I did not open my business to share the wealth I generate. When I chose to make a donation that is my choice, and any donation will go to something I support. I do not trust the Government to spend my money, and neither does Warren Buffett, John Kerry or other famous Democrats.

If Warren Buffett were so confident of the Government he would have left his money to the Government as opposed to a foundation run by Bill Gates. If John Kerry and other extremely wealthy Democrats were so in favor of sharing wealth with Government allocating the funds they would have donated millions (Kerry is worth in excess of $300,000,000) without any change of lifestyle. And I won’t even go into the donations of Senator Biden, which I outpaced.

But again I detract. Barbara West was justified in asking the questions she did. Senator Biden had an obligation to the citizens in Florida and the nation to answer the question. Senator Biden failed his obligation, not Barbara West. And the Obama campaign compounded that failure when they then had a tantrum and canceled the access of that media organization (including its Philadelphia affiliate) to the candidates. Because not being presented to Americans just prior to an election benefits whom on Election Day?

Labels: Barbara West, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator John Kerry, Warren Buffett

I recently made a Youtube video where I mentioned several questions that should be asked by each voter before they make their vote. The now famous Joe the plumber had a question that he asked of Senator Obama. Joe has been raked over the coals by many part of the media and internet for that. Much of the major media was also embarrassed that the internet and an average guy are asking the toughest questions of the Obama campaign since he decided to run for President.

But now we may see why



After that interview the Obama campaign pulled all interviews with Biden and his wife. The station, for those not familiar with Barbara West and Florida television, is the number 1 news channel for the last 20 years in Florida.

Over and over it seems that every news organization that challenges the Obama campaign is labeled as rude, outlandish, and biased. Every tough question has been branded Right-wing propaganda, and refused to be answered.

Everyone admits that the media overwhelmingly is in favor of Obama and has been unfairly easy in asking Obama questions. And even when Obama has been on “difficult” news media, like Fox News with Bill O’Reilly, and treated fairly he has turned around and blasted the organization as being unfair in their coverage.

Why is it that Obama refused to answer, and attack when asked, the tough questions. Why is it off-limits to question the direct similarities of Obama’s self-stated desire to redistribute wealth and socialism (which is a moderate form of communism)? Especially when socialism has part of its definition as redistribution of wealth? Why is it wrong to note the on-the-record comments of Obama from his past?

Do you think this is unfair? Is this a question that the news media can’t ask? And what else that might be of interest that cannot be asked.

By the way Biden stated directly that only Obama would be challenged by an international crisis. Colin Powell never addressed this in statements I read. And the Obama campaign did in fact give $800,000 to an ACORN subsidiary.

Labels: Barbara West, Bill O'Reilly, Colin Powell, Joe Wurzelbacher, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden

Well great minds think alike, and so several writer’s are discussing the chances of Senator Obama maintaining his lead and winning the Presidency. I too have been waiting to discuss this issue, trying to time it to be just in the attention span of most voters. But because this is important I will jump on the bandwagon.

Unlike many other writers I don’t care about polling results too much. And I won’t discuss an Obama or Bradley effect. Others have crunched the number more than enough on that. Instead I will focus on basic math that I think everyone can figure out.

There are racists in America. A shocking statement to some I am sure. Not everyone, not just in one region. And not just a stereotypical type of Whites or Americans. In all honesty there are racists of every color and creed in America, each for their own small-minded illogical reasons. And all to different degrees.

Taking that fact into account let’s do some numbers. Let’s say that there are only 1 racist close-minded individual per ten thousand in America. Let’s also say that only 200 million can vote in America. That makes 20 million that will vote based solely on skin color. Of that number roughly 30 percent are Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian. Assuming all 30% vote for Obama that is 6 million for and 14 million against. Those are just general numbers. Time to get more exact.

If we take into account that 43% of the nation was registered Democrat in 2004 (72 million and 55 million Republicans with 61% of voters voting) and that Rasmussen recently reported that the ratio in the nation was 38% Democrat and 34% Republican I gather that some 40% are Democrat with roughly 36% Republican.

Also taking into account the number of people in the nation was around 250 million, almost 75% of the nation made a vote. So the population today is over 300 million and thus some 225 million should be able to vote.

That means the vote should go 90 million Democrat, 81 million Republican with a total of 171 million votes which would be a record. That would be a 5% win for Obama, which is close to most polls right now.

But we need to add race. Adjusting the numbers we get 154 million votes splitting 81 million Democrat and 73 million Republican. That’s 8 million or 5% for Obama without race being a factor (which I pray is an underestimate of racial indifference but could be an overestimate).

Adding race we get 5 million for Obama and 12 million for McCain. The numbers change to 86 million Democrat, 85 million Republican when race is factored in again.

Now comes the real interesting part. The Hillary Democrats, and Democrats that just don’t like Obama’s political platform (which has nothing to do with race or gender issues). I will group them all together though they have different reasons, and I will take out 10% because they are part of the above figures. If 1 in 10 Democrats don’t like Obama’s plans and/or inexperience (which is what I have found in my conversations over the election cycle), and 10% of the Hillary Democrats are combined we get 16 million or 20%, minus the 10% I noted above, and you get another 10% of Democrats against Obama. The numbers are now 78 million to 93 million.

And for the sake of the unknown and to just correct for my adjustments I will add 4 percent to Democrats (since they have that lead in numbers) and 10% from Republicans (because that is an accurate measure of people that do not follow predictable patterns). Final numbers come to 81 million vs 84 million – in favor of McCain. There is 6 million left over or 3.5% that are really in question (including my rounding off of numbers).

That is the real race. That will decide the election. That’s how important the vote of every single American is. By my numbers the race is 47% for Obama, and 49% for McCain.

My experience says that the youth vote will not be as strong as hoped for currently, which will hurt Obama. In addition women will be in higher numbers, though I expect only a slight bias to McCain as a factor of that. Those 2 factors could make a 5 – 10% difference in the numbers above – against Senator Obama.

So my expectation is that we will likely see the following results:

• 154 million votes or 70% of Americans that can vote will, which will be a record.
  
• 78.5 million votes will win the election, or 51 percent.
  
• McCain will win 51% to 49%
  
• Democrats will claim that voters in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio were restricted from voting.
  
• A Democratic Congress will be re-elected
  
• The economy will continue to be bad, though the stock market will recover 1500 pts after the election.
  
• There will not be an international incident over the next 6 months.
  

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

The following is a transcript of the video. Just in case you missed something or wanted to quote and/or respond directly.

Over the next few days there will be a slew of television ads discussing the views of each candidate and why you should vote for them. Some will make sense to the one part of the public or another. But they are just polispeak and no decision should be made based solely on a 30-second ad.

Before you decide who to vote for in this critical election I suggest you think of these things:

In the last 20 months we have come to know Senator Obama, but do you know the relationship that exists with Bill Ayers today – He is an admitted terrorist and self-described anarchist without remorse as late as 2001 while he helped start Obama’s political career?

Senator Biden believes Obama will be challenged on the international stage if elected within 6 months, as he directly said. This is because Obama is inexperienced. Can America afford an international crisis while in a financial crisis and fighting 2 wars?

The major media is overwhelmingly biased in favor of Obama. They have used this bias to avoid asking tough questions, such that a plumber asked one of the hardest questions Obama has received in this election cycle. What has the media failed to let you know? And what will they receive as a benefit for this lopsided support?

The Government has not been able to balance it’s spending in over 40 years, which you and I do everyday. Considering that every department and agency of the Government costs more and runs less efficiently year after year, why would bigger Government cost less or be better?

After a century of running the post office, the Government still can’t get that right. What would make you think that they will be able to run the incredibly complicated task of healthcare better than delivering the mail?

We all want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end. But how they end is important. If you think an immediate retreat is best, think of the 3 million that were killed in Viet Nam after America retreated there. More importantly think of the fact that Al Quida and Iran will use a U.S. retreat as a sign of weakness and fear of their radical beliefs, which would spur future attacks. How we leave is as important as when.

Senator Obama promised to take public funding for the race against Senator McCain. He backed away from that promise. Senator Obama promised to speak to America with McCain in at least one if not more town hall events. Again he backed away from that promise. What other promises is Senator Obama capable of backing away from?

Higher taxes on business sounds great, but small business creates jobs. Higher taxes means less money to hire or employ workers. With business slowing down, less money means more unemployment. Is your job recession proof, especially if business taxes are higher?

I don’t proclaim to know all the answers. I admit I support Senator John McCain. But that doesn’t change the fact that you should know the answers to these and other questions before you vote.

Vote for whomever you believe in, but know what you are voting for. Vote for a reason, not a 30-second soundbite. Vote because you love America.

I’m Michael Vass, owner of M V Consulting, Inc. and I approved this message.

Labels: Iraq War, Michael Vass, nationalized healthcare, Polispeak, political ads, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator John McCain, tax policy, That's why I vote

Senator Biden has recently warned that Senator Obama, and exclusively Obama, will be challenged by international events due to his inexperience if he is elected to the Presidency. He continued to state that the response, to at least 1 of 4 or 5 different scenarios would at least look wrong, and that supporters would need to stand by and wait while the events play themselves out. And Biden finished the thought with a comparison of Senator Obama to President John Kennedy.

Since that time, the Obama campaign has wasted no time in backing away from the comments, while the major media has done it’s best to ignore the statements altogether. It is now stated that Biden was speaking of any President, which is a direct lie as he named Obama and only Obama – going so far as to be very clear that it was an Obama only issue when he made the original comment.

But putting aside the willful rewriting of fact, I want to focus on the comparison to President Kennedy. This is a popular comparison for Senator Obama. Both men were young and relatively inexperienced so in some ways the comparison fits, but the question is how much.

President Kennedy was rich. Very rich. Senator Obama was not.

President Kennedy was a family man, as is Obama.

President Kennedy was an adulterer, Obama is not.

President Kennedy came from a politically elected and connected family, Obama did not.

Before becoming President, and before WWII, Kennedy lived as a young adult in Europe and had a degree in international affairs. He also wrote a thesis on the appeasement, “Appeasement in Munich”. In addition his father was ambassador to England. Thus he had some degree of international experience and understanding, none of which Obama has.

President Kennedy volunteered for military service, and was accepted due to the influence of his father (before America was attacked at Pearl Harbor). He served a total of 4 years. Senator Obama has never served a day in any branch of service, and has in fact blamed U.S. servicemen for various acts that are inaccurate at best. (He has claimed U.S. forces have bombed villages and civilians)

President Kennedy was decorated with Navy and Marine Corps Medal, Purple Heart, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, and World War II Victory Medal. Again Obama has never served.

President Kennedy served in the House of Representatives for 6 years, and was a Senator for 7 years. In that time he broke several times with President Truman and the Democratic Party. Senator Obama has served 4 years as Senator – 2 of which have been during his time campaigning for President. He has never voted against the Democratic Party line, and is the most liberal member of the Senate.

President Kennedy had to fight against the belief that his religion, Roman Catholic, would affect his ability to lead the nation. Senator Obama has had to fight against the lies of his being a Muslim. In addition he has had to contend with racial prejudice.

President Kennedy failed in one of his first major international confrontations when he ruined the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. His inexperience led to the failure of support, naval and air, for the men that were attempting to overthrow Fidel Castro. The invasion attempt was planned before Kennedy was President and there was no action by Cuba to justify the revolt – beyond their support of Communism. Senator Obama has no international experience, and had his perhaps first major mistake in looking to have the U.N. punish Russia for the invasion of Georgia. (Russia is a member of the security counsel in the U.N. and thus could veto any action against it)

In 1962 Kennedy faced down the Soviet Union, which was emboldened by the Bay of Pigs result, as they tried to ship nuclear weapons into Cuba. It has been stated that America was within hours of a nuclear war before the Soviet Union backed down. Senator Obama has indicated that it prefers to speak with nations that are seeking nuclear weapons development, and hold a declared desire to see America destroyed – no matter what person is President. He has also threatened to attack the sovereign soil of an ally nation (given that Pakistan is volatile at best).

President Kennedy increased U.S. troops in Viet Nam from 800 to 16,000 in support of France (who was getting their butts kicked by the communist forces) to defend America against communism. Senator Obama intends to reduce the troops in Iraq from roughly 130,000 today to an unannounced number (though in his polispeak it is assumed to be 0) within 18 months of his being elected. Many dispute the effect of this, and I believe it to be a guaranteed manner in which to create greater instability in the region, empower Iran, and will lead to attacks on American soil within 5 years of the removal of troops.

President Kennedy also did vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1957 which many at the time opposed. But he also voted for the Jury Trial Amendment, which in effect nullified the Act, thus engendering the support of segregationist Senators James Eastland and John McClellan and Mississippi Governor James P. Coleman. There is no directly comparable law that Senator Obama voted for or against. But he has voted against funding troops in Iraq, an act that his own Vice Presidential candidate opposed very publicly, which was publicly a mixed decision.

So in looking at both men what do we get?

President Kennedy was a man who was familiar with events in the world and was active in them. He was dedicated to the nation and willing to put his life on the line to protect it – going as far as using political pressure to ensure his enlistment. He was willing to work against his Party on issues he felt were important, though he was also willing to compromise those issues for political favor. He made bad decisions early in his Presidency that caused near nuclear war at a time when few had such means but great fear. He was willing to use U.S. troops to enforce the views of America, even when there was no direct provocation or danger to America – though he foresaw future danger.

Senator Obama is unfamiliar with involvement with world events. He has preferred to make decisions based on political advisement instead of active investigation (he has visited Iraq and Afghanistan twice, the second time for both after he gained the nomination of the Democratic Party). He has framed himself as a far-left liberal and as such is against the military. He is a Party line supporter and has no real bi-partisan interests. He is interested in discussion as opposed to action, to an extreme. Enemies of America believe he is weak as well as inexperienced (much like Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs). He has served virtually no time in nationally elected office.

Overall there is in fact little connection or positive comparison of Senator Obama to President Kennedy. It might be summed up that both men were Senators (though for far different amounts of time, and Kennedy serving in both Houses), both had religious misunderstandings they had to overcome, both are Democrats. In addition both men can claim intelligence, families, wealth, and a dedication to America. Both men are charismatic and excellent orators.

Beyond that, there really is no comparison. Both men are very different and it would be fair to say that President Kennedy would likely oppose most of the campaign promises of Senator Obama. In fact it would be fair to say that President Kennedy would support Senator McCain and his policies – even if that meant breaking Party lines which he was wont to do.

So when we return to the promises of Senator Biden, keeping in mind the real comparison of President Kennedy and Senator Obama, it becomes clear that Obama is not the person that should be elected.

The media may not like to make that fact based comparison, the Democrats might prefer the romanticized pairing of the men, but when you really look at the truth and not the polispeak there is an obvious difference.

Labels: Polispeak, President John F. Kennedy, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden

For as long as Democratic candidates have been mentioning their desire to run for President most of the major media has been promoting them. Going back as far as 2006 the media was virtually guaranteeing Senator Hillary Clinton would be the next President of the nation. Once Senator Obama took the national attention they began they love affair with him.

While that is not as important a reaction when we are speaking about bloggers, though many of my colleagues are more than capable of swinging independent votes as I believe I am, the major media is meant to be independent. It is the purpose of the media to ask questions, tough questions, of the potential candidates. It is their purpose to inform the public of facts and comments of note by the candidates. It is the fact that they receive more attention and response than bloggers of most any size that we rely on them.

But the media has been remiss in their responsibility. There is no question about this. From the New York Times refusing to allow Senator McCain to write editorials, while approving 8 of Obama’s, to the failure of the media to investigate the relationship of Bill Ayers, the media has failed America.

Gov. Sarah Palin has had her kids, her husband, and her friends investigated by the media. Senator Obama has yet to have his friend Bill Ayers confronted. Yet audio tapes of Ayers decry his belief in anarchism, and interviews has clearly stated his lack of remorse and desire to have inflicted more terrorist acts against America. All of that while he served on a board with Senator Obama, and while he was supporting – if not creating – Obama’s political career.

We have heard about every aspect of Senator McCain’s health. His reports have been reviewed and questioned multiple times. So we know that he is in excellent shape for a man of younger years than he is. But there was no question asked of Senator Biden, who denied to present information about his health which is important because of his past health problems.

And just this week Senator Biden directly stated caution if Senator Obama is elected President. He directly stated that Obama, AND ONLY Obama, would be challenged on the international stage because of his inexperience. He further went on to state that the response of Obama would look inappropriate or bad initially. He even went as far as to say that there are 4 or 5 scenarios that could happen.

The major media failed to ask what those potential national threats might be. They failed to ask how America might protect itself, regardless of who is President. They even failed to notice this dramatic and important fact. Because they don’t want to affect those that might chose to vote for Obama. So they would spite America to satisfy their own wants.

In fact, in a moment of honesty, while interviewing Gov. Sarah Palin one of the few honest views on this matter was recorded.



So think of this. What else is the media not telling you about on the Democratic candidates. What other facts that are they withholding because it can affect your vote. What gain are they expecting in return for their targeted help and support of Democrats?

When the media is willing to ignore facts, and report polarized views, how is the public served? And where will it end? Will they ignore important facts about laws that Democrats want to pass that the public may not support? Will they gain tax or other incentives for their support? Are they being bought or allowing themselves to be compromised?

Most importantly, is Senator Obama and Senator Biden really the best choice for America if the public is not being told all the facts? Or are they the best choice for selected groups with targeted agendas that can mold public thought through deception and omission?

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, media bias, news media, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator John McCain

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: Congress, corporate taxes, Democratic Party, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, tax policy, Wall Street Journal

Senator Biden never made sense to me as a Vice Presidential pick for Senator Obama. He has made racist statements, and has made claims to equal the invisible bullets of Senator Clinton. He disagrees with the policies of Senator Obama on key issues, and he has declared (until selected for the VP) that Obama is not qualified and experienced enough to be President. Now he has made further statement s that are confusing at best.

Senator Biden stated

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.” he told a fundraising crowd in the Pacific Northwest on Sunday. “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“He’s gonna have to make some really tough - I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.”

So in Biden’s own words the Democratic candidate for President, that he believes is unqualified and inexperienced, is going to face an international crisis just because he has been elected. That perhaps Iran, or some other nation that is opposed to the existence of America no matter who the leader is, will cause a situation that requires a serious and immediate response from the nation. And he implies that this event could involve nuclear weapons, as it did for President Kennedy in the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Now considering the mistakes and failure of Senator Obama’s response to the invasion of Russian troops into Georgia – an ally of the United States, and the universal acceptance of Obama supporters in the fact that Obama is inexperienced (something that even Colin Powell noted when endorsing Obama) you have to wonder what would happen.

Will Obama try to sit down and talk with a leader of a nation that hates America as say crude oil shipments are held hostage? Or perhaps North Korea will openly renew efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Or perhaps Russia will invade another nation, threatening our allies in Europe. And even Biden cannot imagine bama’s response or style.

If Biden is right, and Obama is to be tested as he believes, are you sure he can repond well? Even Biden is not sure.

What I really don’t understand is why Biden would suggest such a scenario so close to the election. Why would he shed light on the fact that Obama’s inexperience and recent mistakes. How does clarifying and promising the likelyhood of international crisis – something Obama tries to avoid speaking about and is often wrong about – help his campaign.

I see the benefit of this statement. But I endorse and support Senator McCain. I have no question that McCain could handle such a situation. But according to Biden such a scenario would never be placed before McCain because he is experienced and strong on international affairs. Only because of the inexperience of Obama, like Kennedy, would this be done.

So the question should be, do we want a President that will be challenged internationally at a time when we are still reeling from monetary instability, engaged in 2 warfronts, and headed by an Administration that is internally conflicted?

Labels: Democratic candidates, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Biden, Vice Presidential candidate

In roughly 2 weeks the nation will be going to the election booths and selecting a leader for the next 4 years. That leader will be responsible for all the issues facing the nation today. The economy, the war in Iraq, potentially selecting Supreme Court Justices, and abortion to name a few.

Abortion is one of the bigger issues that the nation is very divided on. It has not been a main point of the debates nor in the media and pundits, yet millions will base their vote on this issue alone. Considering how strongly most feel on the issue I thought it deserved a bit more attention.

Just to be fair I will mention that I disagree with late-term partial birth abortions. I find that concept to be distasteful and painful just in imagining the act. I do understand how such a procedure can be performed to save the life of a mother, but beyond that I have no reason to accept this act.

Further I believe that men have no rights in any part of the thought of abortion these days. The media portrays men as callous and unfeeling, unreliable and prone to departure and as such deserve no voice in the matter. I feel that while this could be true of some men, it is not true of all men. I am not saying a man’s wishes should be the final decision, but that since it took 2 people to create the life in question some regard should be given to those men that wish to actively be involved.

And I do not believe in the concept of those that say that a baby is merely a visitor in a woman’s body. That the woman is the sole responsibility in how a pregnancy will play out. That the child has no right beyond that given to it to live.

Overall I am an advocate of choice with leanings to life, understanding that there are situations that create the need for an abortion. That does not mean that I am tunnel-visioned and cannot hear arguments on either side and evaluate situations as they are presented to me. Like life itself, abortion seems to me to be a situational decision that cannot be fit into slot A or B like policy on economics or building nuclear power plants.

All that said, the positions of the candidates are essentially the following as I understand it:

Obama supports the overall Democratic view that any form of abortion is permissible

McCain supports the view that abortion should be a decision of the individual state, as defined by that states population, and the Federal government should be outside that choice.

I state that Obama supports any form of abortion, including late-term abortions, due to his strong support of the Freedom of Choice Act (he is a co-sponsor of the bill, as is Senator Hillary Clinton). This Act assumes the thought that abortions are a Right, similar to the Rights detailed and outlined in the Constitution. While I agree that the Constitution is free to some interpretation, this claim is completely outside of its framework. There is no Right to abortions any more than there is a Right to suicide.

The Freedom of Choice Act asserts that abortion has affected the

“ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives”

Which seems to state to me that it is also stating that raising children is a negative for women, which I disagree with. And it seems to state that abortion is a form of contraception, which I think is foul. And I would even say that if a woman was really so focused on raising her economic and social life she could either not have sex, or ensure that contraceptives were used to prevent pregnancy, and/or ensure that her partner and/or she no longer had the ability to procreate.

But the Freedom of Choice Act also attacks the fact that there have been bans on abortion that disregard the health of a woman. That is equally a bad choice and a problem of law.

In essence my problem with the Act is most with the following language:

“the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”

The definition of that last part, when combined as a Right, allows for almost anything to be done. What is necessary for the health of a woman? Her emotional health, financial health? Does that include weight gain? Does that health provision mean serious changes in health or just cosmetic ones?

Thus under the wording that exists any form of abortion is allowable, which I disagree with.

But there is a problem with the view held by McCain as well. In backing away from a Federal mandate to allow abortions of at least some type, states could be pressured into making illegal any form of abortion, even when the life of the mother is in danger. That is not beneficial to women, or the nation.

If States are the only voice then women lose the strongest advocate in a truly personal and life changing decision. It weakens the ability of women to make this choice and opens the potential for ridicule and persecution of women that make this choice. I do not favor that kind of action.

So the question is which is the right choice for America? Which candidate would be most flexible? In my opinion Obama is less flexible than McCain. The Freedom of Choice Act is too vague and open to interpretation. It can be used to allow for abortion as a form of contraception, which I disagree with. And while McCain supports State decisions, he can be swayed to ensure an overall Federal support of the choice and legality of having an abortion.

Now without religion being brought into this discussion, which is a personal factor that does not apply to all citizens of the nation, which do you support? Will this make a difference in your vote? Is there a middle ground that the candidates should be looking to support? Is it possible to have a middle ground, and if so which candidate seems likely to reach it?

Labels: Abortion, American politics, political debate, Presidential election race 2008

Well if you haven’t heard about this, I am sure you will. The commercials and the pundits will likely be buzzing all week on this news. Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has endorsed Senator Barack Obama.



Now this is important on several levels. Powell is a Republican (as I’ve said in the past, Black Republicans do exist), respected on an international level as well as domestic, has great insight on foreign affairs, and is politically neutral (up til now). His opinion, and the weight he gives to Obama should not be underestimated. It should also be scrutinized as to why he picked Obama.

At the offset, Powell clearly states that he has followed this election since the candidates first mentioned they would run. That indicates to me that he was aware early on that this election would be the most important likely in decades. That the shape and ability of America will be shaped in the outcome.

And he clearly states that he is quite familiar with both men. He has spoken with both several times in almost 2 years.

Those are facts. And I interpret from that fact that neither man was able to convey a confidence for Powell. Further it is clear that he believes that the Republican Party is becoming too conservative and religious for his liking. In that I can say I agree with Powell, if I understand him correctly.

But it seems that Powell does not like the pick of Gov. Sarah Palin. It is not because she is incapable, nor that she is not qualified. It is the fact, in his opinion that she is not prepared or experienced enough at this time. That argument is one that many have made, and is the source of why Palin is so often compared to Senator Obama instead of Biden.

And the final critical point is the actions of Senator McCain with respect to the mortgage crisis and the credit crunch it has caused. McCain has made several moves on this issue and had several changes in policy as event have unfolded. This was a problem for Powell.

But I have a problem. It is the very lack of action, and the seeming disdain that Obama displayed in regard to the mortgage bailout and the credit crisis that bothers me. He did not do his job as a Senator when the Congress was debating and voting on the mortgage bailout. Were it up to Obama the bailout would have been passed with a clause that would take any repayments and provide them not to the public but to Democrat sponsored groups like ACORN. That is not where I would want my money to go, and the Government should not choose for my money to go there without my permission.

And Yes Obama has seemed very steady in his view of the crisis. In fact he seems more than unflappable, he is steadfast. Obama essentially refuses to change his mind on his tax plans, and the 832 billion dollars in new spending that he continues to promise, seemingly oblivious of the consequences of the trillion that has just been spent (to say nothing of the hundreds of billions just prior to that).

There is also a question of the judgment of Obama in picking a VP that opposes him so much on critical issues. That includes healthcare, Iraq, and taxes. This says nothing of the public denial Biden made about the preparedness of Obama to assume the Presidency. That speaks to me of an Administration that would be plagued with internal stryfe and ineffectiveness.

And as to the campaign of Senator McCain, I agree that the focus has drifted a bit from the core issues facing America at this time. But drifting is not the same as abandoning.

Yet I think addressing issues like Bill Ayers is important. Not only because Obama has yet to clearly state the nature of his relationship with this terrorist, but because he refuses to discuss the matter at all. He reacts as if mentioning that the actions happened in the past is enough. It is not, since the terrorist has no remorse and has stated in the present his desire to have done more domestic bombings.

And let us not forget that it is the Democrats who are firmly fixated on the past with regards to Iraq, and many policies of President Bush, if not also the 2000 election. If they believe the past is important for the future how is the past of Ayers, and his relationship with Obama not important?

So yes I agree that if this were about Rev. Wright it would be too far. And yes there is a hint of the anger versus terrorists in the message. But Ayers is unapologetic about the terrorism and domestic bombing he was admittedly responsible for. I feel that is important when dealing with a future President.

And I must ask, when has a Republican called Obama a Muslim? I am not familiar with anyone stating that, except one preacher who was then chided and refuted by Senator McCain.

But I do recall that it was the Clinton campaign that promoted and spread thoughts of Obama as a Muslim and drug dealer during the Democratic primaries. I do recall that they had staff going so far as to spread emails and appear in interviews stating these thoughts. Republicans, as I recall never have, but Democrats often have. And McCain has nothing to do with that.

And I do agree that there is nothing wrong with being Muslim in America. They are as American as anyone else. They are as religious and pious as any other religious sect. They are as worthy of any position as any other religious American. A Muslim can be a President, as there is Muslims in Congress. There is no difference than a woman, an African American, Hispanic, Jewish, Asian, Mormon, or other type of person as President.

So again I have to question how McCain can be responsible for every Republican in the Party, just as I believe Obama cannot be responsible for the actions of all Democrats – like various racial comments of Biden, the wild spending and disinformation of alternative energy stock ownership of Nancy Pelosi, or the inaction and hazardous inattentiveness of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in their respective banking committees.

So I respect the conclusion that Obama is transformational. I respect that his is an orator of exceptional ability. I respect that he has an image that conveys a thought of a new type of America. And the fact that he is Black is not a bad point either, being Black Puerto Rican myself. But is that enough?

Is it enough that he has ideas that he thinks are good. Is it enough that he wants to turn the nation from the hard right direction we are in now to a far left position he embraces (as opposed to a more centrist position that most agree the nation reflects as a whole)? Can we accept that he is potentially a President that would bankrupt the nation with his economic policies in his attempt to make everyone more equal? That he would rather face defeat and embolden attacks on U.S. soil in the future rather than struggle through a difficult and politically damaging success? That he would rather increase the cost of energy such that businesses would fail in order to enforce energy saving practices on the American public? That having a uniform and Government mandated healthcare is better than any other choice? That the Government is larger and more involved in the daily lives of every American and business than ever before?

Colin Powell agrees that Obama does not have enough experience. That he will need to be guided by others around him. But is not the choice of a person with enough experience to understand a good advice being given from purely political or bad advice the better choice? Is not a President who knows enough to ask a question not answered, or wise enough to ask a question not brought up, better?

The growth of Senator Obama over the past 20 months has been impressive, and I have no doubt that in 4 years he will be the choice for America. But today the inexperience and inability to work in a bi-partisan manner on even something as important as the mortgage bailout troubles me.

And as for those that would claim that Powell has supported Obama because both are Black, they have not thought the facts through. While I respect Powell, and his decision, I see his reasons. I do not agree with them, but at no point are they wrong or fabricated. He has expressed a well thought out and heartfelt reason why Obama should be president. To disagree with those reasons is no more about race than to oppose voting for Obama would be. In fact I think to simply disregard the arguments of Powell for Obama as simply race preference is to be racist in the most ignorant manner, in my opinion. I find that no different than someone deciding to not vote for Obama because he is Black, because a decision and choice as important as this can never be based on something as trivial as who has the best suntan.

So these are my thoughts about Powell’s choice. I respect his view, and the man. I respect anyone who has a well thought out view on why they should or should not vote for either Presidential choice. But I have to say that I disagree with his final view. But that is America, and it is a right that we each have.

Exercise your right to vote after you have exercised your mind and learned who the right choice is for you. Colin Powell has, I have, now it’s your turn.

Labels: Colin Powell, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party, Secretary of State, Senator Barack Obama

As with all the prior debates of the candidates involved in the 2008 Presidential election, I present the complete video of the 3rd debate between Senators McCain and Obama.

This was the most interesting debate of all 3. Yet I must state that 3 debates are far too few. In addition I have to say that 2 minutes to discuss intricate issues like education or healthcare, with a 5 minute rebuttal period shared between the candidates, is far too short to make a real statement. Given these shortcomings there was a lot of non-stump speech information in this last debate.

No matter which candidate you chose to vote for, you need to be informed on where each candidate stands. To that end I suggest you review the debates, and all the comments and debates of the Primaries, that each candidate has been involved in.

We have a right to vote, it’s important and vital. And only in all Americans voting can we receive the best choice as President.

Labels: Polispeak, political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

In watching and reflecting on the 3rd and last Presidential debate of 2008 there are a few immediate thoughts that come to my mind, a more detailed review will come tomorrow. The foremost is the thought that 3 debates, and only 1 for the Vice Presidential candidates, is far too few to really convey to the public the issues facing the nation. The next is that there were several inaccuracies by both of the candidates. And I have to say that this debate was by far the best of the 3.

Going beyond that I have to say that Senator Obama was very eloquent. His ability to debate is quite impressive. He made no major mistakes, and was very sure of his answers.

Yet I think that his answers were stylized and edited polispeak. He had poor answers to several subjects, which if you just listened in a cursory manner, or only heard him speak once, you might have missed. In fact if you have followed the campaigns since before the Primaries, as I have, you would find fault with several subject he spoke on.

Senator McCain was a bit more fiery at points tonight. It was invigorating when he got on the attack, which he has needed to do for some time. But at several points he disappointed as well. While he was less edited in his answers, he also failed to close a subject definitively several times. And he made a major gaff, in my opinion, when he was surprised by the answer of Senator Obama about the cost of healthcare on small businesses.

And speaking of Joe Wurzelbacher I’m not surprised that Obama did not want to discuss him much. The fact is that Obama has clearly stated that he wants to effectively cap the income Americans can make. That he will take money to redistribute to whatever he believes is best. That he does not trust the ability of individual Americans to use their wealth to the benefit of their families and the nation – preferring instead to grow a larger government that will oversee such decisions.

And by the way, Joe the plumber was not swayed by the argument of Obama. In fact he has clearly stated that he will not vote for Obama. Because the tax plans of Obama will mean that in buying the company he will lose money as Obama increases the corporate tax, personal tax, and capital gains tax nullifying future investments. Which means that Obama will either stifle growth of small businesses, or cause those businesses to fire or reduce the hours of workers just to pay the increased taxes.

Another fault of Obama, and this is more the problem of Democrats in general, was his insistence on being firmly focused on the past. He is fixated on placing blame, and living in the past descisions of President Bush. This lead to the best line for McCain

“I’m not President Bush. If you want to run against him you should have run 4 years ago.”

But McCain did not stay consistent in his strength. He failed to demand a clarification on William Ayers, which was never provided. The man was a terrorist, and it is unclear how much influence he had on molding Obama’s political career or when Obama became aware of the past of Ayers, or if their association has ever ended.

McCain failed to exemplify the importance of vouchers and better schools, not just more money for bigger Government run programs. McCain failed to deliver on the importance of having individual choice in healthcare, and how a system based on the Canadian or British models is a system doomed to failure. McCain failed to mention that there has never been a Government Agency or Department that has run efficiently or effectively in the last 40 years, at least.

McCain failed to mention that many of the economic proposals made by Senator Obama are similar to another President besides Herbert Hoover. That President was Jimmy Carter, and the result was double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and an overall malaise for the nation.

So in the end, the debate was a draw. Neither candidate shone more brightly than the other. Both were able to provide solid arguments for their proposals and views, and point out problems with their opponents position.

But Senator Obama was clearly the better debater. Of course this is not some school competition, there is no blue ribbon award for parsing huge subjects into the equivalent of a soundbite. The next president cannot be elected because of their composure in a debate, or the speed in which they respond to a question with bullet points of their stump speeches.

Polispeak may win elections, and look great on the television. But it does not prove the worthiness of a Presidential candidate. Nor does catchy phrases like “Senator Government” – even if it was an accidental blurb.

I have long ago declared that I am a supporter of Senator McCain. M V Consulting, Inc. has endorsed McCain for President. Evenso I can see and admit that Senator Obama does have some ideas of interest, surrounded and encompassed in a Government that spends far more than it can collect in taxes, is involved in more aspects of individual lives, and controlling the choices we are able to make. That is his national healthcare, federal education, higher corporate capital gains and individual taxes, unfettered abortion, and hand picked energy alternatives really means – Big Government to a degree unseen previously.

You may not agree with that conclusion. You may vote for Senator Obama. That is your right and I respect and admire that, even while I can disagree with your choice. But the debates have made one thing clear to me, we all need to vote because if we do not America may suffer as a result. And in making that choice of who to vote for you should review the records, votes, and campaign promises of each candidate.

Because in the end, 2 years from now, you can look backwards and/or place blame but you can’t undo your vote.

Labels: Bill Ayers, Polispeak, political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, tax policy

Earlier I presented the video of Senator Obama as he spoke to a plumber about his tax plans. I discussed how I thought his answer fall flat when considered in the real world. The implications of his tax plan will not benefit the public, nor the economy in my opinion. But the plumber in question had his own answer about what he thought of the question, ‘How will your tax plan affect me?’



Not the American dream. That says a lot. A common American that provides jobs to others and works for a living. That’s who the Democratic tax plans affect. Not the CEO’s and multimillionaires that the polispeak ads and stump speeches try to convey, just people in the house next to you.

How normal is this part-business owner? Is he a mega wealthy tightwad that is unpatriotic as the Democratic ads, and potential VP Senator Biden would call him?

He lives in a home that is worth between $90,000 and $140,000 and can’t buy a bigger house because he can’t afford it. Sounds normal to me. Sounds like the people in Binghamton. Sounds like some of my readers too. And he doesn’t like what the Obama tax plan will mean to him. And as a result to his employees.

So is Senator Obama Robin Hood? Not according to this man. In perhaps the best description I have heard yet. About taxes he states clearly that Robin Hood stole from the greedy rich. Not just the rich, but the greedy to give to the poor. Small business owners are not the greedy rich that have been discussed in the media and Democratic pundits. They are not the people that the Obama tax plan would like you to believe. They are your neighbors and bosses.

In effect, what Obama is promising is that if you strive and save to be able to live the American dream of owning your own business and home, you will be punished for that achievement. That is the potential of an Obama Administration.

Does that in any way sound like a positive for the economy? Does that in any way sound like a benefit to 95% of paycheck earners?

The economy has finally taken center stage in the Presidential election. It’s finally on all the voters mind. And the Obama campaign has strived to tie Senator McCain to President Bush on this and other subjects. In that attempt they have obfuscated what the real effect of their proposals will mean.

Don’t believe me? Listen to Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber and small business part-owner. Because if the tax plan of Obama doesn’t work for him, it means that employees will ultimately be hurt as well as the economy. And are you really voting to make things worse or better in a world that doesn’t react in a vacuum?

Labels: Joe Wurzelbacher, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, small business, tax policy

Wealth redistribution. Senator Obama has promised it, Senator Biden feels it’s patriotic. Communist nations are built on it. But is it bad for America?



By now many have seen the conversation that Senator Obama had with a plumber over the weekend. This plumber, as I have seen reported, makes $280,000 and owns a small business. This is no fat cat Wall Street tycoon. This is no mega-corporation owner or major stockholder. This is a guy that comes to your house (or has employees that do) and fixes your pipes. No glamour, no excitement. And he might just live in your neighborhood, and his kids go to the same school your kids do.

According to Senator Obama, this man will pay more in taxes, and so will his business. Now plumbing is a decent living, but there is not growth spurts really. Plumbing companies don’t jump on the stock exchange, nor do they have 10 – 15% growth year over year. It’s likely that this guy makes 3 – 5% profit just like a grocery store owner or most other small businesses. And the 10% tax increase to businesses, plus another tax on him directly, means that he will be losing money in a company he may have been working on and living off of for 20 years now. Just because taxes changed and nothing else.

He will have 2 choices, raise prices – which most home owners can’t afford these days – or fire workers and cut their hours. And if Obama and Democrats can raise the minimum wage, he will likely have to do both with his higher taxes included.

But Obama doesn’t see that.



His focus is that people will have more money to pay the plumber. But he forgets that if more people are working fewer hours, if at all, then they make the same money or less and prices have to go higher just for the plumber to cover his breakeven cost. In the vacuum that Obama spins, changing how businesses make money has no effect on the people they employ. That’s polispeak. The real world means that if you change one part, the others react.

Personally I have seen a government that took money from hard working people to give to others. I lived in Russia in the 1990’s. And while I could afford to have people wait on line 2 hours to buy good meat for me, or 1 hour for bread, I don’t advise it. The people were great, but the style of life was – and continues to be – so far below the American standard that ex-patriots are often required to take vacations every 3 months and leave the country. America should not follow this path.

I’m not calling Senator Obama a communist. He is not. But his socialist plans do lead to a path where everything decreases the quality of life from what Americans are accustomed to and deserve. His economic plans are not to the benefit of the country. Wealth distribution benefits no one.

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, small business, tax policy, Wall Street

Well the second Presidential debate has ended and the results will no doubt be the second most important issue in the news. I say second because I have every belief that Wednesday will be another large loss on the Dow Jones Index, as it approaches my target of 9200.

The overall impression of the debate was that it was long, and boring. There were just no moments where I thought it got lively or passionate. I took from this that the debate was calculated and overly-well prepared for by both candidates.

I believe that Senator Obama took the night, not because he was more impassioned or knowledgeable, but because he was smoother. And that includes the fact that Senator McCain offered to spend almost as much money as Senator Obama continues to plead he can justifiably spend.

Senator McCain did himself no favors in this debate. While the structure was closer to town hall meetings that he tends to dominate in, he seemed to be faltering. His missteps throughout the debate did little to quell fears based on his age. Why he was so subdued and off-pace is a mystery to me.

Senator Obama won few friends in his attempts to isolate higher taxes on corporations from the effect it will have on workers and the middle class. While he did provide some clues to the cost of his dream economy, there is no question he wants an even bigger government that McCain, even with the extra $300 billion for homeowners.

And I was not satisfied with Obama’s plans on foreign policy. As he stated, McCain painted him as a novice and his own thoughts have proven that to be true.

One thing I did notice is that Senator Obama spent a lot of time looking backwards. He isolated several events and subjects where he looked back at what had been done before he was in the Senate or in recent past. Yet he failed to look at the full causes of the issues he was troubled by. And that is a problem when the nation needs to be looking solely forward, as there are no time machines for the nation or an individual.

And McCain did himself no favors in the jibes he took at Obama. The format did not allow for that easily and the attacks fell somewhat flat.

Overall I found the debate less than helpful. Part of that is due to the moderator, who seemed more concerned about the time limits than getting full and informative answers. Perhaps it’s just me but I rather have fewer questions with complete answers and rebuttals than constantly watching the clock and trying to oversimplify and thus omitting pertain facts.

The entire debate was little more than stump speeches and television commercials put together for one night. You might better equate it with an infomercial for the Presidency. And that is sad.

Thus I say Senator Obama was able to maintain the boost he has gotten from the fears that many in the nation feel about the economy, and wrongly attribute it to the policies of just the Republicans. If nothing else this has been the biggest factor in the recent swing in poll results. Yet Senator Obama has done the least to fix the problem of all the candidates.

We live in scary times. Unless Senator McCain is able to do something amazing in the last debate, or the economy improves (it won’t), or Senator Obama makes a major mistake the result will likely be momentum that will lead Obama to the White House. And I would warn you to prepare for an economy and downturn that only President Carter might recall well in recent history.

Labels: political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

Here is videos of the entire debate for those that might have missed it last night.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7


Part 8


Part 9


Part 10


Part 11

Labels: political debate, political video, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

Wow, the words are flying now. The Presidential race has taken a step to overdrive as both the candidates attack each others past. And the points picked by the McCain campaign seem to have the Obama campaign flustered to say the least.

The Obama campaign has been targeting the investigation of McCain in relation to the Keating Five investigations. Senator McCain was vindicated in that investigation and found to be without blame. Yet this was a huge problem at the time, and may again be, as the economy flounders in the wake of the mortgage bailout and the credit crunch.

With all eyes on the Dow Jones Index, which had dropped as low as 781 points down in the day. Expectations that all the problems of the mortgage crisis were averted by the $700 billion bailout have been proven false, which really should be no surprise. Europe and other world markets are now facing their own problems which again rippled from the initial failure of the Fed, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on their Congressional banking committees, and President Bush. Note that neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain were responsible for this economic fiasco. But with the introduction of the Keating Five Obama is trying to paint McCain as fiscally irresponsible.

Of course if the record is to be looked at only McCain has tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and highlight problems while Democrats denied the existence of a problem. And only McCain actively worked on improving the bailout plan from what was essentially a blank check to an unwatched Treasury Secretary, with repayment going to Democratic pet projects of dubious nature (ACORN) instead of the public.

The McCain camp has targeted the highly questionable association of William Ayers and Senator Obama. I admit that I have trouble with the close association of the potential next President with a known, and self-admited, terrorist that actively was involved with the bombing of Government buildings on American soil and remains unrepentant. And it is accurate that Senator Obama has initially described their association as a friend, and has backed away from that since the early Primaries while the major news media has avoided all discussion of the matter.

The McCain camp has also targeted the association of Obama with Tony Rezco and Rev. Wright. I disagree with these associations being used against Obama as much as I disagree with The Keating Five tactic. Obama has never been found to have been influenced by either man in this voting record since he engaged in politics in Illinios. Without a reason to be alarmed, their less than perfect public images are just mud to be thrown at the candidate. And I have discussed my thoughts about the attacks using Rev. Wright, which I feel are a sidestep to a racial attack, in depth during the Primaries when Senator Clinton first used the tactic.

But the fact is that neither of these items being used by each camp address the fact that the economy will be weaker and troubled during at least the first year of the next President’s term. It is unrealistic that further cuts to taxes will be immediately available to stimulate the economy. It is equally unrealistic that adding 800 billion in new spending will be possible.

Right now Senator Obama is talking about taking on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s dream of a second stimulus plan. Considering the over $1 trillion spent this year just on failing banks and finance companies I can’t imagine where this money would come from, or how it would be any more effective than the first stimulus plan. Infact it would be less effective considering the economic landscape.

As for McCain he continues to believe that lowering corporate taxes is the only solution, which I believe will be a hard sell.

The fact is that right now the drop in the Dow Jones Index, and the up coming horrendous 4th quarter earnings that will reflect the slowdown in the economy, are helping Senator Obama and Democrats. There is no logical reason for this, since both Parties were equally lax and culpable in the creation of this problem (though arguably Democrats are slightly more at fault especially if the past is considered). But if the economy continues to falter drastically, and the promise of a 2nd stimulus plan gains attention (as it likely will) the chance of Obama winning the election increased dramatically.

And if that is what happens, for the reason of the economy, the real pain will start. In my opinion the weakest plan, and the least fiscally flexible plan, is held by Obama. With him in office, and a Democratic Congress again, I expect new record low approval ratings, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and an increase in taxes of all Americans by 7 – 15% minimally. Essentially a return to the environment that President Carter created.

But we will see if I am correct and if the various mudslinging attempts of the campaigns have any backlash.

Labels: Bill Ayers, Dow Jones Index, mortgage crisis, Nancy Pelosi, President Carter, Presidential election race 2008, Rev. Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

The following is a complete video of the Biden Palin Vice Presidential Debate.

The debate was very interesting, and I need to review it a 3rd time before I can truely say who did the best on this. I can say that both had good moments in the debate. Overall my initial impression is that Governor Sarah Palin really came to life after the first 1/3 of the debate. And towards the late second half of the debate she started to hand it to Senator Biden.

But that is an inital impression. I'll go into detail shortly.

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Biden, Vice Presidential candidate

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: Democratic Party, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Biden, Vice Presidential candidate

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: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Congress, Democratic Party, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party, Treasury Secretary Paulson, U.S. economy

So I went over the details of the entire debate a couple of times and I want to share my observations.

First of all we start with Senator Obama and the first question of what is going on with the bailout of the mortgage crisis. The initial thought that Senator Obama brings to fore is the separation of Wall Street and Main Street. That concept in itself is dumb. Millions of regular people are as much a part of the stock market as the corporations on the market. The 401k’s, mutual funds, and investments held by individual investors are as critical to the market as any other group. What affects one, affects the other.

But in making the distinction as he does he infers that the stock market is a matter of a class war. This thinking is the backbone of many of the financial proposals made by most Democrats, and Obama. But to view the economy or stock market in such a manner is to view it as if it were in a vacuum, that anything affecting one has no bearing on the other. That presumption is both a lie and idiotic.

He goes on to discuss oversight of the bailout funds. Currently Democrats that are most in favor of a fast tracked deal are the very people responsible for failing to identify the problem. That is Barney Frank and Chris Dodd directly. Having them continuing to be in charge is a joke if it were not for the damage they have allowed to occur.

As for getting the money back, the proposal that was rejected Friday is again of interest. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, and Harry Reid loved the deal. Senator Obama was willing to back it as well. Republicans were not. Because instead of giving the money back to the public they instead had a provision in the deal that would take the money and put it into ACORN. An organization that is currently under federal investigation for mismanagement of federal money and a pet project of Democrats.

But in the 3rd point I think everyone can agree. There is no reason why a CEO who has damaged a corporation deserves to benefit to any extreme point. That does not mean they are not entitled to a retirement package, but to reward them with tens of millions of dollars for weakening a company is dumb. If the company makes money, thus ensuring jobs and increased value to shareholders (which means you the public ultimately) then I can see a bonus. But without that success paying enormous sums of money is just wasteful.

Homeowners that failed to read the contracts they entered into do not merit help. Their rash actions do not necessitate contributions from my pocket. That may sound harsh, but as a homeowner who did read my mortgage documents, got a fixed rate loan, and ensured I could afford the home I own with room to spare I have little pity. In necessitating me to give up my money they are in fact placing a second mortgage into my finances, one that I receive no reward for paying. That is a bad plan indeed.

And for all the concern of Senator Obama for the middle class he fails to mention that he has voted to increase the taxes of those making $31,850 or more in March 2008.

As for the McCain view on this same question, it is not enough that politicians are working together. They should work together more often, in fact as a norm. The fact that politics are so partisan in general is a problem that helped to create and magnify this problem. But if politicians fail to think about what they have done, or the plan by which they promise us a resolution, the mere fact they joined hands in the failure is small consolation.

But another problem I must note with Senator Obama is the fact that he loves to look backwards on issues that are in America’s present. He look backward on Iraq – seeking who to blame, he looks backward on the bailout as well. What he said 2 years ago is as important as what McCain said 3 years ago, or the bill that McCain tried to pass to change the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which Democrats voted down and Republicans gave up on).

And if any politician was so brilliant as to have seen this problem a year ago, where were they when Barney Frank was telling the public everything was ok in July? Or Paulson said they had things under control in February?

And as for Republican spending under President Bush, it has been atrocious. And I don’t mean the earmark spending which has been bad enough. $18 billion is insane, but that hardly is the same as the hundreds of billions that are being wasted in every department of the Government.

Still in a down turning economy adding new spending is a dumb idea as well. Obviously adding these new sources of spending can’t happen when we have already spent that money on the bailout. And both candidates need to be honest enough to mention that either taxes will be increased because of this or that social entitlement programs will be cut, or both.

And if anyone thinks that raising business taxes will not affect workers they are insane.

Also, everyone needs to keep in mind what Obama keeps rewording. 95% will receive a pay cut from Obama’s plans. But what he drives at is avoiding anyone hearing the part that is important. 95% that receive a paycheck. That means business owners of all sizes will pay more in taxes – separate of the increase in taxes from the bailout.

But let’s focus on the issues the debate was really supposed to be about. Foreign policy.

The big question is Iraq. We know Obama was always against the war, and he never lets us forget his position in the past. And McCain was for it, as was nearly every Democrat and Republican at the time. Including Senator Hillary Clinton, who insisted Congress vote in favor of the war.

But the fact is we are in 2 wars today and when the next President takes office. Not wanting to be there has nothing to do with where we are now. I don’t want to have to bailout the banks for the mortgage crisis, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are about to anyway. The question is what are we going to do going forward?

Is running away a good plan? According to McCain it is not. Iran is a big part of that reason. And there is no one that can convince anyone in the world that Iran is not in favor of America being destroyed.

The surge has worked. Even Obama has admitted that. But he still refuses to accept the consequences of that, or the need to finish the job. By refusing to accept the new conditions, which he barely saw in a day during his recent run through the nation, he fails to see how to make America safer in the future.

But McCain must also accept that the cost of the war is outrageous. We need to get Iraq to do more, and pay for their share of the work being done. Especially since we know they have the money to do so.

By the way, the series of items that Obama quotes as things that McCain said is incorrect. Those were the claims of the Bush Administration. And McCain is wrong about Obama’s oversight of Afghanistan. Not that either man has really done any work they were elected to do, other than McCain working on the bailout. And in hearing Obama’s comment about tactics and strategies, I agree he has no idea what the difference is. Of course that may partially be because he has not been in Iraq 1/3 as much as McCain has.

And I want to ask a simple question. If you are in a bar fight, it doesn’t matter who started the fight, and you look at your watch and say “I’ll stop fighting in 5 minutes.” You keep fighting for 5 minutes, then step away, turn your back and walk off. What do you believe will happen next? What are the odds that you will get a barstool smacked against your head? And how is this different than declaring a timetable in a war?

It is interesting how close both candidates are on Pakistan. Though the means by which they want to enact their actions in that nation, and the terrorists hiding there, differ to a degree. Again, as with many of Obama’s policies, we see the junior Senator telegraphing his intentions.

I have to mention though that neither man mentioned Darfur. They speak about Bosnia, and Georgia, Pakistan and Iraq. They cover all the media popular and pundit laden hotspots around the world. But when it comes to a genocide that has been ongoing for the past 4 years, they seem satisfied to continue the same see no evil policy the Government has maintained from the start of fighting. America should do more.

Thank goodness each candidate agrees that Iran is a threat to stability and U.S. safety. This is a bit of a reversal for Senator Obama. His comments during the Primaries and just after Senator Clinton gave up were of a very different tone.

And his continued instance on speaking to Iran reflects that early position. Though what he claims about Mr. Henry Kissinger backing up his views is an outright lie. Or as politicians like to say, he misunderstood or misspoke. As is the thought that we are not currently speaking with Iran, which we are doing currently on low levels. And following Obama’s wishes we would empower Iran and other similar nations.

Of course I would feel better about many of Senator Obama’s positions if he was more consistent. Like his comments about Georgia and Russia. From his initial flubs about UN action – which Russia can veto – to his eventual adoption of the McCain response on the first day. It’s just more examples of inexperience in this arena.

Lastly, we all realize that another 9/11 style attack is not only possible, but likely. Nothing can prevent such acts forever. Every major city in the world has had to deal with these events, and the best any country can do is delay an event and minimize the effects.

I also find it interesting how Senator Obama is so focused on the image America has in the world. Since the 1960’s I believe America has been seen as a superpower, free and rich. And it is those things that have prompted the determined hatred of America for 40 years and counting.

Overall I think both candidates made interesting points. Each identified things that are important to Americans. Each highlighted weaknesses and failures in the other. But if we are to draw a conclusion for the entire debate it would have to be that experience in foreign policy, while under war at the least, is critical for America.

I think McCain won the debate. Not in a landslide but that is not important. Because the point is not how stunning a President we have, but how effective they are.

Labels: political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

The following is the full video of the Sept 26 2008 Presidential debate of Senator McCain and Senator Obama.

I believe that it is imperative that every American listen to exactly what each candidate said, and plans for America if they become President. My comments and in-depth analysis will be up shortly. In addition I will be providing a copy of the complete transcript of the entire debate.

I hope that this information helps each of you to come to a decision on who you wish to vote for. Because no matter whom you choose, your vote is vital to get the best person possible in the White House, and we can only get that if everyone makes an informed vote.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

Labels: political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

I love listening to Harry Reid. He is absolutely partisan and 2-faced. He is the best example of what polispeak means. Listening to hear him talk today you just can’t escape this.

He is speaking about Republicans that didn’t want to go to the meeting at the White House yesterday, but he has no comment on the fact that Senator obama wouldn’t go until the President asked him to be there.

He speaks about Senator McCain and blames him for the failure of the deal, but fails to mention that there was no deal. House Republicans, and many in the Senate never liked the Paulson bailout proposal. There was no deal, except as expressed by Democrats and the media.

He wants to blame McCain, but he forgets that he stated earlier this week that there could be no deal if McCain was not on board, which he was not. He refers to McCain as an outsider, yet McCain is an active Senator with responsibilities to those that elected him.

Democrats like Chris Dodd and Harry Reid, and Barney Frank want to make it seem like this deal is good for America, yet those that look closely at the deal think it is not. And they want to add to the bail out items that are not part of the issue. They want to include the $50 billion that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi advocates, that does not have to do with the bailout but is another stimulus plan that is ineffective and a waste of money.

Democrats are being very political here. They are trying everything they can do to phrase this as a Republican or Senator McCain problem. They want to rush forward and throw money at this problem. That type of plan did not work when Bear Sterns failed, or when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, or when Lehman failed, or for AIG. They seem to think that throwing your money, my money, at this problem is more than just filling a leaking tub with more water.

Not one Democrat can state that the Paulson plan, as proposed and what they are trying to advance, will work and prevent another problem in a month. Not one can explain why a single person in the position of the Treasury Secretary, should be left with virtually sole responsibility and accountability of nearly $1 trillion dollars.

Harry Reid, and Chris Dodd are speaking about how they will be in D.C. and working on this deal all night tonight, and Saturday and Sunday if necessary. They are saying this is the most important issue before them. Yet they support that Senator Obama go off and focus on a debate, that can be postponed. This is the most important issue in America right now, that’s why all of Congress is doing their jobs – except for Democratic Presidential candidate. And the Republican Presidential candidate is the one being blamed for doing his part of the job.

Either Obama or McCain will be President in a little more than a month. One of those 2 will be faced with the resulting issues that this mortgage crisis bail out will cause. But Democrats believe that neither should be involved in the terms or process of this deal. That seems smart doesn’t it.

I find it completely partisan and polispeak when Barney Frank states that everything is fine in 2003 and July of 2008, and now is trying to blame everyone else for what he failed to stay on top of. Chris Dodd is no better. And as I mentioned above Harry Reid has flipped as well. Not to mention how Senator Obama sprinted from the meeting with the President yesterday to get out and in front of cameras, instead of going back to Congress to wotrk on the deal more as McCain did, is quite telling on who is using this as a means to win the Presidential election.

Our elected officials need to stop with the politicing and focus. This deal needs to resolve the liquidity issue, and ensure that we are prepared for the difficulties to come. It does not need to give away money to pet projects that otherwise would never pass. It is not an ad for the election campaign. It is not a gift to Wall Street, nor an open invitation for every company and industry with sagging sales to line up at the door. Neither should it be the start of the American Government as a real estate broker/business.

Anything short of that is false and stupid, and baseless polispeak meant only to prop up the political futures of selected individuals.

Labels: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, mortgage crisis, Nancy Pelosi, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

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

So the news has now been reported that Senator Obama does not plan to accept Senator McCain’s offer to go back to D.C. and work on the bailout and not the Presidential election.

Senator Obama believes that he can both work out the problems with the bailout and step before the nation for a debate on Friday. He believes that he can focus on both issues equally.

Senator McCain has already stated that he believes that the political debate can wait until the financial future of America is resolved.

I feel that Obama is placing politics above the nation, and his constituents that elected him to office. Both of these men are Senators, as is Joe Biden. They have a responsibility to the voters that put them in office up until they are elected by voters for a different office.

The polispeak will fly today. Some will laud one or the other Presidential candidate. I can clearly see the benefit to the nation of the actions of McCain, I do not see that benefit from Senator Obama. Obama is choosing to hold a speech about how great he will be for the economy once he is elected, while McCain will be speaking with Democrats, Republicans, and the President about keeping the economy going up to and through the election. Which makes more sense.

How well will Senator Obama be able to review documents on the bailout, and shake hands with undecided voters? How well will he be able to speak with Congress, while he is kissing babies and approving attack ads? How well will he be able to confer with economic experts while he is practicing his debate points.

Yes a President must do more than one thing at a time. But if Warren Buffett is correct, and this is the financial equivalent of Pearl Harbor, Senator Obama is saying he would rather go overseas for a meeting than deal directly with the situation.

Was the fear of following McCain’s lead on this potentially devastating financial fiasco so great as to refuse to do his job. Is his desire to be President so great that he would rather lead America in a depression, with millions unemployed and/or homeless than serve as the Senator he has been elected to be in relative economic stability?

Perhaps this, more than the debates themselves, will be the turning point in the election. And I have to wonder what most Americans will prefer. I for one agree that the debates for the election (which can be rescheduled for another day out of the 41 remaining) are not as important as my work, and as a consequence my house.

Labels: Congress, mortgage crisis, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

Wow, this is a big move. Senator John McCain has stepped forward again. He has moved to try to resolve the issue of the bailout back in Congress and Washington D.C. He has asked Senator Obama to join him on this cause.

It’s a big move. Senator Obama, who was told this offer before it became known to the public, has yet to respond. He must say yes, and follow the lead of Senator McCain.

Both of these men needed to be back in D.C. on this issue, as they are Senators first and Presidential nominees second. They owe it to their constituents to do their jobs. And I find it interesting that McCain was the first to recognize this fact.

This is more important than just the political situation.

Wait, now comes news that Senator Obama sent McCain an email at 8am today. But that email asked McCain to join Senator Obama in making a statement that the terms of the bailout must contain items they both agree on. Again that was the response to Senator McCain asking for them both to go to D.C. and get to work, an email released to the media saying this morning he wanted to make a joint statement.

A statement, even made jointly, is weak. It resolves none of the problems. Maybe Obama had the first idea, but it was a half idea. They need to do their jobs.

More on this as it gets more details. And remember that President Bush was going to make a statement on the bailout at 9pm tonight.

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

What reason do I have to feel that an Administration of Senator Obama and Senator Biden will be bad? What makes me feel that they can’t work together?

Well besides the thoughts I have stated before in my post Obama - Biden: Where are the positives? I have another item to add.

When Senator Obama okayed political ads attacking Senator john McCain’s ability to work with computers it failed to mention that McCain has problems because of the wounds he received as a Viet Nam POW. Those injuries to his arms make it very difficult for him to properly use a computer. There may be other issues on the use of a computer, something that is more the tool of those 45 and under – as we grew up with these innovations – but I am not aware if that is a factor.

Senator Biden is aware of this limitiation to McCain. And he had this to say on the subject.



If he had known he wouldn’t have done it. That is critical. He wasn’t informed about the ad. So in this simple answer we get that Senator Obama does not confide or discuss his decisions with his number 2. And Biden disputes the decision of Obama.

It may seem like a little thing, but if they differ and disagree on political ads what about significant issues like Pakistan and international policy, healthcare, Iraq, and the other major issues that they debated before and through the Primaries? What kind of Presidential Administration will they provide if they don’t speak and discuss, and oppose the actions of each other?

That is an issue Democrats want to gloss over, and the major media refuses to acknowledge. But that is an important fact to me, and my vote. How about you?

Labels: healthcare, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Biden, Senator John McCain, Viet Nam

The Presidential election of this year is special. Perhaps this is the most special election for over 100 years, perhaps going as far back as to the Civil War. That is because in this one election multiple events are going to happen that will change America forever, no matter which candidate wins.

Specifically I want to focus on Senator Obama. By his historic nomination he has set off dominoes that continue to fall, and will fall for decades to come. And every one of those dominoes is connected to race relations in America.

I know many people have wondered what are Senator Obama’s chances of winning the election. And I must say that they are pretty bad. And this has little to do with his political intentions. Because if anyone was honest they would admit that in an election year with a President that has one of the worst (if not the worst) approval ratings since they kept these ratings, and a war as unpopular as Viet Nam it is unheard of to not be leading the opposing Party with at least 10 – 20%. The words landslide should be in play.

But what is holding America back? The Congress is Democratic, and ineffective. While this is the hands-down worst Congress ever, with approval ratings even lower than the President, no one really believes that Congress is all that effective even in the best of times. But the Congress is chanting the latest political fads – change, environmentally positive everything, more money in the average guys pocket, and an end to the wars. The Democratic nominee should be swimming in the excess.

But this Democratic nominee is Black. Which means he has Black friends. And Black wife and children. All of them will be in the White House, and not as cleaning staff.

It would be a laughable statement, except this is America land of the worst memory in history. This nation can’t remember that slaves built the foundation of everything. This nation can’t remember that African Americans fought in every war this nation ever had, of their own free will. This nation strives to forget that up until 1922 lynching a Black man was not a crime. Or that the murder of an entire town went unpunished. Or that laws based on skin color were as real as laws from Congress.

Because in America we forget that people of color exist on television, movies, cartoons, and books. We insist on populating news footage with negative images of people of color – to such an extreme that exactly the same photos of survivors of natural disaster portray Whites as foraging for food, and Blacks as looters. It’s because of this complete unwillingness to admit that our past is as ugly as any nation, and that this past was rather recent, that we see many people shun Senator Obama.

I’m sure most have forgotten already that during the Democratic Primaries polls showed that 11% of Democratic voters (who tend to be the most liberal part of the Party) in Pennsylvania and Ohio felt that race was important in selecting a candidate. And in West Virginia there was a large group that were sure that Senator Obama was a secret Muslim terrorist.

But now there is even more proof that not only some Democrats, but the nation makes decisions in Black and White.

The Associated Press, Yahoo, and Stanford University conducted a poll of 2,227 adults between August 27th and September 5th. 55% were between 30 and 60 years old. 52% were women. 86% had high school or better educations. 57% were married, 27% single. 27% had kids. 84% lived in a city of some size. 59% were employed. 71% made $25,000 or more per year. 49% were Democrats, 36% Republican, and 7% Independent. Most importantly 69% were White, 11% were Black, and 13% were Hispanic.

Here are the important results of the poll.

• 54% had a somewhat or very favorable opinion of Senator Obama.
  
• 55% had a somewhat or very favorable opinion of the Democratic Party.
  
• 64% somewhat or strongly disapproved of the job President Bush is doing.
  

Up to this point you would have to wonder why Senator Obama is not doing better in polling results. Both he and his Party enjoy a better than 50% favorable opinion. And President Bush represents Republicans (supposedly) so he should be doing gangbusters against anything that sounds remotely like a President bush policy. Yet we know he is not.

The following is verbatim from the poll (wave 6 is the version of the poll):

[RANDOMLY ASSIGN RESPONDENTS TO RAC3 OR RAC4 OR RAC5 OR RAC6]
RAC3. Please indicate HOW MANY of the following upset you.

• The federal government increasing the tax on gasoline
  
• Professional athletes getting million-dollar-plus salaries
  
• Large corporations polluting the environment
  Wave 6
  0 4
  1 14
  2 31
  3 51
  Refused / Not Answered 0
  
  RAC4. Please indicate HOW MANY of the following upset you.
  
• The federal government increasing the tax on gasoline
  
• Professional athletes getting million-dollar-plus salaries
  
• Large corporations polluting the environment
  
• A black family moving next door to where you live
  Wave 6
  0 1
  1 12
  2 41
  3 38
  4 7
  Refused / Not Answered 0
  
  RAC5. Please indicate HOW MANY of the following upset you.
  
• The federal government increasing the tax on gasoline
  
• Professional athletes getting million-dollar-plus salaries
  
• Large corporations polluting the environment
  
• Black leaders asking the government for racial equality in the work place
  Wave 6
  0 3
  1 9
  2 32
  3 30
  4 25
  Refused / Not Answered 1
  
  RAC6. Please indicate HOW MANY of the following upset you.
  
• The federal government increasing the tax on gasoline
  
• Professional athletes getting million-dollar-plus salaries
  
• Large corporations polluting the environment
  
• A black person serving as president of the United States
  Wave 6
  0 3
  1 11
  2 28
  3 46
  4 10
  Refused / Not Answered 1
  

Notice what is different in each of the above. The numbers jump dramatically when adding in a Black person. Especially if that African American is a leader asking for equality, or is President. But isn’t it nice that there is only a slight increase when a Black person lives near Whites. I guess racism doesn’t exist – as long as we don’t try to do more than live near Whites.

But the pool goes on.

• 60% of the respondents like a little to a great deal Whites (which is funny since 69% are White)
  
• 52% of the respondents like a little to a great deal Blacks
  
• 52% of the respondents like a little to a great deal Hispanics
  
  Do you happen to know the religion of each of the following candidates? If you don’t know, you can mark that too.
  

The key in this response is the fact that 14% feel that Senator Obama is a Muslim. That’s after 16 months of pundits on television, campaign ads, and the actual words of Obama dispelling rumors about his faith. And since 9/11 being a Muslim in this nation can be painful if not deadly.

But couple that response with this next question:

CQ8. Does Barack Obama’s religion make you more likely to vote for him, less likely to vote for him, or have no effect on whether you’d vote for him?
More likely 6
Less likely 18
Has no effect 75
Refused / Not Answered 0

That’s 18% that would be less likely to vote for Obama, and 23% that fail to recognize or believe in his Christian faith – most believing him to be Muslim.

But what about Reverend Wright, a Christian and much spoken about during and since the Primaries?

CQ9. Does Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright (his former pastor in Chicago) suggest to you that Mr. Obama would be a better president, a worse president, or suggest nothing to you about how good or bad a president he would be?
All Respondents Wave 6
A much better president 2
A somewhat better president 3
A somewhat worse president 15
A much worse president 19
Suggest nothing to you 61
Refused / Not Answered 0

Whites Only Wave 6
A much better president 0
A somewhat better president 2
A somewhat worse president 18
A much worse president 23
Suggest nothing to you 56
Refused / Not Answered 0

The total of all respondents was 34% feel Rev Wright was a bad influence on their vote
The total of White respondents was 41% feel Rev Wright was a bad influence on their vote

Yet 50% said they want Senator Obama as President with or without a Democratic Congress
47% said they want a moderate President but 63% feel Obama is slightly to extremely Liberal

RAC8. When it comes to politics, would you say that each of the groups listed below has too much influence, just about the right amount of influence, or to little influence?

Now I found it interesting that 87% of White respondents felt they had just enough or too little influence on politics. Yet 75% White respondents felt Blacks had too much influence or just enough.

This question really makes me wonder

RAC10. How often have you felt admiration for blacks?
All Respondents Wave 6
Extremely often 8
Very often 18
Moderately often 43
Rarely 21
Never 8
Refused / Not Answered 1

Whites Only Wave 6
Extremely often 3
Very often 15
Moderately often 49
Rarely 23
Never 8
Refused / Not Answered 1

What do they mean admiration? And for whom? Do they mean if Whites admire Tiger Woods for his golfing ability, or Shaq for being able to play basketball, or do they mean Tyler Perry for his business success? And guess which one the average White American knows the name of.

When the poll asked:

RAC11. How well does each of these words describe most blacks?


• Whites responded 57% that Complaining was a moderately to extremely well description
  
• Whites responded 38% that Lazy was a moderately to extremely well description
  
• Whites responded 40% that Irresponsible was a moderately to extremely well description
  
• Whites responded 48% that Violent was a moderately to extremely well description
  

Another question asked how much people agreed or disagreed with a statement:

Generations of slavery have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class – 51% of Whites strongly or somewhat disagreed with this.

Over the past few years, blacks have gotten LESS than they deserve – 44% of Whites strongly or somewhat disagreed with this

Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more ECONOMICALLY than they deserve – 29% of Whites strongly or somewhat disagreed with this

So in looking at these questions you get this picture – Whites (at least in this poll) feel that Blacks are violent and complain too much, in particular about slavery and Jim Crow laws and the effect being a considered a non-human that did not deserve the right to read and/or write for centuries might have had up until 1965. And that it’s irresponsible for us to believe we deserve anything more than EXACTLY what we have now.

That how I read that section.

Another question of note:

RAC14. How much of the racial tension that exists in the United States today do you think blacks are responsible for creating?

85% of the White respondents believe that Blacks are responsible for most or some of the racial tension in America today. But if you go to your TV right now, and flip thru 5 channels (excluding Unavision and BET) I doubt you will be able to find more than 2 main black characters, 1 Hispanic, and 0 Asians on all the programs combined. But being made invisible on a medium that broadcasts 24/7 wouldn’t make you feel invisible or tense. Just like if no one ever spoke or looked at you for a day or two. Wouldn’t that be relaxing, now imagine that happens everyday of your life.

Another great question:

RAC15. How much discrimination against blacks do you feel there is in the United States today, limiting their chances to get ahead?

81% of the White respondents believe that there is little to some discrimination. Refer back to the example above. Or better yet provide me with a video or link to news about a White man being shot 50 or more times by police.

Now I realize that this has been very long. And if you have followed this to here I thank you. But more importantly I hope you are thinking about this poll, and what it says about America.

There are very real issues about race in this nation. It’s more than the fact that in June of 2007 Senator Obama had to have a Secret Service detail because of the death threats he was receiving – before he became popular and months before any other potential candidate was made a similar offer. It’s more than the fact that fully some 10% of people polled in every state have said they won’t vote for an African American. It’s not even solely about the lopsided justice that the Jena 6, Wesley Snipes, Megan Williams, Sean Bell and the 3 men beaten by 15 Philadelphia police received. It’s that America has issues with anyone of color, and that issue is exponentially greater if that person has or tries to attain a position of power.

Has America improved its race relations since 1965? Yes, because police dogs and fire hoses are not used when a Black kid goes to an integrated school. But that fact, and that 1 Black man is running for the Presidency, does not mean that racism has been abolished.

Not when during the time of this election cycle African Americans have been beaten, killed, and persecuted by the same Government that he is running to be elected to lead. Not when so many believe Blacks have too much power, or are innately violent and/or lazy, and so many have problems with the idea of a Black leader or President.

In that kind of an environment are you surprised that anyone might wonder if Senator Obama can win? Even though he is well liked, his political party is favored, and the current policies and President is virtually despised. Is it really any wonder that this is not a landslide election for the Democrats and Obama?

I mean think about this. Of all the questions asked in the poll, not one mentioned a single political issue. Not one mentioned any change in the government. Not one question focused on a campaign promise that Democrats and/or Obama has made. Yet consistently for reasons revolving around the fact that Senator Obama has an excellent tan every day of his life, he is viewed as a violent, lazy, irresponsible, Muslim, that creates racial tension and complains too much with too much political power for the likes of some 20% or so of Americans.

Please tell me how this does not bode poorly for the nation and our future?

Labels: Associated Press, Megan Williams, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Sean Bell, Senator Barack Obama, Stanford University, Wesley Snipes, Yahoo

If you were watching cable news at about 1:25pm today you would have heard Senator Obama speaking about the economy. He mentioned how we need change, though he failed to mention what he might change.

He mentioned he wanted to reform regulations on Wall Street. That he wants to follow a different economic plan. He blames Wall Street executives for their intention to make money out of the bailout. And he tried to draw a line from Reganomics, to President Bush, to Senator McCain.

But I have to wonder where is Senator Obama’s admonishion of his fellow Democrats are. He failed to mention that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to slip in $50 billion to the bailout plan. He fails to mention that many in Congress are trying to add earmarks to the bailout. He fails to mention that 2 years ago Senator McCain tried to reform policies on Wall Street and was shot down.

He fails to mention, when he speaks about the Clinton surplus, that President Clinton created the internet bubble. That the jobs created by the bubble were lost when it burst. That the Administration redid the way the government counts the deficit – such that they came up with the following.

They figured that since stocks were up, and would continue to be up for 5 yrs, taxes on the investments would be enough to balance and exceed the deficit. And based on that surplus, from the stock market, the government could spend that surplus and still be even in 5 yrs. In other wods there was never a surplus, and if you tried to use that same math in your life or business you would be in jail for fraud.

But he also fails to mention that Reganomics saved the nation from failed Democratic economic policies of President Carter (which most of the economic proposals Senator Obama has mentioned mimics). He fails to mention that Reganomics created the environment that created the surge in the economy and stock market. He fails to mention that in the face of warnings about the internet bubble, Democrats allowed the crash to happen which costs billions and put tens of thousands out of work.

Senator Obama fails to mention that it was not the regulations, that were weakened during the Clinton Administration, that caused the current fiasco but bad decisions. Everything was done within regulations, but the bad decisions caused the bad loans. And you can’t legislate choices, in a Free nation.

Senator Obama is a great speaker. He can polispeak with the greatest orators I can recall. He can obfuscate the facts, and avoid obvious truths with ease. And he can fail to actually detail a plan yet make people believe he has one.

When you listen to Senator Obama talk about changing the economy, have you heard him give a plan on what he will do? That he will refoprm exactly which regulations? That this change will help investors how? That will benefit the economy in what manner?

Like most politicians, in DC especially, he has no plan, just polispeak. He doesn’t even have a bill in Congress with his name on anything with this. And where is the blame on say Democrat Chris Dodd, in charge of the banking committee, that failed to do anything about this mortgage crisis over the past 1 ½ years?

You know, I love to hear a great politician. But when it comes time to vote, you just have to sit back and remember that all those little questions you never got an answer for. For me, there are just too many questions without answers, to many calls for change without a detail of what kind of change.

Call me crazy, but I like to see a President that has a plan. I don’t have to love the plan, but at least then I have something to go by. But some don’t need that. Like in 2006 during the mid-term elctions when Democrats were elected to Congress on change. And since then we have gotten no change, but lots of excuses. Now we have a Presidential candidate that also rallies around change, without a single detail. And some expect things to get better. I just have to wonder why?

Labels: American economy, cable news, Nancy Pelosi, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Wall Street

Sometime listening to the polispeak would make me laugh if it were not for the blatant nature of the spin involved. Some of the best examples of this have been in the political ads released by each Party. The most recent example is from the Obama camp.

Senator Obama’s campaign released an interesting video the other day on the web.



This is a blatant and absolutely false statement. False because the video clip cuts off 24 seconds of the full comment. The result is exactly the same kind of attack that Obama complained about when the loop of five 10 second bits of Reverend Wright were being played. The argument was that the context was corrupted, the message changed. And that is true.

But how is this any better? The full comment is as follows.



It’s one thing to quote a comment, like



or



If Senator Obama wants to try to make Gov. Palin or Sen. McCain look bad the least he can do is use the actual comments that exist out there. Chopping up statements, especially those that are no more complimentary to him than any other candidate only makes me wonder why he is trying so hard. I mean what is he afraid of? Or is it he can’t handle the heat?

But considering that he is supposed to be the candidate of change (with a VP that firmly disagrees with many of his views, and firmly believed he does not deserve the nomination, and who has been one of the longest entrenched Washington DC politicians) his political ads seem oddly familiar. I guess the change is who is trying to manipulate the public, and which comments are to be looped.

Labels: Polispeak, political ads, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama

With the impending Presidential election less than 2 months away there are discussions across the nation about issues many Americans hold dear. The media has emphasized some of these issues, like alternative energy, education, and nationalized (standardized) healthcare. But there are other issues that are as important and not nearly as well covered.

The 2nd Amendment provides for the Right to bear arms. Many liberal politicians seek to restrict the scope and definition of this Right. Some conservatives seek to expand it. But to fully understand this Right, as it exists today it is important to understand the laws and Court rulings in place currently that affect it.

One of the most important and recent would be District of Columbia v. Heller. This case dealt with the right of an American citizen to own a handgun, and to be able to have a rifle or shotgun that is owned to be loaded and/or assembled or unbound by a trigger lock. What was also at issue was something not written, whether an individual had a right to arms or was it that only state militias that had this right.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that individuals do have that right, can own handguns, and have the ultimate decision on how that firearm is maintained in their home. Justice Scalia stated

“In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”

It was further stated that it

“should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

In essence that further supports existing law. The combination of these comments, and this ruling in general, has helped to ensure that the Right to bear arms continues to live as it did when the Constitution was made.

But if some liberals were to have their dreams, then it may have been possible that this landmark decision could have gone 4-5 against. As such ALL Americans would have faced the potential of losing the right to own handguns currently in their possession, and the encroachment of the Government into their homes to ensure compliance.

Of the candidates looking to be elected as either President or Vice President, the clearest proponent of Heller would be Gov. Sarah Palin.

The only other relevant case would be the 1939 United States v. Miller. This case looked at the right of an individual to own various types of firearms, particularly short-barreled rifles and shotguns and fully automatic firearms. What Miller resolved is hard to understand as many interpretations exist.

Perhaps the best answer is this which came from the abovementioned Heller

“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”

Whatever the interpretation the Court found in Miller that sawed-off shotguns were not included in the 2nd Amendment. It also made clear that the Government had the right to regulate certain types of firearms, which includes fully automatic firearms.

The ambiguous nature of Miller was purposive. And Heller intentionally did not interfere with its ruling.

That is the full breadth of the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment. Considering that Heller was just handed down this year, it will likely be faced with challenges and lawmakers that favor or oppose this ruling. The manner in which the Government reacts to these future challenges, and/or the selection of future members of the Court will rest firmly on the shoulders of our next elected Executives.

Labels: 2nd Amendment, Constitution, District of Columbia v. Heller, Gov. Sarah Palin, handgun, Justice Scalia, Presidential election race 2008, Supreme Court, United States v. Miller

The following is the full interview between Bill O’Reilly and Senator Obama as first seen on the O’Reilly Factor. For commentary on each part of the interview please check out Black Entertainment USA

Part 1 Iraq



Part 2 The Economy



Part 3 Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright



Part 4 Alternative Energy and Domestic Drilling

Labels: alternative energy, American economy, Bill Ayers, Bill O'Reilly, domestic drilling, Iraq, O'Reilly Factor, Presidential election race 2008, Rev. Wright, Senator Obama

Let’s talk taxes and business. It’s one of the key items in the campaigns of each of the Presidential candidates, and I know its something average Americans are concerned about.

Now let me state something up front. I am a Republican, business owner, Black Puerto Rican, 40 year old man. I am voting for the McCain – Palin ticket. So if you cannot accept any of those thoughts, click away now.

I want to examine one of the tax plans that has gotten huge support and acclaim – that of Senator Obama. In reality this is a tax plan that the Democratic Party has always pushed for most of my life. It can be summed up in the following:

• Tax the rich
  
  
• Tax business
  
  
• Tax the stock market
  

Let me explain in simple terms why this is a stupid plan.

Assume that Senator Obama wins the election. And a Democratic Congress remains in force. And their tax plans are enacted.

First the President Bush tax cuts will be reversed. Based on the votes from earlier this year that would mean that every American making $31,850 or more would have a 3% tax increase.

Now add to this the thought that business taxes increase 10%. And payroll tax increases 3%. And short-term and long-term tax on investments increases 10%. And lastly the minimum wage is increased to say $9.

Middle and low income Americans should rejoice, right? The rich are now paying for everything like some believe they should. The economy will improve and everyone will get nationalized (meaning standardized) healthcare.

So if you were at 28% tax, you are bumped up to 31%, but you are making more money now so it’s ok? Well in a vacuum yes. But in the real world you are out of your mind.

As a business owner I have to pay corporate taxes as well as my personal taxes. So I am faced with a situation where my raw materials cost more, my employees cost more, and I pay more in taxes at every turn.

If I had a business that had revenues of $100,000, and 2 part-time employees, and paid myself a salary here is the rough scenario.

Let’s say that my cost of goods is only 10%, research 3%, location 15%, energy use 15%, corporate taxes are 39% and employees get $7/hr. This is before the tax increase and minimum pay jump. They become 49% and $9 respectively. So if my employees cost $9/hr @ 20 hours a week each they are a minimum of 17% not including tax for them. For simple math let’s just call it 20%.

That’s a total of 112%. Without assuming my cost of goods from other businesses in the same position have increased, or if the price of energy increases (which it has for every year since 1972), I am in debt 12%, or in this example $12,000.

That says nothing of paying myself anything. Add in a modest living of $35,000 for owning the business and you get even more debt – but let’s say that I just have it at no cost to the business – though I am paying at least 31% on that money (including the end of the Bush tax cuts) as well.

So I am now in debt. Where can I cut cost? Raw goods and energy are essentially fixed to me. Location is fixed. Taxes are fixed. I could increase prices of my finished goods or services, but there is no guarantee that consumers will pay the higher price. Plus I still have to pay everything first to even test if consumers will pay a higher price.

So a smart plan is to increase my sale price by no more than 5% - small enough to test if the new price range will work, and most won’t notice it. Still I am short the upfront money to get the goods. The only variable left is to cut what I can affect.

I would need to cut either the number of employees and/or their hours until I can bring costs to just even (and probably take a pay cut). At that point I can see if I can make a profit with the price increase.

Now this scenario is overly simplified, given. [A more realistic view is location 11%, Energy 4%, Advertising 1.2%, Raw Goods 3.2%, Communication 4.2%, Operation 2.35%, Outsourcing 2.2%, Employees 32%, Tax 34% - which nets 94.15% of Revenue. Increase cost of higher taxes means that the 6% profit becomes 11.5% in debt.] But the theory is sound. So please explain to me where the higher taxes benefit the 95% of people that receive a paycheck? They will get more money, but fewer of them will be working – and working less hours with higher expectations at that.

The pressure to make a profit increases exponentially if that company has stock and needs to make a profit for investors. And higher profits than normal since they have to make up for the loss incurred from taxing investments.

People that have investments so they can retire are now hurt as they either have to wait longer to retire, or must lower their quality of life. I don’t mean the CEO’s on television quality of life, I mean papa Joe who built up positions in GE so he could sell it over time to make up the difference between SSI (which will be going bankrupt shortly) and his pension that was cut after the company lost it’s ass in the internet bubble crash.

Feeling cheerful? Taxing the rich sound good still?

Add in the cost of higher raw goods since those companies have to make more money too. Add in the higher cost of energy – either because of higher oil prices or the cost of creating and converting to alternative energy. Remember ethanol is only ¾ as efficient as gasoline, so you will need more of it and thus spend more money for the same usage. Plus building solar plants, wind power generators, research and development of biomass, geothermal, and the rest.

And these costs go up every year.

And don’t even mention paying for healthcare, which employers have to cover.

So someone please explain to me how the Democrats plan to raise taxes will benefit anyone. Like I said earlier, it looks great in a vacuum but I own a business in the real world and it doesn’t look so good there.

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, small business, tax increase, tax policy

Senator John McCain made the final speech of the Republican National Convention today. Now the speech was not the best oration you may have ever heard. Senator McCain is not known to be a good teleprompter speaker. He cannot compete with Senator Obama on this regard. But what he said was powerful.

A very good friend of mine heard the full speech and mentioned to me that

“It’s all over. Obama cannot compete with that. God, country, he’s done.”

That was the opinion of a Democrat.

Again it’s not because of the style of the way he said the words, but the content. McCain spoke of a respect for the nation, and the willingness to forgo any Party affiliation to enact the greatest good for the nation.

My friend also noted something else I missed in not only McCain’s speech, but those of Senator Obama’s as well.

“He [McCain] says she. When he speaks about the nation he says she. When Obama talks about the country he says ‘our country’ or ‘this country’. But McCain makes it personal, like it’s a being of its own.”

That kind of little difference is the key. It’s the even greater respect of the nation – born from knowing the difference of not having the freedoms and comforts most of us take for granted. It’s in the eyes of those listening as they are brought to tears. It’s in the honesty of his conviction that he believes his plans for the nation are not just politically good, but good for the individual citizens above all politics.

This was not a speech that was great. It didn’t set the room on fire like Gov. Sarah Palin. But it did make you take notice.

Now some will say that McCain did not speak about the economy. That’s polispeak trying to minimize what he did say about it. Some will say that he was just bashing Obama, and he did for 5 paragraphs out of 67. Some will say that he did not connect with the average American, yet he spent some 19 paragraphs speaking directly to that. And no one will take on the one subject that was constant throughout the entire RNC, that Senator John McCain was a Naval pilot that spent 5 ½ years as a P.O.W. and was tortured mercilessly – he had bled for this nation and it made him love America more.

But don’t take my word. Don’t be swayed by my friend the Democrat. Listen with open ears yourself and tell me that Senator McCain is not prepared, qualified, and deserving of being President.

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Republican National Convention, RNC, Senator John McCain

Let’s really compare the Democratic and Republican Presidential tickets. First I will look at the experience of each ticket. (Part of the information is derived from the information found at Politifact)

Democrats:


• Senator Obama has been a teacher (at a college) for 11 years part-time. He was a community organizer for 3 years. He has worked as a lawyer 12 years (8 of them part timer as he also served in the State legislature). And he has been a Senator for 4 years (2 of which have been spent on the campaign trail for President).
  
  
• Senator Biden has been a lawyer for 4 years. He was a county council member for 2 years. He has spent 36 years as a Senator.
  

Republicans:


• Senator McCain has been a military officer for 22 years (Navy – includes 5 ½ years as a P.O.W. and 4 years as a liason to the Senate). He then went on to be a Senator for 26 years.
  
  
• Governor Palin has been a TV reporter for 2 years. She has owned a business for 9 years (including part-time work with her husband’s businesses).She has been a city council member for 4 years and Mayor for 6 years (re-elected once). She was an appointee to Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 1 year, before becoming a whistleblower of corruption within her Party. She is the current Governor of Alaska for 2 years.
  

So what does that really mean?

Well one interpretation is that the Democrats have little connection to the lives of average Americans. While being a teacher is very respectable and common, that would apply to elementary, middle, and high school teachers. College professors are considered elite in the field of teaching by most all I believe.

The Democrats are very familiar with re-interpreting laws for the benefit of their clients, whether that interpretation is accurate or not, which is the job of a lawyer. Lawyers are also considered a non-common elite profession.

Political office is generally accepted to be elite and separate of normal American life. Working with the community is directly involved with the people, but on a limited scale of population and responsibility.

And on the Republican side?

Military service is defined by average Americans volunteering to serve the nation. While television work is not common it is not necessarily extraordinary. Local newscasters are parts of the communities they report on.
Business ownership is a tenant of the American dream. It is a difficult enterprise at best, and requires 3x’s the work of the owner than any employee. But it’s reward is the benefits it provides to family and the lifestyle.

While politicians are generally reviled, as opinion polls often show, their local level counterparts are often far more connected and respected by the communities they serve. And whistleblowing is always difficult in any industry, even moreso when in politics where corrupt money and positions of power are very intimidating.

Now at this point, which Party – more importantly which Presidential ticket - sounds more likely to be connected to the public and their concerns?

Now let’s look at the lies both Presidential tickets and their respective Parties have made. I’ll start with Republicans this time.

• First I must refute a statement that was made by Fred Thompson. As revealed by Senator McCain’s autobiography he did eventually give up some information to his interrorgators. But we must also keep in mind a serious point on that, interrogation does not end until wanted information is gained, that is the point of it. And thus eventually everyone breaks, and every prisoner that has been interrogated will attest to that. So anyone that holds that against McCain is a f****** idiot in my opinion.
  
  
• But now to a blatant lie of Senator Obama. He stated on national television that abortions have not gone down since President Bush has been in office. According to New York-based Guttmacher Institute stated that
  
  

  “the number of abortions also fell, to 1.2-million in 2005, which it said was 25 percent below the record high of 1.6-million abortions in 1990.”

  
  
  In fact the number of abortions, as reported by several institutions proves that abortions are down since 2000.
  
  
• Another lie of Senator Obama’s, and the Democratic Party is that oil and gas companies have 68 million acres of leased land they are doing nothing with. That answer is only true if you go by the standard that a non-producing lease is one without an oil or gas rig pumping on it (which is what the Government classifies it as). So in fact oil and gas companies can be, and are, exploring for proven resources and are still considered non-producing. The companies can be in the process of getting clearance for actual drilling, which takes a long time, and the land is considered non-producing.
  
  So to say they are doing nothing with the land is a blatant lie.
  
  
• But McCain is not without fault either. His claim that he has a perfect voting record with veteran’s groups is false. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Disabled American Veterans rate McCain at 58% and 20% respectively. With all the other major groups like the VFW and American legion he is correct. But it is not perfect.
  
  
• But Obama has no problem quoting ambiguous information. Like how much the U.S. spends on energy research. He claimed that it was less than
  
  

  “the pet food industry invests on its own products.”

  
  
  But there is no factual data to explain what the pet food industry invests in research. The trade industry for pet food, the Pet Food Institute, does not keep records on this. At the best guess, based on Booz Allen Hamilton study of companies, the industry may spend only 3.8% of revenues on research. Which would be about $500 million a year, which would be 1/6 of the $3 billion the Government spends.
  
  But since this cannot be determined by any factual evidence, and the best guess is massively incorrect, the lie is outstanding.
  
  
• But math seems to be a weak point for Senator Obama. Back before Hurricane Gustav there were floods in the mid-west (in June of 2008). During those floods Obama stated that the National Guard was stretched to thin to give effective help and that there was a shortage of helicopters. Lie.
  
  In fact there was no shortage of helicopters (which the campaign did later acknowledge – without public fanfare). As for the troop shortage due to efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan:
  
  
  Iowa National Guard – 850 overseas, 9,400 total troops = ~90% available
  
  Missouri National Guard – 1,800 overseas, 11,000 total troops = ~ 80% available
  
  Illinois National Guard (Obama’s home state) – 800 current (adding 2,700 later in the year but available during the flooding), 13,000 total troops = ~90% available at the time of flooding and ~70% if you counted the future soldiers out as well.
  
  
  In fact no state is overburdened. The statement sounds scarry, but it’s a fabricated lie.
  
  
• Again McCain is not without his math problems as well. McCain mentioned in June that everyone agreed that Iran was pursing nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency and various U.S. intelligence agencies were not as sure, or in agreement at the time. Thus everyone did not agree and he lied.
  

There are other lies and half or partial truths going back in time, as I noted in other posts, but these are recent.

Let’s look at the flip-flops, an important part of the polispeak used in every political campaign and speech of politicians. Where have the Presidential tickets made a u-turn in favor of votes?

Democrats get to start again.

Senator Obama said in July that he would not tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to resolve short-term energy needs and prices. In August he fully reversed that position.

“The strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency.” July

“We should sell 70-million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks.” August

As is readily known Senator McCain was completely against the President Bush tax cuts when first proposed. Today he is for them. It’s well documented and commented on by Democrats, but it is a flip-flop.

Back to Obama. On financing his run for President

“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
- Barack Obama, fall 2007

“We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election.”
- Barack Obama, June 19, 2008

And the Vice Presidential candidate share in the penchant for complete reversals as well.

I will go with age before beauty.

Senator Biden strongly and with emphasis declared that Senator Obama was not experienced enough or prepared to be President during the Democratic Primaries in live debates and interviews. After accepting the nomination for Vice President he declared that Obama was ready to be President.

Governor Palin is noted for her refusal to accept funds for the “bridge to nowhere”. But it seems she was for it when she was running for Governor

“Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”

Though once elected she

“After taking office and examining the project closely, she consistently opposed funding the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ and ultimately canceled the wasteful project.”

Was it for the political good will or the public’s is unclear – but it’s a 180 degree turn either way.

Now there is much more that can be found about the candidates. You can just check the site for other items the candidates have done in the past. But you have an overall view.

Generally I would say that Democrats have lied more, and on bigger issues than Republicans in this election cycle. The Democratic Ticket is less in touch with the average American than Republicans.

And neither Presidential candidate seems to be any good at doing math on their own.

Now what is most important to you I cannot say. Some don’t care about blatant lies, or flip-flops, or past experience. Some love the polispeak all politicians spin, and others cannot break with their political party no matter their personal view. I do, but that’s me.

The most important thing is that you know who it is you are voting for. The good and bad that each candidate has. Make your own decision what you can live with and without. And once you are sure, for yourself, vote and campaign, and encourage others to do the same.

The purpose of this post is not to ask you to vote like I will or accept my views on the candidates. You have to do that work. But the purpose is to give you a reason to vote for someone. And as long as you do that, my efforts since 2006 are worth the time.

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator John McCain

There were several speakers at the Republican National Convention last night besides Vice Presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. Not all of them have received much attention, due entirely to the powerful speech of the VP.

But they deserve to be heard as much as was Senator Clinton, Former President Bill Clinton, and the other speakers at the DNC last week.

So I now present Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee


Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani


Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee


Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

Labels: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Presidential election race 2008, Republican National Convention, RNC, Rudy Giuliani

Over the last couple of days I was as curious as anyone about Governor Sarah Palin. I knew nothing of her, and I searched the internet and Youtube to find all I could about her. I have presented all that information previously, as accurately and quickly as one man can.

So yesterday I was upset that I would not be able to listen to the speech live, at home where I could take notes or write my comments. Instead I had to honor obligations I had previously made, and make preparations for my home and business. But I also had the chance to speak with several regular people about the Presidential election.

We discussed Senator McCain, and Senator Obama. We discussed the polispeak, promises and problems of each candidate. And we went over at length everything we knew about Gov. Palin, and what the major media was presenting about her.

Before I provide you her speech I want to recall that the main thing everyone, including the media was doing was comparing Gov. Palin to Senator Obama. It was at that moment that I understood something clearly.

If Gov. Palin made a solid speech, and if she can only be able to hold her own against Senator Biden, the Democratic candidates would not only lose but do so by 20 pts or more.

When a Vice Presidential candidate is drawing comparison, serious comparison, to a Presidential candidate the race is over. There has been no comparison of Biden to McCain. There won’t be. But Palin is compared to Obama, and earlier today she was winning. Even as the media was asking questions no male candidate has ever been asked (nor to most female politicians either). Even as the media and some cruel bloggers attacked the minor daughter of the Governor – making comparisons between that child and the grown wife of Obama who spoke on the campaign trail, and comparison to the grown daughter of Hillary Clinton who also was on the campaign trail.

Those were the thoughts I had in mind as I sat up tonight, listening to the replay of the speech by Governor Sarah Palin in full, ending at 3am and then writing this post.

With that said I know present you with the speech, and I ask you this. Can you have any doubt why she was picked for Vice President? Can you believe in a vote for McCain – Palin?

I’ll give my answer below, and invite you to tell me your thoughts as well.



As I’ve said long ago I am a Black Puerto Rican Republican. But more than that I am an American. And I am proud to have been a supporter of Senator John McCain. And having heard this speech I can say that I understand why Governor Sarah Palin was picked for Vice President. I am proud to say that I believe in the McCain – Palin ticket.

I, as President of M V Consulting, Inc and only for myself and my corporation, endorse and will vote for Senator McCain and Governor Sarah Palin as the next President and Vice President of America.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Presidential election race 2008, Republican National Convention, RNC, Senator John McCain

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: Al Gore, Democratic Party, Presidential election race 2008, Republican National Convention, Senator Lieberman

Now for my commentary on Fred Thompson’s speech.

I thought it was a great speech. One of the most important things about it was the fact that unlike similar speeches by Democrats he did not really attack Senator Obama. He got in a few jibes, and they were accurate and well placed, but overall he focused on Senator John McCain.

Fred Thompson was focused on the character and experience of Senator John McCain. Without trying to make a comparison one could not help but see it. And with no disrespect to Obama, McCain towers over his Democratic rival.

Fred Thompson said,

“It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, "Who is this man?" and "Can we trust this man with the presidency?"

Well even Democrats have stated unequivocably that they trust McCain as President. Senator Obama’s own VP pick stated that clearly and without hesitation. His polispeak since rings hollow and Democrats know it.

Senator McCain is a war hero. We all know that. But Democrats seem to want to forget that McCain is the most bi-partisan candidate in this election. It was noted all night, by Thompson and then later by Lieberman (the Democratic VP pick in 2000 for Al Gore) that the difference is doing versus speaking.

But Thompson was not without strong attacks.

“They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.”

Colorful and accurate when you consider that it was Senator Obama himself that noted he would ensure tax cuts for

“95% of those who RECEIVE A PAYCHECK” [Emphasis is my own]

Only those willfully wanting to believe that statement cannot see the connection of business owners, the price of their goods, and the hours and employment individuals receive. Tax one side of the equation and the response hits the other. A basic law of nature and physics, unless you are a Democrat.

To be fair Thompson did focus intently on the history of McCain. There is no question that in the past 18 months the voting record of McCain and President Bush have been similar. But most seem to miss the fact that it has mostly been President Bush moving towards Senator McCain’s view than vice versa.

Fred Thompson went on to say

“History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.”

Now to be fair, in the past there may have been Senators that have run for President that have been more liberal in their voting records than Senator Obama. I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of doubt on this. Though he has been easily found to be the most liberal Senator currently.

Thompson also stated that Obama is the most inexperienced. Again I have not checked the entire Democratic past. But the fact that he has had 3 ½ years in the Senate, of which about 2 have been used to run for President, speaks for itself. Still credit should be given to his time in the Illinios Senate. Though in comparison to McCain, or even Vice Presidential candidate Biden he is weak in that argument.

As for the Democrat-led Congress, well I’ve already stated how ineffective they have been. Their quest to look good on news video clips dominated their time, and the historic lowest-approval ratings, and consistent lower (by about 10 points) ratings than the unpopular President Bush says more than any other argument.

John McCain is hardly the perfect Presidential candidate. He is even less perfect a Republican. And neither of these qualities is bad, especially when compared to a candidate that is even less perfect a candidate and more radically aligned with the furthest portion of his Party.

Some have criticized Fred Thompson’s speech at the RNC for not stating clearly that Senator McCain is not President Bush. I have to believe only the most myopic or the most blindly far-left cannot note the difference.

The differences between the 2 men has been noted in Primaries, policy decisions, and support from other politicians. Even just listening to the 2 men speak makes it apparent. But I do not fault the Democrats for their attempt to polispeak an illusory connection to a Senator that mere 2 years ago was the “Democrats Republican” and lauded by their Party.

Fred Thompson spoke at the Republican National Convention about the past, the experience, honor, and character of John McCain. Whether or not anyone likes or agrees with these things there is no dispute that they are facts. I cannot give a more detailed critique of something that is steeped in fact and avoided conjecture.

Labels: Al Gore, Fred Thompson, Presidential election race 2008, Republican National Convention, RNC, Senator Biden, Senator John McCain, Senator Lieberman

It’s funny that last week, within minutes of the speeches of the various speakers at the Democratic National Convention Youtube was filled with video. Today after Fred Thompson and Senator Lieberman made their opening speeches at the Republican National Convention you can’t find anything but information about protestors, most trying to sway a viewer to believe they were unjustly treated by police.

So much for a fair and unbiased medium. But I do expect that eventually video will be available, and when it is I will present it.

Until then I will rely on the transcripts of the speeches. (as provided by NPR)

Fred Thompson:

**I finally found the video to this speech, so I am adding it now. So now you can see how he presented the words below.**



Tonight our thoughts are still with our friends and fellow citizens in the Gulf Coast area, and our thanks go to those who have worked so hard to keep them safe. There can be no more important work than this.

But what we are doing at this convention is also important to our country.

We are going to nominate the next president and vice president of the United States of America.

We do so while taking a different view of our country than that of the other party.
Listening to them you'd think that we were in the middle of a great depression; that we are down, disrespected and incapable of prevailing against challenges facing us.
We know that we have challenges ... always have, always will.

But we also know that we live in the freest, strongest, most generous and prosperous nation in the history of the world, and we are thankful.

Speaking of the vice presidential nominee, what a breath of fresh air Gov. Sarah Palin is.

She is from a small town, with small-town values, but that's not good enough for those folks who are attacking her and her family.

Some Washington pundits and media big shots are in a frenzy over the selection of a woman who has actually governed rather than just talked a good game on the Sunday talk shows and hit the Washington cocktail circuit. Well, give me a tough Alaskan governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the union — and won — over the beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week.

Let's be clear ... the selection of Gov. Palin has the other side and their friends in the media in a state of panic. She is a courageous, successful reformer, who is not afraid to take on the establishment.

Sound like anyone else we know?

She has run a municipality and she has run a state.

And I can say without fear of contradiction that she is the only nominee in the history of either party who knows how to properly field-dress a moose ... with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt.

She and John McCain are not going to care how much the alligators get irritated when they get to Washington, they're going to drain that swamp.

But tonight, I'd like to talk to you about the remarkable story of John McCain.
It's a story about character. John McCain's character has been tested like no other presidential candidate in the history of this nation. He comes from a military family whose service to our country goes back to the Revolutionary War.

The tradition continues.

As I speak, John and Cindy McCain have one son who's just finished his first tour in Iraq.

Another son is putting "country first" and is attending the Naval Academy. We have a number of McCains in the audience tonight.

Also here tonight is John's 96-year-old mother, Roberta. All I've got to say is that if Roberta McCain had been the McCain captured by the North Vietnamese, they would have surrendered.

Now, John's father was a bit of a rebel, too.

In his first two semesters at the Naval Academy, he managed to earn 333 demerits. Unfortunately, John later saw that as a record to be beaten. A rebellious mother and a rebellious father — I guess you can see where this is going.

In high school and the Naval Academy, he earned a reputation as a troublemaker. But as John points out, he wasn't just a troublemaker. He was the leader of the troublemakers. Although loaded with demerits like his father, John was principled even in rebellion. He never violated the honor code.

However, in flight school in Pensacola, he did drive a Corvette and date a girl who worked in a bar as an exotic dancer under the name of Marie, the Flame of Florida.

And the reason I'm telling you these things, is that, apparently, this mixture of rebellion and honor helped John McCain survive the next chapter of his life:

John McCain was preparing to take off from the USS Forrestal for his sixth mission over Vietnam, when a missile from another plane accidentally fired and hit his plane. The flight deck burst into a fireball of jet fuel. John's flight suit caught fire. He was hit by shrapnel. It was a scene of horrible human devastation.

Men sacrificed their lives to save others that day. One kid, who John couldn't identify because he was burned beyond recognition, called out to John to ask if a certain pilot was OK.

John replied that, yes, he was.

The young sailor said, "Thank God"... and then he died. These are the kind of men John McCain served with. These are the men and women John McCain knows and understands and loves.

If you want to know who John McCain is, if you want to know what John McCain values, look to the men and women who wear America's uniform today. The fire on the Forrestal burned for two days. Twenty planes were destroyed; 134 sailors died.

John himself barely dodged death in the inferno and could've returned to the States with his ship.

Instead, he volunteered for combat on another carrier that was undermanned from losing so many pilots. Stepping up, putting his "country first."

Three months later John McCain was a prisoner of war.

On Oct. 26, 1967, on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam, a surface-to-air missile slammed into John's A-4 Skyhawk jet, blowing it out of the sky.

When John ejected, part of the plane hit him — breaking his right knee, his left arm, his right arm in three places. An angry mob got to him, after he landed. A rifle butt broke his shoulder. A bayonet pierced his ankle and his groin.

They took him to the Hanoi Hilton, where he lapsed in and out of consciousness for days. He was offered medical care for his injuries if he would give up military information in return.

John McCain said "No."

After days of neglect, covered in grime, lying in his own waste in a filthy room, a doctor attempted to set John's right arm without success ... and without anesthesia.
His other broken bones and injuries were not treated. John developed a high fever, dysentery. He weighed barely a hundred pounds.

Expecting him to die, his captors placed him in a cell with two other POWs who also expected him to die.

But with their help, John McCain fought on. He persevered. So then they put him in solitary confinement for over two years. Isolation, incredible heat beating on a tin roof. A light bulb in his cell burning 24 hours a day. Boarded-up cell windows blocking any breath of fresh air. The oppressive heat causing boils the size of baseballs under his arms. The outside world limited to what he could see through a crack in a door.

We hear a lot of talk about hope. John McCain knows about hope. That's all he had to survive on. For propaganda purposes, his captors offered to let him go home.

John McCain refused. He refused to leave ahead of men who'd been there longer. He refused to abandon his conscience and his honor, even for his freedom. He refused, even though his captors warned him, "It will be very bad for you."

They were right. It was.

The guards cracked ribs, broke teeth off at the gums. They cinched a rope around his arms and painfully drew his shoulders back. Over four days, every two to three hours, the beatings resumed. During one especially fierce beating, he fell, again breaking his arm. John was beaten for communicating with other prisoners. He was beaten for not communicating with so-called peace delegations. He was beaten for not giving information during interrogations. When his captors wanted the names of other pilots in his squadron, John gave them the names of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers.

Whenever John was returned to his cell — walking if he could, dragged if he couldn't — as he passed his fellow POWs, he would call out to them. He'd smile ... and give them a thumbs up. For 5 1/2 years this went on. John McCain's bones may have been broken, but his spirit never was.

Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president. But it does reveal character.

This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders. Strength. Courage. Humility. Wisdom. Duty. Honor.

It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, "Who is this man?" and "Can we trust this man with the presidency?"

He has been to Iraq eight times since 2003. He went seeking truth, not publicity. When he travels abroad, he prefers quietly speaking to the troops amidst the heat and hardship of their daily lives. And the same character that marked John McCain's military career has also marked his political career. This man John McCain is not intimidated by what the polls say or by what is politically safe or popular.

At a point when the war in Iraq was going badly and the public lost confidence, John stood up and called for more troops. And now we are winning.

Ronald Reagan was John McCain's hero. And President Reagan admired John tremendously.

But when the president proposed putting U.S. troops in Beirut, John McCain, a freshman congressman, stood up and cast a vote against his hero because he thought the deployment was a mistake.

My friends ... that is character you can believe in.

For years, members of Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, have gouged the taxpayer with secret earmark spending.

Well, he has never sought an earmark.

I've experienced John's character firsthand. In 1993, when I was thinking of running for the Senate, I went to John for advice. He convinced me I could help make a difference for our country. I won that election, and with Republican control of Congress, we reformed welfare. We balanced the budget. And we began rebuilding our military.

What I remember most about those years is sitting next to John on the Senate floor as he led battle after battle to change the acrimonious, pork-barreling, self-serving ways of Washington.

The Senate has always had more than its share of smooth talkers.

And big talkers.

It still has.

But while others were talking reform, John McCain led the effort to make reform happen — always pressing, always moving for what he believed was right and necessary to restore the people's faith in their government.

Confronting when necessary, reaching across the aisle when possible, John personified why we came to Washington in the first place.

It didn't always set too well with some of his colleagues.

Some of those fights were losing efforts.

Some were not.

But a man who never quits is never defeated.

Because John McCain stood up, our country is better off.

The respect he is given around the world is not because of a teleprompter speech designed to appeal to American critics abroad but because of decades of clearly demonstrated character and statesmanship.

There has been no time in our nation's history, since we first pledged allegiance to the American flag, when the character, judgment and leadership of our president was more important.

Terrorists, rogue nations developing nuclear weapons, an increasingly belligerent Russia.

Intensifying competition from China.

Spending at home that threatens to bankrupt future generations. For decades an expanding government ... increasingly wasteful and too often incompetent.

To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president.

History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.

Together, they would take on these urgent challenges with protectionism, higher taxes and an even bigger bureaucracy. And a Supreme Court that could be lost to liberalism for a generation. This is not reform. And it's certainly not change.
It is basically the same old stuff they've been peddling for years. America needs a president who understands the nature of the world we live in. A president who feels no need to apologize for the United States of America.

We need a president who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.

My friends, we need a leader who stands on principle. We need a president, and vice president, who will take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking. And we need a president who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade. The man who will be that president is John McCain.

In the days ahead at this convention, you will hear much more about what John will do as president — what he will do on the economy, on energy, on health care, the environment. It is not my role tonight to explain that vision. My role is to help remind you of the man behind the vision. Because tonight our country is calling to all of us to step up, stand up, and put "country first" with John McCain.

Tonight we are being called upon to do what is right for our country. Tonight we are being called upon to stand up for a strong military ... a mature foreign policy ... a free and growing economy and for the values that bind us together and keep our nation free. Tonight, we are being called upon to step up and stand up with John just as he has stood up for our country.

Our country is calling. John McCain cannot raise his arms above his shoulders. He cannot salute the flag of the country for which he sacrificed so much. Tonight, as we begin this convention week, yes, we stand with him.

And we salute him. We salute his character and his courage. His spirit of independence, and his drive for reform. His vision to bring security and peace in our time, and continued prosperity for America and all her citizens.

For our own good and our children's, let us celebrate that vision, that belief, that faith so we can keep America the greatest country the world has ever seen.

God bless John McCain and God bless America.

Labels: Fred Thompson, Presidential election race 2008, Republican National Convention, RNC, Senator John McCain

I searched through Youtube a bit and came up with this compilation on Gov. Sarah Palin. For those who are unfamiliar with her, here are her words on various interviews. You can make up your own thoughts on how she sounds and what she has to say on various subjects.

Energy




Education


Military


Giving Birth in Office


Life and Background


General


Scandal (name one candidate without one)


With Troops (I do not support every aspect of this video)


Security


Now this has not been the most comprehensive study of Gov. Palin’s past and her comments to the public. But I believe it does give some insight to the candidate.

I’m really interested in her debate with Senator Biden, and future speeches she makes.

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Biden, Vice-Presidential candidates

I did not want to speak about this. Obama has said he does not find this an election issue. Biden has said it’s off limits. Yet the major news media is continuing to feed the flames on this issue. Sarah Palin’s child is not newsworthy.

The news was reported yesterday that Republican Vice Presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin’s 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant. It was also stated that she plans to marry the father of the child. How this is a Presidential campaign subject I don’t know.

The children of the Presidential candidates have long been off-limits to the press. Especially those that are considered minors. And there is a good reason for this, parenting is not an exact science and children make mistakes. Being a President or a candidate does not somehow instantly convey a better ability to raise children than any other American parent.

Now the Palin’s are not that unusual. Here in Binghamton they are the norm. And I would say that Binghamton is a very good reflection of middle America.

In Binghamton it is unusual to find a girl that makes it to 21 without a child. In this area it is normal for couples to marry in or just out of high school. And I would put the average at about 60% for girls in high school to have a child before graduating.

I’m not saying that this is positive, or wanted. I am saying that this is an occurrence that is happening across America. And parents have 2 choices; abandon the minor and let them fend for themselves, or stand by them and help them out. Governor Palin has chosen to stand by and support her child with this life changing event.

So what do some people expect? That Gov. Palin should abandon her child? That she should force her to not have the child or put it up for adoption? Why? To challenge or back up some political point of view that this voter or that prefers?

This is not political. It’s a family decision. This does not affect the economy, crude oil prices, corn ethanol production, inflation, unions, taxes, the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, or even national healthcare.

And for those that are Pro-life, Pro-choice, or for abortion it is not a factor either. This is the decision of 1 family, not law. If anyone wants to project their cause on this that is their doing, and wrong in my opinion. Just as Presidents should not be partisan (or at least radically so) and make decisions based on the best interest of the average American family – even if they disagree with them personally – this is no different.

I hope the major news media follows the calls from Senator John McCain, Senator Joe Biden,

“With regard to the stuff that you’re talking about, I have a simple proposition: children are off limits. Children are off limits. We’ve all been through things with our children, and it’s about common decency. Just treat people with common decency. That’s all I know that I can say.”

and Senator Barack Obama

“I think people's families are off limits and people's children are especially off limits.”

Obama also emphasised that his campaign was not in any way responsible for the spreading of any of the internet rumours surrounding Palin and her daughter.

"If I ever thought that there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired.”

in leaving this alone. Of the many issues that deserve to be discussed, this is beneath each Party.

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Presidential election race 2008, Vice-Presidential candidates

I had to make a comment on this. While Senators Obama and Biden congratulated Alaska Governor Palin on being picked as Vice President, the Obama campaign has tried to slam her.

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton

Now I have to laugh at that.

Governor Sarah Palin has been to Iraq as many times as Senator Obama, and considering in 4 years Obama spent all of 3 days I believe she has been there as much as he has if not more.

Gov. Palin is not only the former mayor, admittedly of a small town, but also is the executive office leader of a state. Senator Obama, and Biden for that matter, have never run a town of any size let alone a state. They have never had to balance a budget, or do the day to day operations of anything.

So essentially she has about as much experience as Senator Obama when it comes to foreign policy, more experience in governing a populace, and Senator John McCain trounces Obama in regard to foreign policy and most other issues. For Senator Obama to speak about experience is just a reminder of what he does not have. And if her experience is not enough, then how can the Democratic Party look America in the eyes and say Obama is qualified? (Oh, that’s right they didn’t. Hillary has never said it, Biden and Bill Clinton both flipped their early staunch positions about Obama’s inexperience just this week.)

If the Democrats want to pick on something about Gov. Palin they better look for something else, because experience just isn’t it.

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Sarah Palin, Senator Barack Obama, Vice-Presidential candidates

I listened intently last night as Senator Barack Obama accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention with some 70,000 democrats looking on. If Senator Obama didn’t want to look like a celebrity, this was not the way to do it. But as the first African American to reach this history making level a bit of fanfare is warranted.

Now I could rip into Obama’s speech, line by line. I can highlight all the improbabilities, and all the things that will end up costing America more than we can afford. I can even point out all the mistakes of Presidents Carter and Clinton that he seems to be determined to repeat.

But instead I will just make this easy (my shoulder injury has not healed yet). Senator Obama promises to lower taxes of 95% of Americans receiving paychecks. He plans to increase taxes of business. That is a problem. Because I expect that this will equate to less hours at more pay for the average American, and adding in the higher cost of food (because of expanded corn ethanol production) and the increase taxes and cost of energy will mean less money overall. And that’s before a nationalized healthcare plan.

With nationalized healthcare will come lower quality medical treatment and lines for x-rays and doctor visits – like those found in Canada and England right now. Seeing a doctor will become a trip to the post office, won’t that be great?

Obama is a great speaker, and part of a President’s job is communication. But also part of the job is the ability to pass legislation, which Obama is not bi-partisan enough to do. A President must be able to show strength, which Obama’s demand to run from Iraq does not inspire. And a President must have a unified Administration, which Senator Biden does not provide (he opposed several policies of Senator Obama, as well as believing he is not qualified for the Presidency – as he has stated).

Senator Obama is a strong intelligent capable man. He loves America and has a great vision for the future. But he has neither the experience, nor political flexibility, to achieve his grand plans. No matter how you want to do the math, his initiatives are more expensive than he has claimed requiring more of your money than you may think. His voting record shows his desire to stand by the most far-left of Democratic policies, and that is too extreme for the centrist average of America.

But I will leave you with the speech that Senator Obama spoke yesterday. I remind you that Joe Biden represents the same ‘old’ politics that McCain supposedly embodies. I remind you that the Surge has worked. I remind you that the economy is slowing, and energy prices are rising – both are equally the fault of Democrats and Republicans.

Senator Obama is a great man, creating history before our eyes. But as you listen to his speech ask yourself is he a war-time President, that can stimulate the economy and move America into a safer better America – which requires more than just words.


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4

Labels: African American, Democratic National Convention, DNC, Iraq, national healthcare, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, tax policy

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: Bill Clinton, Congress, Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama

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: Democratic Party, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Vice-Presidential candidates

So the Democratic Presidential ticket has been revealed. It’s Obama – Biden for 2008. Has this pick really done anything to help Senator Obama win the Presidency and become the first Black President? Has this improved the confidence of the nation in selecting these men as our leaders?

No. At least by me.

I reviewed some of the things that Senator Joe Biden has said in the past, his record in the Primary race, and what I noted about him. The summary is as follows.

Biden was able to take 5th place in the Iowa Primary, gaining a total of 1% of the vote which is inauspicious at best. In polls before the South Carolina Primary, when Stephen Colbert was seeking to enter, the results of potential voters placed Biden a mere .4% ahead of Colbert (Stephen Colbert was projected to have 2.3%, Biden had 2.7%}. Overall his total delegate count was 0. Biden never won a single state.

In my own unofficial polls, found on Black Entertainment USA, M V Consulting, and this site, which were available from 2007 until February 2008 Senator Biden garnered 3% of votes in a competition of Republicans and Democrats. That poll also showed that Senator Obama would win the Democratic Primary with 51%, and Senator McCain would win the Republican with 16%.

Senator Biden has in fact failed to win the Democratic Presidential nomination twice. In 1988 and again in 2008.

Senator Biden is older (56) than Senator Obama, and has far more experience in Congress as he holds the 6th longest term length ever. So it can be said that when viewed by the Obama campaign motto of Change; Senator Biden is the ‘old politics’ that Senator Obama is trying to ‘replace’.

Like Senator Obama, Biden is a lawyer. He attended University of Delaware and the Syracuse University (where he was found to have plagiarized a law review article in his first year). Unlike Senator Obama he has been found to be a liar about his time in college. He has claimed in the past that he had 3 degrees; he has 1, and graduated in the top half of his class, actually place just above the bottom 10%.

His views on Iraq and Afghanistan are mixed, and oppose the declared views of Senator Obama. While Obama favors the retreat in failure policy advocated by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Moveon.org and Code Pink, Senator Biden has offered an option that differs. He supported troops in Afghanistan. He voted for the War in Iraq – along with virtually every Democrat in elected office at the time (Senator Obama was not in elected office then). He was in favor of larger numbers of troops in Iraq, and has not quibbled about funding our troops (which Obama has). His ultimate plan for Iraq is the creation of 3 states and allowing each of those states to be semi-independent and semi-autonomous but still working as a nation together.

Also of note is the fact that in the 2004 Presidential election, Biden advised John Kerry to pick Senator John McCain as a Vice-President. If that is not a statement of how close to political center and bi-partisan Senator John McCain is I cannot imagine what is.

But of major significance to me is the comment of Senator Biden about Senator Obama. Before Obama was the Democratic nominee, back when Biden was still in the Primary race, before the media had fallen in lust with Obama, Biden said what he thought.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man"

To which I ultimate stated

“Senator Biden needs to apologize to more than just Senator Obama. Every Black American deserves an apology. These comments are reminiscent of the mentality that necessitated the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. These comments belittle every success and successful Black American in the nation. Hiding behind one term in a statement whose total purpose is too subtly insult will not fool us. The mainstream media may not wish to address this but I will.

For me, Senator Biden will never get my vote… But the underlying thought of his statement cannot be warmed-over by platitudes or a plea of a single term misstatement. The meaning of the full comment does not change. That meaning places me and 14% of America in a second-class, less than meaningful position. I will not accept that of an American President or politician if possible.”

So I will add this to my comment.

I would not vote for Senator Biden as President when his opinion of over 14% of this nation is demeaning and a throwback to the pre-Civil Rights years. That same reasoning prevents me from voting him into the 2nd highest position in America.

Senator Obama may feel that Biden is a solid mix, but I find his thinking flawed. Biden is an example of old politics – the kind that failed to come up with any energy alternatives in 30 years (Biden was first elected to office in 1972 before the Oil Crisis). Biden is a proven liar and cheat. Biden conflicts with Obama on how to resolve Iraq, and he has a proven zero appeal among Democratic primary voters.

If there was a question about how well Senator Obama could do in the Presidential election I feel it is now answered. I cannot fathom how he can win with Senator Biden on the ticket. Prepare for a McCain Presidency.

Labels: Democratic National Convention, Iraq War, moveon.org, Nancy Pelosi, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Stephan Colbert

With all the questions floating around about which politician should be the Vice-President for the Presidential candidates, I wanted to take a stab at who I thought made sense. Now to be fair, most of the potentials being bandied about by pundits are not well known names to me. Then again I doubt that most of America is familiar with almost any of them either.

I will delve into the Democrats first. That’s only because I think that Party is the weakest, with the worst political platforms. I also disagree on most issues with them. But not least of all is the fact that I don’t know many that I think would be a good candidate – so I will just mention who I am sure it will not be.

Senator Hillary Clinton. Not even in a pipe dream. Senator Obama and the Clinton machine share no love. Senator Clinton is actively trying to stab Obama in the back right now. Former- President Bill Clinton has insulted every aspect of Obama’s campaign as well as African Americans in politics.

Beyond all that, she is the one person that every Republican would love to see on the ticket. There is so much ammunition ready based on the fiascos, lies, and corruption of the Clintons that it would be the fastest way to ensure a McCain win. Women and Black votes included.

Al Gore. Is anyone that wants this not on drugs? Yes he is popular today with his allegations that the world will end tomorrow in a boiling ball of flame. Of course he thinks he is the smartest man in the room, no matter where the room is. Including the Oval Office.

He is slightly better than Hillary as he is less hated. But he is also seen as being very weak. Internationally he may do well with scientists, but that’s about it. Say what you will but the nation was SO happy that Gore was not in charge after 9/11. And he is directly linked to most of the baggage the Clintons have because he was part of their do-nothing Administration.

John Kerry. Do I really need to say more? You might as well want John Edwards.

Colin Powell. Now this is interesting. He is respected in politics and internationally. He is a war hero. He is unquestionably patriotic. He is Black. He is intelligent. He is personable. But he is also a Republican.

Now if he were to be convinced that would be something. But I do not believe that he would take the position just because Senator Obama has made history. To my knowledge virtually all the positions that Obama has announced are opposed by Powell. Though it would be the biggest move since the Lincoln Administration (took a Republican to go with the best people regardless of political affiliation – that’s bi-partisan), I can’t see it happening. It’s a long-shot at best.

And that’s the Democrats I know and care about. All the others being spoken about I don’t know enough to make an intelligent choice on.

As for Republicans I only think there needs to me a choice of 2 people. Condoleezza Rice and Mitt Romney.

Condoleezza Rice is the first Black woman as United States Secretary of State, and just the second African American, or woman, in the position ever (only took 220 some odd years). She is unquestionably intelligent (unless you think Stanford is a community college), experienced both before this Administration and during on international affairs. Oh, and she speaks 5 languages.

She survived the trials and tribulations of the Jim Crow laws in Birmingham yet she is relatively young, at a politically youthful 53. She is an accomplished pianist. And she was a Democrat until 1982.

Let me focus on the last sentence. Like many African Americans, Secretary Rice was raised to look at Democrats favorably. Unlike many of the youth today that believe the ultra-liberal views of Obama is the only option, Secretary Rice has seen several of the current proposals in action under President Carter. Anyone old enough to have lived through the fiasco that President Carter made of the economy at the time, and the weakness he projected of America (by being incapable of recovering our hostages from Iran) logically would never want to go back to that process.

Secretary Rice helps to pull the Black vote, as well as women. She is young, balancing well against McCain’s age. She is in excellent health. She is a success, it cannot be said enough. She has experience, which in combination to McCain severely outweighs the experience of any combination the Democrats can come up with.

The patriotism us unquestioned, and for those that care she is Presbyterian to my knowledge.

And let me step back. I mentioned 2 people, and thinking about it as I write I have changed my mind. I think she is the only real and solid choice. A McCain – Rice ticket wins in my opinion. Do the math as you wish, but Democrats have nothing to compete with this.

And the only negative I can think of is the pre-existing issue of Iraq. But we already know how Senator McCain feels about that, so it’s moot.

Well in a mere few days we will see, and then the real decisions will start to be made.

Labels: Al Gore, Colin Powell, John Edwards, Presidential election race 2008, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry, Senator John McCain

And here goes Strike 3 for the Democratic National Convention. The often discussed and well-rumored submission of Senator Hillary Clinton’s name for the nomination ballot has now been confirmed. The Democratic Party looks weaker and more dysfunctional by the day.

I’ve already noted the problems that will be created once House Speaker Nancy Pelosi takes the stage.

“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 Pelosi has walled-off any discussion of domestic drilling for oil. She has refused to allow any votes on the subject. And according to her most recent comments on Larry King she will only consider possibly allowing a vote on domestic drilling IF it also includes alternative energy incentives.

Effectively that means that Speaker Pelosi wants alternative energy to get more money to earn more money for herself. The higher the cost for oil, the better her alternative energy stocks will do. And the American public be damned.”

And in the recent past I noted the danger of the Clinton’s to any hopes of Senator Obama winning the Presidency:

“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 today a joint press release from Senator Obma and Senator Clinton stated that Hillary will have her name submitted for nomination consideration. Senator Clinton stated in that release

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again.”

Right. This is the same woman that

“It's only taken her a day to realize that 2143 is over 2118, and that she has lost. Only a day to recognize that using race and religion as negative attacks has not helped her, that every woman in America will not flock to her just because of her gender, that taking every position possible on issues (like illegal immigrants getting driver's liscences) or lying to the public (with Ireland and Bosnia to name a few) is not a means to gain votes.”

And whose husband, Former President Bill Clinton, has said on her behalf





And then there is





This all says nothing of the comments made during the actual Democratic Primaries.

So when you consider that Senator Hillary Clinton has never stopped her push to be the Democratic nominee, that former-President Bill Clinton refuses to acknowledge or support Senator Obama, that the Clintons have virtually blackmailed their ‘support’ to date to the repayment of the debt they incurred campaigning against Obama, and the fact that all of this is being used to weaken Senator Obama’s chance of winning the election the DNC looks to be a way to break Democratic unity as opposed to securing it.

All in all, between the Clinton’s and Nancy Pelosi the Democratic National Convention seems to be shaping up to be somewhat of a farce and a losing proposition for the chances of winning the election. But the Vice-Presidential candidate will be announced as well. Depending on who is picked it may be the base hit that Obama needs right now.

So is it 3 strikes and out or will the Democrats still be at bat?

Labels: Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention, DNC, Nancy Pelosi, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

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: Congress, Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Edward Kennedy

Music is integral to life. Whether you are young and rebellious, stressed from a hard day of work, or out with friends on Friday music is something that is ingrained as part of our lives. And in this current Presidential election cycle music has taken an unprecedented importance.

Senator Obama has had several songs and music videos made about his historic nomination as the Democratic Presidential candidate (even though Bill and Hillary Clinton might dispute that). The most recent came from an unexpected source, ensconced in wording that insulted everyone that heard it – including Senator Obama. Such is a song by rapper Nas (real name Nasir Jones).

But lest you believe that the only music in the nation or appropriate for a Presidential candidate is gansta rap or hip hop, John Rich would like to prove there is alternatives.

For those unfamiliar John Rich is part of the multi-platnium country music duo Big & Rich. He can also be seen on the popular Nashville Star television program. He’s sold over 5 million albums, and was part of People magazine’s music industry ‘power’ list. In other words he’s no slouch.

John Rich is also a conservative and Republican. And after observing all the hoopla surrounding the Obama videos and the insults made by Nas, he decided to even the playing field a bit.

“If I can make them understand about where John McCain has come from and the journey he's been on, there's no way they cannot respect him for that. The more you get to know John McCain, the more you respect the fact that he's both a patriot and an independent thinker, a rebel when it means staying true to what he believes in. Hopefully my song will help those people out there who are starting to pay attention to him to realise what kind of guy he is."

Labels: Big and Rich, John Rich, music video, nas, Nashville Star, Presidential election race 2008, Senator John McCain, Senator Obama

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

Senator Obama better be careful, his campaign is forgetting a basic rule of modern pop culture – too much is as bad as too little. I’m speaking about the non-stop media blitz that has been Senator Obama in the media since February. It’s starting to have a negative effect.

According to the Pew Research Center a poll taken between Aug 1st – 4th of 1000 adults showed the following

Democrats:


• 34% of Democrats feel they’ve heard too much about Obama
  
• 26% say they have not hear enough about Senator McCain
  
  Republicans:
  
  
• 67% of Democrats feel they’ve heard too much about Obama
  
• 52% say they have not hear enough about Senator McCain
  
  Independants:
  
  
• 51% of Democrats feel they’ve heard too much about Obama
  
• 41% say they have not hear enough about Senator McCain
  
  
• Overall 48% feel that they heard too much about Obama vs. 26% who feel they heard too much about McCain.

Well that says a lot. It means that Senator Obama has not imparted the American public with enough substantive information on his political policies, if the poll numbers are correct. He had been all over the news for reasons that really aren’t translating into a reason to vote for him as President. But he’d win the political rockstar Hall of Fame in a heartbeat.

Perhaps the problem is that it’s difficult to explain to America how he won’t raise taxes on the average citizen while increasing spending for programs like national healthcare, and raising costs for energy. I still don’t understand how that will be done and I follow politics more than even some pundits.

Perhaps the problem is the racial factor. It is a fact that America is still uncomfortable with the issue of race, and the past of the nation. That was made obvious when the House of Representatives released an apology for slavery, that was quickly buried by the major news media, yet the Senate would not even vote on the resolution.

Add to that the delicate line of what is abusing the race issue, or using it as a weapon. I tend to think the line is a bit more defined than what the pundits proclaim – then again I’m not fighting for ratings. Senator Clinton, and former-President Bill Clinton, made it pretty obvious during the Democratic Primaries. Polls from states like West Virginia were very definitive as well.

Either way one thing is clear. Polispeak is a tool every politician wields, but the Obama campaign better start using an even more effective tool, declarative statements about policy that will improve the nation – if he has any.

Labels: cable news, news media, Pew Research Center, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

Energy, crude oil, and more energy. The Presidential race has taken yet another turn of late, ignoring the issues of last month and rolling on the bandwagon of the latest issue pushed by pundits and the news media in their quest for ratings. The 24-hour news cycle continuing to seek the latest item to get viewers to keep the channels glued on their programming.

Too bad for the American public though.

It’s so bad that I have spoken to several people across the country that are just starting to pay attention to the candidates, only now starting to compare them. And most have little to no idea what the candidates have promised or said before. Even worse are those that think the candidates have this or that position because they saw a 15 second bit of polispeak on a news show, or a 30 second commercial of pure spin.

Thus most Americans are not asking why Senator Barack Obama has yet to attend a townhall meeting with rival Senator John McCain, an opportunity that he initially said “sounds good” and was looking forward to. To date he has not attended a single event.

Most Americans are not wondering what Senator McCain will actually do about the economy. Not just the energy issue but the whole economy. Everyone seems to have forgotten the fact that McCain has admitted his weakness on this subject and therefore deserves great scrutiny on his plans.

Everyone has put the nationalized healthcare issue on a back burner. When was the last time you heard either candidate explain how children will be sure to be covered during their tenure. Senator Obama has failed to explain how he will fund his program, or how he will ensure that it becomes the first Government agency to actually maintain its budget or be efficient.

And both candidate are really glad that the aging nation is no longer asking what is going to be done about Social Security. It’s still going to fail, and very soon. But with a growing population of retiring Americans, this critical issue has been tiptoed around and dance far away from. But our next President will HAVE to enact something to deal with the pressing issue during their 4 years in office.

Perhaps this is why both candidates are solidly in the mid-forties, statistically even, in all the polls tracking them day by day. Neither can get a majority of Americans yet, but then again the majority of Americans have only heard of one issue or another, and a commercial or 2. There really isn’t a reason to have a strong opinion yet, unless you have followed the candidates for a couple of years (like I and a few bloggers have), followed all the primaries and primary debates, are blindly Democrat or Republican, or a racist.

So since most people have no real reason to lean either way, and while the candidates are racing each other to get more centrist politically – with polispeak defending each turn in policy – I have to say that I think the first candidate to pick a Vice-President and to give a clear view of all their policies will win the election.

And I must add that this would be vitally important for Senator Obama. With the swooning support of the major news media and the ultra-liberal far-left wing of the Democratic Party he won the primary race. But that group of Americans is vastly far from what the average American believes on all the important issues. All the talk of momentum, young voters, and groundswells of support still can’t allow him to gain 51% in the polls (with the exception of a quick burst right after his ‘use the soldiers for political gain’ rockstar tour of the Middle East and Europe – was over 51% for 3 days).

And if you think I’m wrong, where is there a quote in the last 2 weeks, no let’s look at a month, actually go 2 months to find quotes on what the candidates will do about education.

The big point is this, energy and crude oil are important. In the last 40 years neither political party has made any moves to help the nation. Based on the current and potential cost of oil, either candidate Must make changes in our policies if elected. So note who said what they will do, but also ask what else they are willing to do. And perhaps you might want to ask them about the issues that the pundits and news media got bored with months ago. Or you can just search my blog.

Vote because it counts. Vote because it’s your right. Vote because after the election you can’t change the President.

Labels: education, energy alternatives, nationalized healthcare, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Social Security, townhall meeting

The recent ads by Senator John McCain’s campaign really are interesting. If you haven’t seen them I present 2 that I believe are intelligent, humorous, and raise real questions about Senator Barack Obama.



In this video we are presented with the obvious nature of Senator Obama’s rockstar celebrity status. That status has been decried by the major news media in no uncertain terms. And there is no question that Senator Obama has a presence that politicians dream of having. His ability to speak to crowds in America, or overseas, is unmatched – most obviously in comparison to Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator John McCain.

But it also asks a very serious question. What is the major news media not finding out about this potential Presidential candidate?

Objectivity is the hallmark of the news media, or at least it used to be. The impartiality of the news meant that the truth would be presented, no matter what the populace was hoped to be lead to believe in a veil of polispeak. Pundits were supposed to be the informed watchdogs for the citizenry, deciphering the polispeak and ignoring the election geared parade of kissing babies and shaking hands.

If the news media is capable of being beguiled, then how is the average American with an hour of time in their busy day supposed to work through whom deserves the Presidency? What issue that may be of importance to you and I are the major news media ignoring, or worse deciding we should not know so it cannot influence out vote?



And here the question of celebrity status is again questioned. Is Senator Obama as vapid on political issues as Paris Hilton is on driving? Is Senator Obama more concerned about entertaining crowds worldwide than addressing issues domestically, like Britney Spears is apparently more concerned about a good party than her children?

While Senator Obama took a whirlwind tour of Iraq, Iran, and Europe he has avoided the problem at home of domestic oil drilling. The Democratic Party has worked hard to maintain his stance that increased domestic drilling is bad and will not be allowed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gone so far as to block any kind of vote on the matter, preventing Representatives across the nation to vote as their constituents have contacted them and instructed them to do. Why? Because a celebrity Obama has enough clout and likeability to talk Iran and the Middle East into lower crude oil prices?

And recall that Senator Obama himself acknowledged that all Iran needs to do is block the Straight of Humus and oil will go to $300. Yet he also believes that he can talk to Iran, a nation that seeks the utter destruction of America for over 30 years, and prevent that. Even though the world knows that a higher oil price will harm America and benefit the Middle East. And Senator Obama does not want a back-up plan?

Actually his back-up plan is to raise taxes, which means higher prices as well. Because he believes that forcing the price higher will force Americans to use less energy. He is right but that also means that more people will lose homes, jobs, businesses because of the higher cost. You can’t use more energy is your small business is shut-down, along with all your employees. Is that a good plan?

I’m not saying that the ads of Senator McCain are correct. But I am saying that they bring up real and important questions. Do you have the answers? Are you sure?

Labels: Crude oil prices, gasoline prices, Nancy Pelosi, Polispeak, political ads, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

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: Bill Gates, Crude oil prices, Democratic Party, ethanol, Iraq War, IRS, Paul Volcker, Presidential election race 2008, Robert Rubin, Senator Barack Obama, Warren Buffett

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: Afghanistan War, Democratic Party, Harry Reid, Iraq, moveon.org, Pete Hegseth, Peter Beinart, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, USAToday

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



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: Democratic Party, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Social Security

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: Congress, Democratic Party, Iraq War, Presidential election race 2008, Professor Rodrigue Tremblay, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Social Security, tax policy

I write for a lot of blogs. Currently the number is up to about 45 blogs, besides those owned by my M V Consulting, Inc., where my posts can be found at. That says nothing of the blogs where others comment on my posts or quote some portion of what I have said. As such it’s sometimes very difficult to respond to each comment someone makes, though I do try.

It is also difficult for all my readers to see comments made at various blogs on some of the posts I have written. To that end I want to take the time to not only post some of the comments made but to also try to respond to them. And I invite everyone to comment as well, either here or on the blog the comment corresponds to.

Your thoughts are important to me and if you write a comment, I think it deserves to be seen in the least.

The following comments come from Presidential Race Blog, and African American Political Opinion though more comments can be found throughout the web.

Democratic Nomination - Path to where?

with Obama as president candidate for the democrates, i have no confidence. Interestingly, I remember most of obama’s speech as rhetorical and superficial, taken from other speeches which he studied, and repititious of other people’s ideas. The first two instances I looked and listened to him via the television, I got goosebumps from inspiration; in retrospect, i can liken most of his speeches and line of arguments to those i heard in the past. his fever, i think he got from his hypocritic church which he attended the last 20 years. his racism, he also got from there, and the fact that he is half-black and has to depend heavily on the black american community for most of his votes. his elitism, is a reflection of where he came from and where he now is. These are the bumps i get when i listen to him now. i agree with hilary with her claim that she won the majority votes. she has indeed won almost the same amount of votes as obama, and a variety in her combination of voters, some blacks, white, hispanic, etc., etc., I only disappointed that the media did not cover obama with the same amount of scrutiny that they did to hilary, i think the results would have been different if they has done so. I do hope that the general elections will be covered fairly, and obama will not be given the easy path, sheltered for all slips, so that the outcome of the general elections be fair game.
thank you for your space

janet Felix

Janet,

While Senator Obama has used lines from other speeches of politicians (with permission and thus not plagiarism) it’s not a unique action. Most politicians have done this to some degree over the last 20 years or so.

You mention that his former church is hypocritical. How so? You also call them racist, where is the proof?
I’ve spoken a lot about Rev. Wright and the polispeak soundbites used against him. I think it’s an unfair portrayal. But most of his comments and sermons that I have been made aware of are not racist. They are racial, which is not the same, and they do point out issues that exist in America. While some will feel offended or embarrassed by truth it does not change the truth.

As for the church, which was in the forefront of trying to abolish Apartheid, has helped the homeless, has gay and White parishioners, what is wrong about them?

You also make a misstatement. While Senator Obama received a huge vote from Black Democrats, he also had huge numbers of college educated, young, male, and other Democratic voters. If he only received the African American vote, then he would not be the Democratic nominee. Nor would he have won the multiple states where the Black population was barely 10%. You do a disservice in making that claim.

Ultimately Senator Clinton did get a huge number of votes. Much of this came as Senator Obama reeled from the Rev. Wright media blitz. But I still find that Senator Clinton was a deceptive and horrible choice for Democrats (and I made that clear in multiple posts).

The coverage of the Presidential candidates by the media has been overwhelmingly for Democrats. Along with that it has been for Senator Obama. That may lie in the fact that the media is overwhelmingly liberal and he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. So to hope for even handed coverage seems a waste of time to me.

But there has been enough coverage that your misperceptions should not exist as well. I invite you to read through my blogs and to see what I mean.


Leading Democratic candidates Pros and Cons

The VP choices are the most important ingrediant in this Election. Everyone knows that Obama has a Bulls Eye Target on his Back, and McCain is on Death’s Door. I cannot figure out why none of our TV, Radio, Newsprint, or Magazine Newsies have picked up on this Point?

Steve ONeill

Steve,

I have to say that I disagree with your conclusions. While Senator Obama is no favorite of the KKK or other narrow-minded racist groups, I believe that the Secret Service is far to aware to allow him to be killed. And while Senator McCain is older, he is more fit than most men half his age.

I doubt that either man would die in office, though it is possible. But that is the purpose of the VP and is no different than any other election cycle. The emphasis is not on who they pick but the overall policies they and their VP believe is best for America going forward.

To vote for or against a candidate based on imagined health issues or potential nutcase attacks does not help the nation gain the best President or future. Rather than obsess on the VP pick the best choice for President and the nation will go from there, I think.


What Senator Ted Kennedy endorsing Senator Obama means

THE CLASSIFICATION OF AMERICANS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY MUST END
The Racial and Ethnic classification of Americans is nothing more than institutionalized racism and must be ended. The United States of America has been known as a country of rugged individualism based on individual freedom and liberty. Why has America become a country obsessed with classifying its citizens into different racial and ethnic sub-groups?

The only groups that actively support the continued collection of racial and ethnic data are big government bureaucrats and “racial and ethnic special interest groups” that also happen to receive significant funding from the federal government. These organizations argue that identifying people by race and ethnicity is necessary in order to redress some past injustice and that the federal government must continue to collect and use this information in order to set up special racial and ethnic programs, affirmative action quotas and other set-asides for these groups, some of whom consist of new immigrants, illegal aliens and non-citizens. Nothing can be further from the truth. In a country where we can no longer ask people what religion they are, what their party affiliation is or what their sexual orientation is, why are we still asking them about their racial and ethnic background?

Americans are beginning to realize that racial and ethnic identification is more a matter of personal choice than anything else. In the 2000 Census, seven million American citizens refused to place themselves into a single category by refusing to describe themselves as only white, black, Asian, Latino or any one of the other specific categories listed, because they were of mixed race. Attempts by the government to create a “mixed race” box for the 2000 Census was met with resistance by racial and ethnic special interest groups like the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza, because they feared that a mixed-race box could pose a danger to the justification for their existence. The fuzzier such racial and ethnic categories become, the harder it will be for these racial and ethnic special interest groups and the government to traffic in them. If a mixed-race category were to be added, every brown-skinned person of mixed race registered in this category would shrink the government’s official count of Blacks, Latinos, Asians or American Indians, eventually reducing their political influence and ultimately the amount of money these groups receive from the federal government, which amounts to approximately $185 billion a year.

Through the mandated collection and use of racial and ethnic specific information, more and more of American taxpayers’ hard earned money is being routinely distributed to these racial and ethnic special interest groups at the expense of all other Americans who may or may not be members of these groups. Through executive orders, congressional legislation, affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and other programs based solely on race and ethnicity, our federal government is playing the key role that pits one racial and ethnic group against another, which could eventually lead to our destruction as a country.

Rather than helping a diverse population become assimilated and united as one nation, the Federal government is doing what the Nazi government of Germany did in the 1930’s and 40’s; creating government supported institutionalized racism by the intentional classification of it’s citizens by race and ethnicity.

With the support of racial and ethnic special interest groups, our federal government seems to view our citizens not just as Americans, but rather as “pawns” in some social science experiment to be classified and separated into different racial or ethnic sub-groups for some unknown purpose. By mandating the classification of Americans into specific racial and ethnic sub-groups, the federal government and the advocates of “diversity” are actually perpetuating institutionalized racism and keeping Americans divided. Maybe the real purpose of collecting this data is to justify the continuing flow of government money to these racial and ethnic special interest groups.

If we want to help poor Americans escape poverty, get better health care, find a job or get a good education, why should it matter what their race or ethnic background is? The answer is: It should not! Americans need to come together as members of one country and remember that we are all individual Americans, regardless of race or ethnic background. Martin Luther King, Jr., inspired a nation when he voiced his dream for a color-blind nation, a nation in which people would be judged by the content of their characters, “not the color of their skin.” The answer to this government encouraged racism is the concept of Liberty with a limited, constitutional government that is devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than the claims of different racial and ethnic special interest groups. Where Liberty is present, individual achievement and competence are rewarded, not people’s skin color or ethnicity.

I will support legislation barring the federal government from the collection of racial and ethnic information about the American people and/or the classification of American citizens by race and ethnicity, including the collection of census information. Exceptions should be made for law enforcement, hospitals and medical research purposes.
I will also support legislation that bans affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and any other programs that give special preferences based on race and ethnicity.

By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.FreedomCandidate.com

John,

I will have to address this in a post of its own. Expect that shortly.


The real power of Senator Obama and Oprah Winfrey

I hope Oprah is prepared to deal with the false adoration she engendered by supporting Barack Obama. He has an agenda that has not yet surfaced,but I predict, if president, she will sorely regret what she put into action by supporting this man, who is all show and no integrity, political experience or skill. We can all canvas and do community organizing. or is she hoping that like most black women, Michelle will run Obama, not the people?

deb hart

DEB
False adoration? All show and no integrity? Black women run their men? You seem to have some major issues and they are poping out all over your comment.

First of all Oprah Winfrey is the major daytime celebrity, and has been for decades now. The adoration she has received is earned by the effort she has put forth. To assume less is to insult what she has accomplished.

While I agree that Senator is not very experienced the rest of your comment rings false. Please point out where he lacks integrity or skill? As a lawyer and community leader I have to believe skill and integrity come to the fore. Yet you dismiss this, why?

Are you sure you know as much as you believe you do about what either Senator Obama or Oprah Winfrey have done?

And as for the last part of your comment, I am offended. You don’t seem to have any clue or perspective there, but you do have what seems to be a racial agenda. You’re right on the edge of stereotyping. I would help you pull your foot out of your mouth except I’m fearful of what else you might say.

Simply put your comments make me believe you have an issue with any successful African American, and I have to wonder how you didn’t notice that I am a Black Puerto Rican. Do you think I am run by a woman, or without skill and integrity, or seeking false adoration? You really need to look at yourself and what you are saying, because it’s real close to bile.


Presidential Candidates Lies: Update

Some of your statements are just looking for technicalities.
I am not supporting any candidate, but am just giving one example to not take up time.

One example:
McCain said that Hillary wants to waive a white flag. You say this is a lie because there is no official army to surrender to. Are you seriously saying that because we aren’t fighting a government recognized army that we can’t “technically” surrender? And that makes one of our candidates a liar?

Some of the facts you pointed out are obviously correct, but looking for every technicality is a waste of time. You will find thousands more if you want. We should be look at flat out lies. Like when a candidate says that he/she is against free trade agreements yet vote for those same agreements and write about the value of free trade in his/her own books.

I hope I don’t sound like I’m going for a specific candidate, because I’m not, but just making a few examples.

Noway

Noway,
Nitpick all you want but the facts are what they are. And I did not claim these are lies, Polifact did (which I noted in the post). And yes a lie is still a lie even if the details are minor.

In fact you cannot surrender to someone that does not have someone to surrender to. If there is no army who do you declare a war against or lose to? And that does make McCain a bit of a liar, or if you prefer misguided in his statements.

I have posted blatant lies, and minor ones as well. This was not the first post I address the issue on. And Polifact has a huge list discussing the degree of truth or lies the candidates have made.

But the issue is this. If there are candidates that continuously lie, big or little, to the American public do you want them in office? Especially if they are making multiple lies that sound really close to the truth so no one notices?

But if you look through my blogs I do point out major lies candidates make in multiple posts. But I was just adding a few that Polifact had which I had not covered.


Senator Hillary Clinton: Ireland and Sinbad tell the truth

It is easy for those unconnected with Northern Ireland to decry those who even played a small part in the peace process here but every building block played a part and Hillary Clinton’s input was just as key as any other vititors to these shores.David Trimble himself probably played less of a role than the Clintons if truth were known. One didn’t have to sit amongst the peacemakers in negotion in order to bring about the climate that led to peace. Hillary Clinton, through her good offices, played a major role in bringing vadidation to the various womens groups in Northern Ireland and it was pressure from Women that led to the first talks. More importantly the role Hillary played back home, although not mentioned much, was in making it much more difficult for Americans to contribute to the supply of guns to the IRA whether through pressure on the crime elements or on the funds collections. There is a lot more to Hillary Clintons involvement in the peace process than most Americans know about. Just because the first lady didn’t make a big deal of it does not mean that she was not instumental in her role in the process.

Jim

Jim,
I am unconnected to the actual events in Northern Ireland, as are the majority of Americans. But according to the reports I have read, Senator Clinton did nothing but have tea. That does not qualify for bragging rights in my book.

You state she was working with women’s groups in Ireland at the time, which ones? What did she do to help and/or motivate them? I’ve seen nothing documented stating this.

And as for the NRA, it was not Hillary but Bill Clinton, the President, that was taking action. To my knowledge and information the then-First Lady had only one political action during Bill Clinton’s presidency – national healthcare – and it failed miserably. If you can point to anything that helps validate her claims, and refutes the claims of someone that is internationally recognized as having influence, I would be happy to read it.

Until then I will again state that she was using the actions of others to fabricate experience and political clout she does not have.


Rev. Wright, Senator Obama, and the media

I do wish that there were other people who view things the way that you do. There seems to be a rush to find anything on anyone that is degreading. I do hope that Americans have grown to a level that is above the spind-doctors. Thanks for a refreshing thought provoking statment.

George O’Neal

Hannity and Colmes are replaying a March 1, 2007 interview with Rev. Wright. He was incredibly hostile. They have been a topic on talk radio for months while there has been a de facto MSM blackout of Barack’s church. It is interesting that Wright’s views were little discussed while Mitt’s church received intense scrutiny. To borrow a phrase, it has taken a while for the chickens to come home to roost.

John Austin TX


George,
Thank you. I do try.

John,
I will say it again, the religion of a candidate has nothing to do with their ability to be a President.

It was not Mitt Romney’s church that was questioned but the Mormon religion. That was unfair and wrong. It had no reflection on his ability to govern – which his time as Governor proved.

As for Senator Obama’s church, what is wrong with standing up against Apartheid, feeding the homeless and welcoming parishioners of all races and sexual orientation?

What you mean is the questions of his pastor. And I have fully covered my thoughts on that. I invite you to check them out.


Remember those before us

Eddie G. Griffin said...
Written history is always subject to re-write (revision), plus the fact it was never acurate to begin with, written from a bias perspective.

chocolate_matters said...
Hello, just blog hopping and wanted to just have some input into the discourse here. Nice blog by the way.
Exactly what the brother above stated. History is always written from the perspective of the victory and any and everything we read should be scrutinized for its accuracy. As a student of history I have learn to question, question, and question some more everything I read.

Eddie and Chocolate

I agree that history is written from the winners view. And that is why I wanted to remind my readers that there is more to our past as Americans than what is selectively taught. Our nation is a wonderful nation and I would prefer no other even with the problems we obviously have. Yet we must be honest about where we come from and have done.

I think we all agree that more needs to be learned and spoken about to ensure that EVERYONE in the nation benefits from a better future.


Senator Obama to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan

Francis L. Holland Blog said...
He can go anywhere he wants, as long as he doesn't fall for the okey-doke of going with John McCain.

I can't see why John McCain's people and the Republicans are so desperate to get Obama to go with McCain to Iraq, except to create the impression that they are both reasonable people trying to solve a problem together. When the premise of Obama's candidacy is that he is reasonable and McCain is not on Iraq.

I say to Obama, 'Go wherever you want, but leave McCain home.' Birds of a feather flock together.

Francis,

Perhaps Senator John McCain wants Senator Obama to see the places that he has been, and to hear first-hand the chances that have happened. I doubt that Obama had much of a chance to notice anything in the less than 48 hours he spent in Iraq.

The point is that the Democratic Party has consistently promoted the view that Iraq is a lost cause after they voted to go their. They have taken every opportunity to promote a doom and gloom view without paying any attention to changes or improvements. That narrow-visioned view of international events is unwise for a President.

To simply assume that Republicans want to point out that Senator Obama has no international experience belittles his need to be in Iraq. He has no international experience, and he took no time to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Wisdom is knowing your own failures and gaining knowledge from those with more experience than yourself. Then you can make a more educated decision.

Isn’t that what you want from a President? So doesn’t it make sense to go with Senator John McCain who has been to Iraq at least 6 times in as many years?


Senator Clinton Wins – Sorry I Misspoke

The Indypendent said...
Obama’s Race Against Race
By Nicolas Powers
From the April 25, 2008 issue
A black man runs from a howling crowd. If he’s caught he’ll be torn apart. If he reaches sanctuary he’ll be loved. This ritual is the Sacred Lynching. It’s a scene from Olaf Stapledon’s science fiction book, The First and Last Men. Set in the future, humanity has mixed and few people are “white” or “black,” and the ritual is a nostalgic celebration of racism in a post-racial world. It resembles our own supposed post-racial politics, and I see Senator Barack Obama as that last black man on earth trying to outrun our media mob.

TO READ FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/04/25/obama%e2%80%99s-race-against-race/

Indypendent,
And what does this have to do with Senator Clinton lying about her experience, failure to make a big primary win, and attempting to by votes (again) with a silly promise of giving the public a paltry sum of money that cannot possibly pass Congress?


Is Rev. Wright a reason not to vote for Senator Obama?

Ghost said...
I would have to agree with the writer of this blog in most part since I have heard these types of prophetic sermons throughout my upbringing in a town 90 miles north of Chicago. Yet, I think the bigger issue here should not be about Rev. Wright. Since Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency I have wondered how and when he would attempt to traverse the chasm that is race in this country. What concerns me is that he would be so careless as to allow himself to be forced to have this discussion under duress. Now he has allowed yet another distraction to pull attention away from his message of unity by not addressing the genesis of the symptoms that we manifest today, namely de-facto racism and reverse racism. As far as I am concerned he should have distanced himself from this man long ago, not because he didn't like him but simply because it did not fit with his plan. You cannot expect the general American public to fully support Obama, while he emits such an aura of irresponsibility. He is smarter that this and we all know it. He needs to be concerned about votes and it's time he learned that you cannot pick and choose what you want to be transparent about. I bet in the next 48hrs the Clinton camp will give up their taxes and the history of her time as 1st Lady while the nation is caught up in the racial fervor since it is a more interesting topic. C-ya next time.

RJM said...
No. But I know a many who would find at fault with the statements that were made. Seriously, one thing that gets me was when he talked about our terrorism caused 9/11. It is very true. It was our actions that caused it. The HiJackers didn't just get into a plane and said hey lets blow this up. They were angry. They'll never forget the removal of their land for Israel or the removal of a democratically elected government in Iran for one of Tyranny. How many people know that though? The Clinton's Campaign is riding on the famous American action of inaction. Of thoughtlessness instead of thought. To the Clinton Campaign,her best shot at winning is this for all the voters:
Ignorance is Bliss.

msladydeborah said...
Pastor Wright is not a major factor in whether or not I will continue to support Obama.

I happen to feel very strongly about this whole issue because it is not reflective of his leadership as a minister.

I have been encouraging people to check out his background and to see what his leadership at Trinity UCC has produced.

He did not say anything that cannot be justified. We only need to look at the past to see why he and other people feel this way.

What bothers me the most is the attempt to make it seem as if something wrong is going on because he is the head of a black populated congregation.

This whole action is walking a fine line in terms of rights.

Pastor Wright can say whatever he wants to inside of his church. That is his right and if the members do not like what is being said, then they are the ones who needed to handle the business of that issue.

I also feel that Barack is going to have to deal with race up front now. There is no way around it.

But so are we. And I feel that we are going to have to be a lot more tough on the subject. We are going to have to learn how to deal with what is major and don't sweat what is not.

Labels: democrats, Iraq, Mitt Romney, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Rev. Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

With all the attention being place on oil and energy in the past few days I thought I’d take another look at taxes. One of the least popular issues that every Presidential race focuses on. And consistently the public has the same request, lower taxes.

For 2008, the ‘election of change’ [a dumb concept considering that is a fact], we have 2 very explicit views. I say explicit, but if you don’t listen carefully or check any other details you may be distracted of confused by the polispeak that each candidate employs. So I want to take a moment, before the rhetoric switches back after the energy issue stops catching headlines, to look at their stances clearly (as found at The Tax Foundation).

Deferring to experience I will start with Senator McCain.

Originally opposed to the President Bush tax cuts, Senator McCain now is in support of this tax plan. He also favors cutting corporate taxes by 10%. For those that suffer from estate taxes he plans to implement a move to only 15% tax on estates over $10 million. He wants to remove the alternative minimum tax, which affects many middle-class families which it was not intended to tax, and he is strongly against any increase in taxes related to Social Security.

Now for Senator Obama.

While he has already voted to increase taxes for anyone making $31,850 he has publicly stated that he will only repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of the nation. How such a law could be enacted is unknown, and considering that proposals and campaign promises of a similar nature have never occurred his repeals may include more people. He has also promised to eliminate taxes for all seniors that make less than $50,000. When it comes to corporations Senator Obama has stated he will “close loopholes”, which means whatever you wish it to. He has no expressed plan for estate taxes or the Minimum Alternative Tax, presumably leaving them both in place. But he does have a defined plan for the Social Security tax, which he plans to increase – directly coming from wages. There may be an exemption for those above $102,000 but it isn’t clear.

Senator Obama also has several other plans related to taxes that Senator McCain has no comparable for. Senator Obama will create several ‘credits’ for various Americans. One credit will apply to those that work and make over $8,100 – the credit will be for $500 or $1,000 for families. He would also create a 10% credit for all homeowners with a mortgage. This mortgage owner credit would amount to about $500. There would also be an earned income credit for those making minimum wage and working full-time for $555, if children are being supported “responsibly” [how and who determines that?] then another $1,110 is available. For those in college up to $4,000 can be forgiven. Lastly Senator Obama wants the IRS to issue tax forms that are partially pre-filled to reduce the time in filling out the forms.

Now I’m sure both plans have their appeal points, and many with children like the comments by Senator Obama. But let’s look at this in total.

Senator Obama has already voted to increase taxes of most Americans 3%, which he publicly stated he would not do. Because of that I feel every other statement about taxes he has made is in question. In addition every attempt to isolate any singular group of Americans to pay higher taxes has failed. Inevitably Americans not expected to be paying higher taxes do so.

I agree with the concept of excluding taxes for senior citizens that are making enough money to survive on their own. I do not agree on the fixed price or the cap. While $50,000 may sound comfortable today, not long ago $30,000 sounded the same. Any provision that does not take into account the increase of cost of living, nor the cost of medications (which older Americans have higher budgets on disproportionately) fails those it is meant to help.

While spouting polispeak about corporations and their earnings is a winning strategy with unions and newspaper headlines, it is not an effective tax plan. There are some loopholes in the corporate tax code that should be removed, but the real boost to the economy is decreasing tax rates. This allows businesses to increase the number of people employed, or raise their pay, or fund research, or expand to increase scales of economy. Whichever is done the economy for the nation receives more revenues in multiple areas that were stagnant prior. Raising corporate taxes has the opposite effect.

Estate taxes are a special situation that most Americans don’t fall under. Even so, for those that do have to deal with these taxes, they are huge. While most like to point out the multi-million dollar estates, those with far less pay the same tax now. Again this limits gaining revenues on these funds from other sources that could stimulate the economy. But I don’t have a strong opinion on this point.

Social Security is commonly called the “third rail of politics” and it is aptly named. Older voters are sensitive to anything that might affect their money. Considering that most voters are older, and this number is about to swell as baby-boomers age, this is an issue that none want to be on the wrong side of. Then again, younger voters have little interest in funding a program that they in all likelihood will never receive a dime from. SSI is a flawed program that has never worked exactly as planned. Increasing money by raising taxes on those that can’t afford it does little to help anyone beyond actually pushing its problems onto either another administration or generation. Senator Obama’s plan sounds exactly like that.

Senator Obama’s plan for college students sounds eerily like the short-lived plan proposed from then-potential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton. This plan forgives money instead of providing it though. A major question is this though, who will pay the $28.8 billion that this plan would absolve each year. [That assumes that only 7.2 million Americans go to college - and would this include those who take college courses online?] The money from this would have to come from somewhere, which means higher taxes.

I like a 10% credit for mortgages, as I will soon own a home. But in reality I don’t need it. My home purchase is based on the fact that I can well afford the mortgage, and that it is a fixed rate. Those that prepare properly for a home purchase have no need of a credit. Those that do not will not be saved by what would amount to maybe 2 months payment on their obligation. If this plan were less polispeak, it would be designed to help stimulate the economy – especially since 96% of all mortgage holders are paying on-time.

I can’t think of anything more to ask about a credit for those that have children [specifically it seems targeted to fathers paying child support] than who and what criteria equate to responsible. How would this be enforced. Under it’s current wording this implies that the Government would be involved actively in raising every child in America, under arbitrary and politically motivated rules. And what happens if the Government claims you are not being responsible? Do they take the children from the parents, or incarcerate them, publicly ostracize them or penalize them in some other way? Considering that the Government can’t balance a checkbook or check out foods for potentially deadly diseases I don’t trust their opinion on what is “responsible” in child rearing.

And lastly the IRS tax forms. It’s a nice polispeak rabble rouser. It gets headlines. It sounds great, until you think about it. How long do you think it will take to mail out tens of millions of printed tax forms? How will those who have never filed a tax form prior file? How much will this cost to be made? Especially since each and every form will be individual so scale of economies will never take place (never mind the fact that it would likely cost more each and every year – like stamps).

And perhaps most importantly, how will the Government ensure that every document is sent out to the proper person. Because if even one were to be mishandled, or one employee were paid off, identity theft would be rampant. Some would counter that the government send out documents now though no numbers exist on how many are improperly delivered. But the counter would accurately be that the Government is inefficient in every department, what would cause the IRS to suddenly become so?

So in honestly reviewing the tax positions of Senator Obama and Senator McCain, on balance I see McCain with better plans and more effective for the nation. You may not agree, and if so I’d love to hear where I got it wrong. And if I got it right let me know. [please remember I’m not an economist so don’t get too technical on me.]

Labels: college tuition, IRS, mortgage loans, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Social Security, tax policy, tax rates

Senator Obama has finally declared he will be going to Iraq and Afghanistan prior to November. Finally. It took long enough.

Senator Obama is known for his opposition to the Iraq war. It’s been one of the most critical points in his candidacy. The war is unpopular (now) and many seek an end at all costs. But most of those that are making such a call have never been in Iraq or Afghanistan and thus have no idea beyond those already in polls and party polispeak.

Considering that Democrats have voted overwhelmingly for the war, then jumped boat when the polls turned against the war I’m not surprised that so few have taken the time to get first-hand experience. It’s far easier to say



or even more recently to not only ignore that the surge has worked, some political stability has been established, and we have move closer to the goals we have been fighting for – but to say



But a future Commander-and-Chief must be able to go beyond petty political polispeak and posturing. Iraq is one of the key thoughts in America. How we resolve this issue will determine the safety of Americans worldwide for a decade or more.

I do not believe that as a senator opposed to fighting in Iraq, opposed to the surge, in favor of a timeline (which I think is stupid – it’s telegraphing your strategy which has never worked historically), and critical of anything that differs from this view that 2 days in Iraq back in January 2006 is enough. And if he only takes a trip of similar length it should be noted that it’s pandering to the public for votes.

But I look forward to Senator Obama going to Iraq and Afghanistan and getting more first-hand information. I really look forward to hear his comments on the obviously massive changes since his last short visit, especially when he speaks in a debate with Senator McCain on the subject.

Labels: Afghanistan War, Harry Reid, Iraq War, Nancy Pelosi, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

Sometimes I find it quite interesting the opinions some have in regards to politics. Even in the most neutral of facts some cannot let go of there own prejudices to evaluate what is before them. The most troubling aspect of that is the fact that these vocal individuals are actively trying to sway voters to their often misguided views.

Case in point, I decided to place a video detailing the electoral map based on where the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates currently stand. This is not a really debatable issue. It’s a snapshot of the then current political highs and lows in sentiment of various states. These are not final votes and will change given time. But it does establish clearly that neither candidate can today state they have a consensus of though in America to their views for our future.

[the Youtube video and comments can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkYcMWKKn0Y]

One of the comments I received was the following,

“Don't believe a word you hear on Fox FRAUDCASTING!! Nothing but Right Wingnut Talking Points. Watch The Daily Show for the truth. Fox Fakes the "news"!!!BOYCOTT FOX FRAUDCASTING!!”

Now I realize that ultra-liberals hate FOX News. It’s irrational to have such a hate but they do. But how does presenting a fluid fact as a lie help anyone decide who to vote for? How does advocating a satirical psuedo-political pusedo-news comedy show prove that one candidate is better than another? One might be a better subject of jokes, but where does that help the nation and economy?

Another comment stated,

“…which leads me to believe that you like many other Republicans follow blindly with a "Mom and Dad are Republicans" mentality. Now I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion but with an election as important as this..It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which candidate will benifit this country but John McCain will get votes and it will somehow again be a close election. By the way, Fox News is hardly "Fair and Balanced." …”

Now I am familiar with many in the Black community across the nation. I have never notice a group of people more likely to vote Democratic (or for any political party) simply because their parents did. I may be naïve, or I may not know enough about the politics of other groups in America. But I can say that in the last 20+ years of following politics I have seen more Democrats, and Black Democrats, vote the party line with less idea of why beyond the general impression that they should and the media assumes they will.

As for a rocket scientist knowing the outcome of the election, it seems that the rest of the nation needs such help. There are massive differences between the candidates and neither candidate has the best solution to all issues facing the nation. So if the election will “somehow again be a close election” I have to believe it’s not that crystal clear or obvious.

Those to the extremes of either party will claim how obvious this election is, but most refuse to give real facts and that means you need to do the homework lest you get talked into buying a bridge.

Labels: Democratic Presidential candidate, Fox News, Presidential election race 2008, YouTube

I can’t believe this. Actually I can. The insanity of imbalance and degree of scrutiny placed on Senator Obama now that he is a nominee is mounting. His every move is being analyzed for some secret Black meaning.

Take this video for example



I have seen about 3 different news organizations cover what you just saw. Not Senator Obama confirming that he is the Democratic nominee but the fist bump. The fist bump. I’ve watched as reporters have acted as if their hands are deformed as they try to recreate this action. I’ve watched as reporters have researched the history of the fist bump with an old Louisiana blues entertainer (who comments that the fist bump goes back to slavery days in the cotton fields). I’ve watched as commercial media makers are commenting how this will be a new craze to sweep the nation.

And I wonder how stupid most of these people are.

Simply stated, Senator Obama no more created the fist bump than Al Gore created the internet. Sports teams from the local to the national have been doing this for at least years if not decades. This year there was a Budweiser commercial with a Clydesdale horse and a Dalmatian dog that had a fist bump, will Senator Obama get credit for that as well?

More importantly who cares? Why is it a big deal? Why is every movement of Senator Obama being followed so closely.

I can’t recall such minute actions of a Presidential candidate being observed and commented on. Can you name an action that Senator McCain does or has done in the past 25 years that has been commented on with such fervor (his war injuries do not count).

So what is next? Senator Obama patted his wife on the butt that night as well, is that a new craze? Will that be the new thing the media attributes to Senator Obama (no doubt to be argued by various Women’s Rights groups)? Is it the next secret Black thing that the major media thinks needs to be spread around?

There are dozens of reasons to vote for or against Senator Obama, a fist bump isn’t one of them. There are dozens of reasons to be excited or interested about the nomination and potential of the 1st African American to reach this level in the Presidential race ever. There is a lot of history in this moment, after nearly 400 since the dawn of slavery in America and 143 years after Jim Crow laws. And the focus some place on the average everyday action of a fist bump insults every moment and aspect of the historic news.

Labels: Al Gore, budweiser, Democratic nomination, fist bump, presidential candidate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack 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: Democratic candidates, Democratic Party, Presidential election race 2008, Presidential nominee, Senator Obama

With the imminent nomination of Senator Obama as the Democratic nominee the question facing the nation is who will become our next President. It's a question that only has 159 days left to be decided. It's a question that we all will be discussing and debating with more frequency and intensity as the days count down.

To that end I have provided a unique look at the current tenative shape of the electoral votes, as shown via Hannity & Colmes. I think this gives an interesting insight to how the nation might vote, and what the nation is looking at for the future.

Of course your vote can change this map dramatically. Neither presidential candidate can win at this time. But there is an obvious pattern, and sveral states could easily sway the probabilities to either candidate.

Take a look at this, and if you don't agree get involved. If you do agree get involved because those that don't will. No matter what, vote because you can make a difference.



(sorry for the technical difficulty with the video)

Labels: Hannity and Colmes, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, 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 Senator Obama has lost Kentucky. Big deal. Yes I realize the numbers work out to a 35% or 250,000 vote defeat. And I still don’t find it as an important loss. Let me explain why.

First is the fact that Oregon has yet to be counted into today’s results. Indications at this time are that he will win there by 10 to 15%. Even not looking at that win, he took more than enough delegates at this point to have a majority that cannot be overtaken. And let us not forget that Senator Obama has won more states (by 2 – 1) overall. Thus the majority of Democrats across the nation find him to be the better candidate, even with the media fed Rev. Wright issue and his loopy position on direct Presidential-level discussions with nations like Iran, Cuba, and others that would kill every American as soon as speak with us.

Second are the questions about Kentucky itself. Let’s not forget that Kentucky is the most socially and culturally diverse state (if you happen to be White and Protestant, to a lesser degree if you are Christian). It’s not just that Kentucky is part of the South, with its long history of racial conflict, it’s that this state is a stronghold of the Clinton’s. And we have seen how really inclusive the Clinton’s want to be in this election. Not like they haven’t told everyone enough times since November 2007.

But I’m not angry with Kentucky. I’m not even surprised. But I would have hoped they would be able to pay attention to details just a bit more. It seems that most Democrats in Kentucky would prefer a White woman that has lied to the American public – multiple times just since January – and will do anything to win over an African American candidate that has none of the baggage or the need for playing on gender and racial division that the Clinton campaign has made their last stand on.

Senator Obama has won more states, gotten more votes, won more delegates, gained more Super Delegates, and told more truth. If that is not enough, if the fact he is not White is too ‘scary’, that most Democrats in Kentucky cannot accept him as the majority of Democrats in America have, I’m just happy I don’t live there.

It’s not that I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate. It’s not that I would vote for him – Black or White. But it is about what is the best choice for America, and anyone that would stand in front of the nation and lie, promote racial divisions, and jump on any bandwagon that polls well regardless of the actual benefits or negatives of that bandwagon – well I cannot understand how that person can be America’s best choice.

But then again I’m not from Kentucky.

Labels: Democratic Presidential candidate, Kentucky, Polispeak, 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

As we turn our attention to the eventual Presidential race between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama it's time that we start to mark what they promise and state to the American people. Rather than focusing on polispeak soundbites that can be, and often are, misquoted or taken out of context by major media; I prefer to provide the actrual words of the candidates.

The following is the full speech by Senator John McCain. I take this to be his core promises of what his Presidency can provide. It's comments we can hold any future discussion, debate, or speech to.

I hope this will help those still deciding (like myself) between McCain and Obama a bit more facts and input to make a decision on.









You only have one vote, use it!

Labels: American politics, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, republican candidates, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

Ok, I saw this in a clip on Fox News coverage of the West Virginia Primary. I knew I wanted to see it in full. Once I saw it I had to provide it for you my readers.

Enjoy, and may the force be with you.

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Star Wars, YouTube

So the primary race is now in West Virginia. And while it’s very early, indications are that Senator Clinton will win her 3rd state with a margin of over 20 points. That compares to Senator Obama in that he has won over a dozen states with that same margin. Thus a question comes to mind of why Senator Clinton winning with such a margin, especially when she has rarely been able to muster such a rally and of late has barely been able to accomplish a win at all.

One answer stands up among many others, and it’s an answer few have been willing to comment on though it has been a factor in this Democratic nomination process since Senator Obama announced he would run in 2007. Race. The other factor, to a far lesser degree is gender.

Let’s be honest. That is the motivating factor today, and in several of the states so far. Several commentators have mentioned that voters in West Virginia are noting that Senator Obama’s perceived religion is a factor. Perceived because they claim he is a Muslim. And Senator Clinton’s recent remarks, which can be boiled down to ‘elect the White woman not the Black man’, is also showing influence. So we see bias based on religion, gender, lies and racism hold sway with more than just a few voters in America.

And the pundits act as if they are shocked. Like the Clinton campaign never promoted images of Senator Obama as a drug dealer, or emails claiming he is a fanatical Muslim spy, or just directly insulting him because he is African American and running for the Presidency. Obviously they seem to have forgotten all the news events I have been writing about since 2006 here.

What does it take to look at the factual evidence and see what has been done for what it is? Or is the prospect of dealing with the reality of racial prejudice, even in the most liberal party, too unsavory for White Americans to deal with?

The fact is that both Senator Clinton and Obama are virtually the same on their political views. Their proposed platforms are near mirror images of each other. Differences are slightly more than cosmetic, more points of contention for pundits and news junkies like myself than actual preferences for most Americans. Thus the 2 things that are different have been emphasized and manipulated.

The Clinton campaign has not been shy in trying to use race and gender to their advantage. Calls seeking to minimize the damage to the Democratic Party have been unheeded since back in February. And in West Virginia, a state not known for its tolerance of religion or race, the lines cannot be crossed.

Remember, this is the same state where Megan Williams was kidnapped, raped, tortured and abused for over a week. It’s the same state that avoided national attention on this case. It’s a state that has virtually eliminated coverage of protests over the handling of the case – where the 6 White criminals still have not been charged with hate crimes though race has been seen as a big factor in this case.

Am I angry over this case? Hell yes! And I have made that clear in at least a dozen posts on multiple blogs. But when a Presidential candidate that has overtly used her race as a campaign tool is winning in a landslide in West Virginia, I can’t say I am shocked or even remotely surprised.

This leads me to another question. What factor will race play in the general election?

Senator John McCain seems to be above such petty actions as using race as a tool. I believe that as a soldier that has seen combat alongside soldiers of every race in America he is not so blind. I could be wrong. But I don’t feel he will use race. And Senator Obama has clearly tried to avoid this issue as much as possible, notwithstanding the attacks and comments of former-President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton, and her campaign (and the media driven insanity over the five 10 second polispeak clips of Rev. Wright from over an unknown number of years).

But race is going to be as big a factor in this election as what America will do in Iraq. It may not be spoken directly, but it will be there. And I have no doubt that many of those less bold than some in West Virginia will bring it to the fore, even if the media tried to turn a blind eye to the racial storm they have helped to build.

So can America look at 2 men for the same position and not see their race but just their qualifications? If we take our cue form the business world, the answer is no. Just count on one hand the CEO’s of major corporations in the stock market. If we go by law enforcement the answer is no. Just listen to the changes in testimony of the Sean Bell case, or the actions of the police in Philadelphia. If we look at the media in general we get an adamant no. With barely 2% of the population shown in media being non-White, and the propensity of news organizations to demonize African Americans (see my comments on the full coverage of Wesley Snipes, or Bobbie Cutts, or OJ Simpson, or Sean Taylor, or the Jena 6, or Megan Williams, or the ‘Barbie’ bank robbers of Atlanta, or Sean Bell, and I can keep going on), the position is undeniably clear.

Given all that, this election will be a landmark for many reasons. The degree and manner in which race is used. The vocalizations of citizens over race. The perceptions promoted about race in various formats. The number of people that will vote based on color, and the number that will vote based on color to make a point of one extreme or another. And of course there is the question of the issues facing America.

Now I do notice and comment on how race affects me and the nation as I see it. Of course that comes to fore in covering the Presidential election. But I am not motivated by, nor condone or agree with the use of race as a factor on who should win. I believe that America needs the best person possible to lead this nation on a path that we will not be able to alter for at least a decade or more.

While I will not shy away from race being used in the race for the Presidency, I will not advance it as a reason. As I have noted at the beginning of covering this election, my goal is getting the best President elected. That is still my focus. With Senator Clinton all but out of the election my focus is now on the 2 remaining candidates. Both have been individuals that I favor. I will soon make my own decision on which I feel is best. I will make that decision known. But I will not let that color my coverage, as best as I am able.

Remember, we as citizens have an obligation to our nation. That obligation is to vote and pick the best person possible for our future. We only get one vote, so make it count. Because one it’s done we can’t go back.

Labels: Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator John McCain, west virginia

As the race for the Presidency of 2009 reaches its next stage I feel it’s important to go back over several issues that were ignored in the recent past. Issues have been broadcast for days and weeks now about the character of associates of the candidates, and race and gender. Yet most pundits and major news media have seemingly forgotten the issues in their never ending desire to promote their ratings.

So let me present the issues that I have noticed are truly important to the majority of Americans.

1. The war in Iraq.
No matter your opinion of how correct we were to get into the war in Iraq, America is fighting now. Placing blame on the past decisions has kept many busy, and used up valuable energy, but resolved nothing. The issue at hand is simply this; either we win or we run away.

If we run away, the results will include the instability of the region, the empowerment of Iran, an increase in the cost of oil, likely heightened threats against Israel, and inevitably attacks against Americans and America. When I say attacks against us I mean just that, terrorist acts on varying scales killing civilians in their homes and work on our soil. Because the various factions that take over Iraq in our absence will definitely (fairly and unfairly) blame every ill on America, and the orphaned sons and daughters will eventually be coerced to seek out and kill Americans.

Conversely if we go for the win we must commit more funds and resources, risk international disdain, and lose members of our military. Ultimately we will have to have a military base in Iraq, not unlike Japan or Germany. As much as ultra-liberals may like to misquote Senator McCain’s comment, it is likely that winning the war in Iraq will require our PRESENCE over the next several decades, with some portion of that time being in various levels of actual combat.

2. Education
There is little argument that the children in public schools today are dumber than the generations that preceded them. It may not be the nicest statement, but it is accurate. Children today are less creative, active, and deductive than perhaps since the start of the industrial revolution. They are being asked to memorize various facts, yet comprehension of those facts are at record lows. Fewer know what is in the Bill of Rights, can identify North America on a map, or how to properly structure a sentence. And this is while there is unprecedented access to the knowledge base found on the internet, and more instantaneous connectivity then ever before.

Kids today are being taught less and retaining bare minimums. While this may be most obvious in cities throughout the nation, it is a national event. The long term effects of this will be devastating to the nation.

3. Economy
While the unemployment levels are hardly at levels in the 70’s many are feeling like they have less money than in decades. Interest rates are incredibly low, yet tens of thousands are on the edged of losing their homes. Average wages are up from the past and discretionary spending is high (unless you count an iPod as essential) but the average person has $6,000 in credit card debt. Few feel secure in their jobs.

Considering that crude oil prices are brushing against my prior year high estimate, gasoline and winter heating oil prices are sure to hit millions hard. Add to that the higher cost of food due to ethanol production, and that glut levels are increasing with Federal production mandates, and you find consumers with less money than may have been planned. This says nothing of the potential inflation that may be caused with interest rates as low as they are.

The Presidential candidates have offered 2 different ideas. One is to take more money from taxpayers, the other to cut taxes. While the tax increase is stated to target only the “rich” such a definition is vague at best. Recent votes in Congress have included those making $31,850 or more for increased taxes of at least 3%. The tax cut is stated as being universal, with a goal of affecting the middle class primarily.

4. Safety
National safety from internal and external sources. While some would prefer to think that America is safe from future foreign attacks, the reality of the world is that we are not. Like the best of safes, eventually someone will break in and in like manner America will be attacked. Minimizing the nature and scope of such an attack is vital. A madman with a gun or suicide bomb is unsettling, but far less devastating than airplanes as weapons, a radioactive ‘dirty’ bomb, poisonous gas, or other mass attacks.

As far as I am aware, these are the most critical issues facing America. These are the questions that need to be answered by our next President. There are other issues but these seem to be the primary ones.

This is what we need to hear the candidates answer. This is the planning that we need to understand. These are the things that will provide us the best President for the nation.

Any other reason or issue is secondary in my opinion. Even worse, the attempts by the media to grab ratings distorts the answers we need to hear and blocks the things we need to know. Answers and plans.

As this final phase of the Presidential race continues I suggest we all keep these issues in mind.

Remember you only get one vote, and once you have you don’t get a do-over.

Labels: Crude oil prices, education, Iraq War, Presidential election race 2008, tax policy, tax rates, terrorist attack

Since I know some have not see this interview, and to give a comparison to the interview of Senator Hillary Clinton, here is all 3 parts.

I've already commented a bit on the 1st part of this interview previously. And I have commented often on all the various potential Presidential candidates. I would suggest you take a search for whichever candidate you have a question about.

I admit that I agree with a lot that McCain has to say, and in comparison to Senator Clinton it's obvious who has the greater experience and better plan for America. At least to me. But now you have an opportunity to make a decision for yourself.








Now we just have to wait for Senator Obama to get on the program as he promised some time ago.

Remember your vote counts, use it.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party, Senator John McCain, That's why I vote

So here are some of the thoughts I’ve had about the first part of Senator McCain’s interview with Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor. I plan to provide the full set of videos as soon as I can have them downloaded. Currently I’m having an issue with the sound mixer. Please be patient.



To start with it’s obvious that Senator McCain has a far superior level of experience when it comes to the military and military actions. Neither Democratic candidate has served a single day in defense of this nation or ever in the military during peace time. That lack of understanding may be fine for a President during peace times, but whether you like it or not we are currently engaged in 2 military actions – thus experience matters. Ultra-liberals may enjoy the concept of peace, from cozy houses without fear of death from anything, but that freedom is only possible by the cost soldiers pay every day since the creation of America.

The conversation goes on to discuss taxes. Now as I have previously posted - $31,850 is the new definition of rich - both Democratic candidates have voted to increase the taxes of everyone making $31,850 and up. A far cry from their claims of only the rich being taxed don’t you think. Senator McCain voted against that increase.

But consider something else. If you own any stocks, mutual funds, or bonds the Democratic candidates want to increase the tax you pay if your investment makes money. So all that money you are trying to save for retirement – kiss a good part of it away if the Democrats have their way. That money will go to Government programs to decipher why April 2008 was the coldest on record, but Global Warming is creating a hot house in the world.

But don’t forget that all these taxes are coming out of pockets that have to pay more money for food because the glut of ethanol production is using up corn that would otherwise go for food. And gasoline costs more because of OPEC, and the fact that we are pushing for more ethanol plants instead of oil refineries. Don’t even mention nuclear power to the eco-ultra-liberals. Their fear of hurting an owl or some such supersedes the fact that without an alternative source of energy millions will eventually die.

Moving on to Senator Obama’s preference to speak with nations that are dedicated to the eradication of America. Senator Obama wants to speak with North Korea, Iran and other nations that hate our existence. Why? What can you offer or discuss with a country that has spent 50 years on one thought only, finishing the war they had with us (that’s North Korea for the younger readers). They have gone nearly bankrupt and many are starving as they divert all funds and food to their military.

How about Iran. A nation that would kill millions solely because of their religion. Do you believe that leaders with such intolerance would be any friendlier to a nation of multiple religions they disagree with, and lifestyles they abhor? They are extremists, given, but how do you compromise with someone that believes that God wants them to obliterate the existence of those that do not believe and act exactly as they do?

I need only say one thing about the media driven Rev. Wright issue, which I thing Senator McCain nailed.

“This campaign is not going to be about, in all due respect about, Rev. Wright or Mr. Ayers. It’s going to be about vision; it’s going to be about a plan of action for the American people that are hurting right now.”

As for the government running healthcare, I stand by Senator McCain. Name one agency that the Government runs that is fiscally sound. Name one Agency that is not mired in red tape and inefficiency. Name one that provides all the services it is supposed to do, and in a timely manner. I know of none. And the Democratic candidates want to create another of these agencies because they believe that YOU are not smart enough to be given money and chose the healthcare program you think is best for you and your family. How kind of them.

But there is also the media to consider with Senator John McCain. Where were the months long outrage and media investigations of his connection to Pastor John Heagy. Aren’t that pastors comments against gays and Catholics unacceptable? But if Senator McCain’s refutation of his unsolicited remarks, and endorsement, are enough to keep the media off his back – shouldn’t Senator Obama’s be the same?

But the media is far from even-handed, or focused on the issues. The New York Times has made that very clear as their attack on Senator McCain was backed by nothing. It was a blatant attempt to discredit a Presidential candidate whose political views they don’t agree with. Another reason I say that you need to check the candidate’s positions as the media wants to decide that choice for you and get a President that may not be in your best interest.

It should be noted though that Senator McCain has weathered this and other smears throughout his career. At no time has he fallen back and whined about it. He has refuted the positions and waited as other media groups proved these smears false. This is highly unlike at least one Democratic Presidential candidate that runs behind their gender anytime they are questioned strongly or find their campaign in a weak position.

Lastly, I know of no one that questions the honor and dedication of Senator McCain. Anyone that would call him a traitor, in the face of direct first-person comments contrary by fellow Prisoners of War, is simply a fool. There are few in the nation that have given so much to this nation, and to besmirch that is to be ungrateful and deceptive in the most cruel and vile way. There is no reason unsubstantiated smears should be allowed for any candidate, regardless of political party, because such claims against Senator McCain are no better than calling Senator Obama a fanatical Muslim or attacking his race.

Well that’s what I got out of the first part of Senator McCain’s interview. I admit that I agree with many of his opinions. The issue of immigration is not one of them obviously. But that will be discussed in a later video on the issue.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, ethanol, global warming, Iran, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party, Rev. Wright, Senator John McCain, tax policy, universal healthcare

I almost feel bad for Hillary Clinton, almost but not quite. And I say this because in the Indiana primary Hillary holds a lead of 4 percentage points over Senator Obama with 88% of the votes counted at the time of this post. It’s sad because Hillary was expected to have a double digit win, no less than 10 points, over Senator Obama according to polls Monday.

The fact that Senator Obama has gone through 8 weeks of dealing with the media driven Reverend Wright issue, 2 press conferences by Reverend Wright and Senator Clinton’s preposterous patronizing call for the public to vote for her to save 18 cents on their gasoline cost have all culminated in one of the slimiest victories in this Democratic nomination process yet. It’s just embarrassing, but there is one fact in these numbers that no one has accounted for yet. In fact today was the first time I heard any suggestion of polls revealing this fact. Republicans voted for Hillary.

Rush Limbaugh, back in March as I recall, asked Republicans to vote for Hillary to exacerbate the nomination process. Tonight reports have stated that Republicans indeed did vote for Hillary and accounted for potentially 7% of the total. If that is correct then as of the writing of this post Hillary would in fact have lost by 3%. This takes the embarrassment of her projected 10-point win and makes it a landslide of disappointment.

I am happy that Senator Obama took the high road in reference to the gas tax 'holiday'. I’m even more greatly pleased to know that 16% of the voters in North Carolina realized the obvious polispeak trickery that Senator Clinton was trying to employ; given the Republicans voting for Senator Clinton its reassuring to know that the majority of voters in North Carolina and Indiana saw through the Clinton campaign's desperate plea to buy votes by any means necessary.

With all this said we can only hope that the Clinton campaign has used up all of its tools in its bag of tricks and its manipulitive power by now so that they can not coerse the Super Delegates into stealing the Democratic nomination from Senator Obama. Of course Senator Obama will not win the Presidency most likely because of the massive damage Hillary and Bill Clinton had inflicted on his reputation and experience. But at the very least there is something to be said for justice and equality in America with him winning the Democratic nomination.

For those states still waiting their turn to vote I suggest you listen carefully to the Clinton campaign, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary as they slash and burn their way to the convention.

I’m not saying that I guarantee there will be more “misspoken” statements (lies) but I wouldn’t go to Vegas and make a bet against it.

Labels: Las Vegas, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Rush Limbaugh, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Super Delegates, tax policy

Before I continue to critique Senator Clinton, her lies and misconcieved half-formed plans I thought I might present her full conversation with Bill O'Reilly. This way I can just go over all the issues at once.

Indiana and North Carolina please keep in mind all my prior posts (which you can get from clicking the labels below) before you go to the polls.












Remember your vote counts.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Democratic nomination, Fox News, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton

With less than a week to go before the next set of Democratic Primaries, the media driven effect of Rev. Wright continues to weigh upon Senator Obama. Even as I write this, he is denouncing the comments made yesterday by Rev. Wright to the National Press Club. Amazing how things change.

A year ago Senator Obama was considered a joke. Pundits and the media basically ignored him as the believed there was no real candidate for the Democratic Party beyond Senator Clinton. At the same time emails were circulating the internet (some at the promotion of members of the Clinton campaign) declaring that Senator Obama was a Muslim and/or secret terrorist.

Today there is a new fervor about Senator Obama being a Christian. The fact that his pastor has several unconventional views is now the focus. And the media and pundits are wondering if he can gain the Democratic nomination as they place the views of a religious leader not running for any political office on Senator Obama.

Today the major news media is upset that Senator Obama has not been fully vetted as has Senator Clinton and McCain. Of course Clinton and McCain have been in the ublic eye for decades, so obviously more is known about them. And the major news media completely fails to notice that it was their job to investigate Senator Obama when he announced his election hopes rather than to laugh him off. Thus we have the pot calling the kettle black.

Of course there are a few things that are being missed today as they were a year ago.

There has been no real discussion about the decades long anti-war proponent Hillary Clinton’s ascertion that she tried to join the military (either the Army or Marines depending on the version of the story being told).

There has been no real focus on the lies that have been told to the American public. Some may have felt that the Clinton’s were accomplished liars, but over the last month Hillary Clinton has been proven to be a liar. From invisible snipers and unseen terror in video tapes of Bosnia, and peace talk treaties during tea parties in Ireland Senator Clinton is a proven liar. How does that make her any more trustworthy or beneficial to the American public than what opponents decry about President Bush?

There has been no real discussion of the involvement of a known criminal in the Clinton campaign. Lest some forget, the Clinton campaign took and tried to hold onto $1 million stolen and donated to them from Norman Hsu. He was a criminal fugitive that was a high ranking donation bundler for Senator Clinton. Or is that not important? And if it isn’t why is Rezco?

Senator McCain, since winning the Republican nomination, has gone silent. He is amassing funds and peppering the middle of the nation with reminders of his military career and years of experience. But he is not being challenged on his plans about exiting the war in Iraq (minus the military bases like those we have left in other former warzones like South Viet Nam, Germany, Japan, and so on). Little is being said of his self-professed ignorance on the economy, at a time when oil prices are creating a new plateau at levels never before seen and more people fear for their jobs than in the past 25 years.

As the Presidential race devolves into a question of race and to a lesser extent gender the real issues that most Americans actually care about are being ignored by the media. What about national security, illegal immigrants, the legal system and such?

I doubt that so many Americans suddenly forgot about these issues. I doubt that the most important issue in America is the vetting of Rev. Wright – a figure that has been shown to have no influence on the political decisions of any of the candidates. And if this association is so important, why have we not heard of the investigation into Senator McCain’s pastor? (We can’t do this for Senator Clinton as she is not a member of any church since her husband left the Oval Office)

The issues following Senator Obama’s run has been consistently everything but politics. His appearing in native garb while on a trip overseas (which is a common political practice), his full name, the degree of Blackness he maintains (as if there is an official level or list to check off), his religious belief, people he has known in his life (with some searching back to his kindergarten days), the fact he has interracial parents.

Can anyone name another President that has had the same questions asked of them? Or even a candidate?

Seriously, the media has focused on the least important issues in this Presidential race so far. Questions that no White male candidate has ever been asked are important today. Name 3 President’s middle names, if you can or even 3 candidates from this year. Name 3 pastors of anyone who was running for the Presidency this year. Name the heritage of 3 of the candidates racial heritages form this year. Name any friends that any of the candidates had that were questionable or have been in trouble with the law – from over a decade ago.

I doubt anyone can answer those things. So if they aren’t important for any other candidate, why are they important for Senator Obama. And for those that would say they aren’t important because they haven’t been reported on – how do you know? No one has checked so are you sure?

So given all this what am I left with? That America is being disserved. We are not dealing with the issues that are important for the nation. Therefore we will not have the best choices for President and may get a President that will not benefit the nation.

Think about it. If we focus on the least important facts about a potential President, we will possibly elect a President that we have no idea will do in office. That means the critical choices facing America in this next Presidency, issues that will affect the nation and world for decades to come, issues that will affect your children, student loans, job, and ability to own a home will be in the hands of someone you never asked important questions of.

The major media may not care, but I do. Thus I have followed and written about all the candidates since 2005. Search and learn, because once you vote you can’t take it back.

Labels: Bosnia, gender issues, Norman Hsu, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

Looking forward to the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania I found some information that is troubling looking forward. There is no question that without a landslide of votes for Senator Hillary Clinton, in every Primary until the Democratic Convention, there is no way she can win the Democratic nomination without stealing super delegates. A super delegate decision is also sure to enrage Democrats backing either candidate.

And that’s where the rub comes in. Recently various news agencies and polling organizations have begun to ask voters how likely they are to back an opposing candidate that lost the nomination. And there is a massive difference, led by the fact of race.

For all the polispeak and posturing of Democrats and Liberals about supporting minority issues and representing African Americans in particular, the fact is that a significant portion of voters will vote for the White candidate or none at all. If that sounds bigoted, racist, prejudiced and anti-American I agree that it is.

Based on the primaries and caucuses that have occurred to date we can see certain trends and numbers.

Whites that find race important favor Clinton over Obama by 63% to 32%. Even those that said race was not a factor backed Clinton by 11%. Of this group of people 41% said they would only be satisfied if Clinton were the nominee.

Why is this critical? Because

“Pollsters have long expressed doubts about using polls to precisely gauge voters' feelings about the sensitive issue of race, concerned that some people give answers they think are socially acceptable.”

Or in my words, some of those polled are the quiet cowardly racists that try to stab Blacks in the back rather than being upfront and vocal about their small-minded nature.

Who are these people? What are they like?

“In the exit polls, whites saying they considered the candidate's race were likelier to be from the South and rural areas, less educated, lower earning and older. That's consistent with voting so far, in which Obama has done better among whites with more education and higher incomes, especially men.”

So in looking forward, assuming Senator Obama is the candidate the real question is how many Americans will be willing to vote for a Black candidate? It appears that there are more than enough White voters raised and believing in the Jim Crow, segregationist, prejudiced, stereotyped, illogical thoughts about race that was America’s norm until the mid-1980’s. And if you are younger than 40, yes before the mid-80’s there was a real and vastly different view of race. That view has not disappeared, nor changed significantly and the voting preferences abovementioned relate to that.

So while pundits will polispeak about the Iraq war – and how it was wrong that it started which is moot, the economy – where raising taxes is about as intelligent as suing the homeless, illegal aliens – which can’t even be referred to as such even though they have roken the law entering the nation, and many other real issues America must deal with; the real issue will be the one thing Senator Obama has avoided making a primary issue – race.

If Senator Obama is to win or lose the Presidential election due superior plans for the future of America then that is the will of America. But it seems impossible to say that while the question of voter prejudice is not only openly stated, but also hidden. Which leaves me with a thought.

No pundit or politician will address the fact that race relations remains the most critical, dividing, and divisive issue in America – 388 years after the first slave was sold and 143 years after their freedom was acknowledged and protected. There is no polispeak to spin this fact in a positive manner, and no one has the balls to stand up and be counted for really speaking on the issue.

So whether or not Senator Obama wins the Democratic nomination (which he should but could lose through super delegates) or the Presidential election, the problem and its effects will continue to prevent America from being as great as it can be. I have already stated my solutions in terms of reparations, an apology, and honest talk.

Given this, what do you propose? How do you feel? What is the answer?

Labels: Democratic nomination, illegal aliens, Iraq War, Jim Crow, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Reparations for Slavery, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. economy

Well here is a video that I thought was great. It takes several of the most recent issues plaguing the Democratic Presidential candidates and skewers them. Sometimes you just need to take a break from the serious stuff.

Jay Leno did a great job of this, and if I could find it on Youtube I’d use that. But I found it here. It’s the best I could find at the moment.

Labels: Democratic Presidential candidate, Jay Leno, Presidential election race 2008

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 recently was asked to present my readers with the ability to participate in a survey about the upcoming election. I took part. If you would like to participate please go to the link below.

**This is a survey involving Stony Brook University and is not associated with M V Consulting, Inc. or any of my blogs.**

The purpose of this survey is to examine how people think and feel about the political issues, parties, and candidates in the upcoming election. In the survey, you will be asked a series of questions about two political candidates, John McCain and Hillary Clinton. We are very interested in how individuals that find information on the web think about politics, and your participation would be greatly appreciated. In total, the survey should take about 15 minutes to complete. The survey is completely anonymous and you can skip any questions you do not wish to answer.

Click here to take the survey:

http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/crweber/TAKESURVEY/election_2008.htm

Please feel free to contact Chris Weber (crweber@notes.cc.sunysb.edu) at Stony Brook University with any questions or concerns. Thanks for your help!

Labels: 2008 election, political survey, Presidential election race 2008, Stony Brook University

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: Democratic Party, Ohio Primary, Presidential candidates, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party, Texas Primary, That's why I vote, voter registration

**also found at Presidential race blog**

When you think of the President of the United States, you think of the leader of the nation. The key here is leader of the nation, not a political party or a portion of the population but everyone. That is what the highest elected position in America demands.

Given that thought, one would expect that all the political parties would address all the people in the nation. That means debates, interviews and so forth with representatives of all the major demographics. It would mean answering tough questions on issues that face America today and going into the future.

What is expected is not the case though.



What is going on with the Republican Party? As stated by Mark Radulich of 411mania.com,

“There is room in this country for blacks to migrate over to the GOP if only they would actually try and make some overtures. The problem is, while the GOP does not stand in opposition to black Republicans, it also does not go out of the way to earn more black votes either. In other words, if blacks just suddenly appear out of the ether, that's fine, but the GOP doesn't seem interested in putting any work into garnering black votes or grooming black power leaders for the benefit of winning future elections.”

Amazing. All this while top Democratic candidates are out sensationalizing the condition of Blacks. John Edwards has stated

“We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we're not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They're all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

Sounds bleak doesn’t it. On one side you have people with blinders on. On the other we have those that either presumes loyalty due to their promises (regardless of their actual records upon being elected) or sensationalism created for the sole reason of driving votes to them out of fear.

Without someone pointing out real facts – like the fact that there are more Black men age 18-24 in college than jail (according to 2005 Justice Department statistics) – there is only one voice out there. What that voice says does not mean it is to the benefit of African Americans.

So the question is, are Republicans going to lose the Presidential election race of 2008 because they ignore over 12% of the population, or will Democrats win because they will inspire fear in that same population? Does either option seem even remotely in the benefit of the nation?

Labels: 411mania.com, John Edwards, Justice Department, Mark Radulich, President of the United States, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party