A discussion of various thought on issues and subects that cross my mind. This can include: Politics, Economics, Race Relations, Stock Markets, Investing, Music, Poetry, Current Events and probably more. Comments, whether disenting or in agreement, are welcomed.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Presidential election update at 9:30
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.
First set of exit poll results in the Presidential election
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.
Presidential candidate quotes to start your voting jucies
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
As time flies before election, questions arise like a wave
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.
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!
MoveOn.org blames Michael Vass for President McCain win
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Before you vote, questions you should have answered
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Joe Wurzelbacher comments on Senator Barack Obama's 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?
The polispeak is just incredible. Senator Hillary Clinton blasted Senator Obama during the Democratic Primaries. She made claims that he was inexperienced, sexist, and merely getting votes because he is Black. Her 3am political ad highlighted how unsafe America would be in his hands.
Now she wants to flip the view and say that Obama is great. That he is perfect for our security and the economic crisis. Keep in mind that Senator Obama has done nothing to improve this crisis. He refused to work on the issue, preferring to campaign rather than secure a good deal for the public.
Senator Obama would have allowed the first version of the bailout that would have funneled the repayment to ACORN and not the citizenry. He was so uninvolved that the President had to call him to the White house to get a better deal. And all the while he defended Chris Dodd and Barney Frank – who both were asleep at the wheel on this crisis. And he was the 2nd highest paid Senator from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And let’s not forget that she, along with Senator Biden, stated that Senator McCain would be a better President than Obama. Or did she forget that?
Why is Senator Clinton not the Vice Presidential candidate for Senator Obama? Could it be the racial attacks the Clinton campaign made against Obama. Could it be the consistent refusal of Bill Clinton to acknowledge Obama’s worth as President. Could it be that Senator Clinton tried up to the last minute to steal the Democratic nomination from Senator Obama.
As for Hillary Clinton as the Majority Leader, that’s about the only thing that could be worse than the current Democratic leaders. Imagine a Pelosi and Clinton team. Can Congress get negative approval ratings?
Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton? That would just be insanity. Considering her desire for power, just imagine the laws she would corrupt. Though it’s likely that Bill Clinton would never worry about another sexual harassment case again.
How likely is it that Senator Clinton will run again? 100%. She never completely ended her attempt to become President this time until the Democratic nomination. Actually she has been taped at meetings (supposedly to raise money for Obama) where she is talking up herself as a future President. Bill Clinton has continued to shoot down Obama. And it’s well known that they prefer him to lose so she can jump forward and say 'I told you so.'
As for
“Bloom where you are planted”
Where is Hillary from? Not New York State, and it reflects in her lies to the people of Upstate New York and the jobs she promised to bring if elected (in fact the number of jobs in Upstate have decreased by 30,000 since she has been elected).
Hillary isn’t from Arkansas either. Not that she did much for anyone there. In fact she held no political office until New York. So if she means bloom as in making astronomical returns from absurdly little money during a relatively quiet stock market or Whitewater, then I supposed she bloomed a lot.
Suffice to say, Senator Hillary Clinton is a horrendous choice for any political position. The only positive besides her not running for President now is the thought that she may be voted out of office before 2012 and never heard of politically again. Unlikely but we can hope.
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.
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.
Keating 5, Tony Rezco, William Ayers - a lot of bluster while candidates avoid the economy
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.
Considering everything that is going on in America today I’m just not sure what is the most troubling thing happening.
Of course the major media is hyping the mortgage crisis bailout, which has now become dubbed a ‘rescue plan’, and politicians are making the most of this coverage to promote their political party’s Presidential candidate while blaming all the woes of creation on the other Party. But it’s the other things the major media isn’t talking about that has me equally as distraught.
There is the fact that the Bush Administration has quietly approved a $25 billion loan to the auto industry. There is the fact that Senator Obama is feared to be incapable of winning the election in just over a month, not because of his political views or plans for the nation but because he is Black. There is Barney Frank and Chris Dodd screaming that anyone and everyone else but their banking and finance committees are to blame for the current crisis, or for not seeing the impending problems as late as this July. And there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi is special. In a kind of special needs kind of way (and I don’t want to insult those with such needs by associating Nancy Pelosi with them).
She is the most powerful woman in politics right now, if you can believe it. She is 2nd in line for the Presidency if anything happened to President Bush before the election. Yet she has run an extraordinarily expensive budget in her position as Speaker, with a Congreess that has achieved the least in at least recent memory. She presides over a Congress that has the lowest approval rating since ratings have been kept.
But that is not enough. She has tried to block any discussion of domestic drilling, like Pharoh forbidding the name Moses from being spoken. Which is fantastic for her since she makes money on that delay because she owns stock in alternative energy companies. She also helped to write a bailout plan that allowed the Treasury Secretary to wield sole control over virtually a trillion dollars. When that failed she helped write another plan that took any repayments and gave them to a Democratic pet project, ACORN, which is under federal investigation. And now we learn that paid her husband just under $100,000 from political donations – which she voted to ban in 2007.
So we have Democrats that won’t cross racial lines, asleep while watching the nations money, pushing to give people homes they can’t afford, spending money they don’t have without control, blocking the near-term solutions of America’s energy needs for personal profit, and violating laws they are supposedly trying to pass, while doing the least work in Congress possible. You have to admit it is an impressive cluster of failure all at once.
And Senator Obama has no intention of not spending another 800 billion dollars in new spending, nor failing to raise corporate taxes in a decidedly negative economy. But he will speak with Iran about not building nukes – pretty please. And he will tell Russia that they are being bad when they invade other nations, after he thinks about it for a while.
Honestly I don’t mind Obama’s inexperience that much. In combination with his other plans for the nation means that things will get worse though. But the supporting cast that would come with him, especially if Democrats were to win the Congress again, really spells “Danger Will Robinson, danger!” (Those older readers will get the reference).
But I wonder for those that don’t follow politics everyday, that aren’t up at 5am reading the latest political news, what bothers you most?
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.
Full video of the McCain - Obama Presidential debate
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.
The bail out deal: Polispeak and political campaigning instead of action
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.
The bailout and mortgage crisis: Where did it start, who screwed up, who tried to fix it, and when
I just can’t step away from the most pivotal issue in the election and the lives of Americans right now. The spin in the media is that Senator McCain is avoiding Senator Obama on a debate of foreign policy – something McCain has experience at for decades and Obama has a speech in Germany. And many are calling the deep desire of McCain to serve the nation, as was called for by Harry Reid yesterday, a political stunt. Though they ignore the school boy-esque scolding that Obama received when the President called him to the White House today.
But I am tired of hearing Democrats and some media pundits running around blaming every economic woe of the nation on Republicans. There is certainly more than enough blame for all the politicians in Congress, which is why it has the lowest approval rating ever. Republicans have screwed up and spent more than they should. But Democrats have been no better, in fact those that are critical to the finance of the nation have been particularly blind. Mr. Magoo could have foreseen more with their level of information and influence over the years.
But lest my words be seen as partisan, which to an extent I am sure they are as with any pundit or blogger, I present talking heads from across the spectrum of the cable news media and pundits, as well as politicians themselves. Listen to those that we have elected, and their votes and assurances. Then tell me this is only a Republican caused problem.
And please explain to me why we should believe that those that planted the seeds for this problem, and fostered it to the debacle we are required to deal with today, should be believed when they say they have a solution
History of mortgage crisis back to 2003
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions – Sept 18 2008
Chris Dodd was watching closely but did nothing – August 2007
Treasury Secretary Paulson progress made – February 2008
Barney Frank – Improving regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac July 14 2008
So I also ask this, If Senator McCain did not go to Washington D.C., if the President did not call Senator Obama to the White House, are you sure there would be a resolution to the bailout crisis? Would that resolution be in the best interest of the nation?
Is a debate, that could be easily rescheduled, more important than the potential of 4 out of 5 Americans losing their homes and jobs?
And lastly, isn’t it a bit hypocritical that Democrats claim that the debate must happen because America wants this; yet they defended Senator Obama when he refused for 2 months every request that was made for Obama to join McCain in speaking directly with Americans at town hall meetings across the nation?
Presidential candidates work on bailout and political images
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.
Which is right - keep campaigning or fixing the economy?
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.
News Flash on bailout - McCain going to work, Obama sent email
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.
The Presidential election of 2008: Seen as Black and White
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.
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?
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?
Senator Obama talks around the economy on live television
It was interesting to listen to Senator Obama just now. He was speaking at 2:57pm, and it was televised live on cable news. Of course he was speaking in reference to the falling stock market with the Dow Jones trading down 220 points. He made absolutely no reference to AIG or the bailout made by the government.
But Senator Obama did state
‘John Mcain says he will root out the old boy network. The old boy network? In the McCain Campaign it’s called a staff meeting.’ [paraphrased due to lack of transcript]
Now that was said because Senator McCain has been in Congress for the last 22 years.
Of course Obama failed to remind the crowd that his Vice Presidential pick (Senator Joe Biden) has been in Congress for the last 26 years. He is in fact the 4th longest serving Democrat. He is as responsible for any failed economic reforms, energy policies, or whatever else Obama would like to claim along with McCain – if not more. If the old boy network is in McCain’s campaign, what the hell does Obama call the CEO of the network that is his second in command [who does not agree with Obama, nor thinks he should be President]. It would seem that if nothing else the men and women in the McCain campaign are unified – Democrats can’t say that.
Senator Obama went on to say
‘We don’t need a commission to get us out of this mess.’
Actually yes we do. The fact is that while Obama thinks he understands how this all started, he obviously doesn’t. If he did he would acknowledge that this started from the Clinton Administration. The fault started with the failure of President Bill Clinton to prevent or burst the internet bubble. Because he allowed it to happen, it led to this current crisis. In fact this is just a continuation of that original problem.
But since we can’t go back in time we have to focus on the resolution of the problem in the future. Senator Obama believes that raising taxes will resolve the problem, with the addition of creating new sources of energy without additional drilling.
Obviously he need some advice here. He is stating that he wants to take more money from companies (of all sizes) while they are scrambling to raise cash or meet loans. This is while they are receiving reduced income from sales. There is a good plan.
And he intends to make sure that companies receive less funding. All companies. But he expects that these companies will find money, obviously not from financial companies that need to lower their credit risk nor from investors that will have to pay more money on their investments and taxes, to invest into research to create alternative energy sources.
They will have to make money from thin air, to pay his higher tax rates, and increased worker costs, to lose money in developing biomass converters, wind tower generators, and advanced solar cells – none of which exist in any productive manner today. And don’t forget they need to create factories and distribution lines besides the engineering. And that is while energy costs fluctuate higher over time, further reducing every shrinking revenues.
And all this will help improve America. Obama doesn’t need a commission, or advisors to help him? I think I can give him a bit of help and it will be free. Get a calculator because the math you are doing in your head wouldn’t keep a lemonade stand running.
I wonder if he did not mention anything about AIG directly because he doesn't understand why the Government was forced to bail them out? heis comments would lead me to believe so.
Polispeak - the Presidential campaign ad prerequisite
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.
Democrats vs Gov. Sarah Palin - what are they thinking?
I’m just looking back over some of the political comments in the last 2 weeks and it’s amazing how much the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin has affected the Democratic Party. You would think someone hit them all with a taser. They are acting like a chicken without a head.
I mean there is the comment by South Carolina Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler. Now I imagine Chairwoman Fowler is no fool, having achieved her position because she is intelligent and capable. Yrt she presents none of these qualitiues when she said Sen. John McCain chose a running mate
If that is eloquent or insightful I can’t imagine how. And the Democratic response to the obvious outrage was less than inspiring as well. First they noted that this was an independent statement not made on behalf of Senator Obama. Then Chairwoman Fowler apologized with
“I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make every day, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive. I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue.”
If the comment was merely clumsy, then this half-hearted apology must be off-balanced. Because it’s obvious that Fowler does not respect a woman that chose to give birth to a baby that is less than perfect, or that has risen through the political jungle to become a Govenor of a State. Perhaps it’s because Gov. Palin is a mother of 5 that does not believe what Fowler believes, seemingly a sin among many Democrats.
But let’s not think that only women in the Democratic Party are off-kilter when it comes to Palin, or Senator Obama for that matter. Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen was more than ready to jump off the deep end with his comment.
What is that supposed to mean? I respect Senator Obama, though I disagree with his ideals, but you really need to explain to me how he is God-like any more than any other human being. I mean Gandhi could be compared to Jesus in some ways, Mother Theresa could have been compared to Mary as well but Obama? Beyond being a great speaker in front of large crowds what else is there?
And to compare Palin to Pilate makes no sense. I mean her name starts with a “p” and beyond that I don’t get it. Does that mean that America is the Roman Empire, since that was the government Pilate worked in? Would Rep. Cohen agree with that? Following that analogy would Senator Biden be Judas since he has publicly denied Obama’s ability to lead the nation and no works for Obama? Would Senator Clinton be Doubting Thomas? Would the Clinton Democrats be the crowd that condemns Jesus to crucifixion?
If we are going to follow the analogy then let’s follow the whole thing. And I doubt any Democrat would be happy with those comments. But where is the Democratic Party denouncing this? So perhaps they do agree and thus they must agree with its further conclusions as well.
Honestly, since Gov. Palin has been named the Vice Presidential candidate of Senator John McCain the Democrats have been abluster. They are failing to stay on the important issues facing America. They are failing to show how their divided Party is better or how the deep divisions in their Executive candidates are a better remedy to the nations problems than the cohesive Republican candidates.
All political candidates are flawed, and they all are human. To address their failures and mistakes is fair game. But to raise any candidate up to ridiculous comparisons to religious figures, to ignore serious political factors which are the basis of why they are running is beyond stupid.
We are electing a President, not seeking to create a new religion. We are seeking to vote for a political Administration, not a best friend or exact mirror of ourselves. Perhaps if Chairwoman Fowler and Rep. Cohen can remember these simple things they can help Senator Obama. Yet I have to question what they think an Obama Administration would really bring the nation.
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.
The Presidential Tickets: comparing lies, facts, and experience
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.
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.
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.
Senator Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention
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.
Bill Clinton finally backs Obama at Democratic National Convention
There is no question that Bill Clinton is a great speaker. So there was no shock in the fact that he spoke well at the Democratic National Convention. The overall thing that impressed me though was that Bill Clinton did was Hillary could not; he gave reasons to believe Senator Obama would be a good President and finally admitted that Obama was ready to be President.
Unlike Senator Hillary Clinton’s speech, which was self-serving, Bill Clinton started off and continued to evoke his support and good will for Senator Barack Obama. Bill bit the bullet on his personal disagreements with Obama and did what was best for the Democratic Party. I have not seen a politician flip on a position so well on national television in some time.
You have to love the fact that Bill, unlike his wife, had no problem mentioning Senator Obama’s name more than 3 times in his speech. Then again Bill is a better speaker.
Now Bill did make some mistakes. First his comparison to President Carter is not a good one. Carter is accepted as a horrible President that did virtually nothing to improve the economy, resolve the energy crisis, lower unemployment, or protect Americans abroad. In fact his policies made all of that worse. This is why Carter was part of the long list of Democratic Presidents that have never gotten a second term since Roosevelt. (Only Bill Clinton has.) So stating that Obama is like Carter implies that America will have a worse time if he is elected than some think it is today.
On top of that is the fact that Bill Clinton’s Administration did nothing to improve America’s safety (he let Osama Bin Laden live to create the 9/11 attack), create alternative energy sources (crude oil increased some 150% during his time in office, no nuclear plants were made, and oil refineries dropped in number), or prevent the devastating economic burden of the internet bubble that I would argue did more damage than any other single factor in decades. It was also his Administration that failed on healthcare.
But particularly I want to address the spike in food, the core in the CPI index. Food prices are up because of one of the major initiatives that Democrats are pushing right now. Corn Ethanol. In playing to the farmers of the nation corn was picked as the source to create ethanol – a product that is less efficient than gasoline by 25% and unavailable to 97% of the nation – and while there is a glut of ethanol the mandatory increase of it’s production has caused the price of corn to go up and therefore food prices to increase.
This is a problem caused by the tunnel-visioned emphasis of the Democrats on specific exclusionary choices for alternative energy. Like wind power that benefits Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s investment portfolio the Democrats allow political and financial interests to dominate what they believe is the energy choice America should have, without being honest enough to say why they refuse any other option. I believe we need to invest in all energy sources and let innovation discover which the best choice is, and that we switch to grass ethanol that does not affect our food supply and costs.
But getting back to Clinton’s speech, you have to love the way Bill has ignored and reversed his thoughts espoused about Obama during the Primaries. It’s about time too. But his credibility is weak considering this is the first time he has changed his opinion, under pressure that his wife is out and if she is ever to have a chance he must shore up the political divide they created together.
It is correct that Senator Obama has the ability to rally the public, and inspire our minds. That is critical in a President. Curiosity and intelligence are equally important in a President. So at the 6:51 minute of the speech Bill Clinton is correct. But he leaves out something else a President needs. Experience in working with the Congress and creating bi-partisan policies that benefit the nation. Experience and respect from the international community. Senator Obama has neither. And while President Bush now has experience in both (to limited degrees) few in America approve the degree to which he has gained both. But Senator John McCain, and even Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden have more experience, international respect, and bi-partisan ability than Obama, with as much intelligence, curiosity, and inspirational capacity.
Bill Clinton makes an excellent attempt at claiming Senator Obama has made solid choices on international policy. But he ignores facts, like the fact that Senator Obama was among those opposing the Surge (in fact joining those that declared it a failure before it started), that his position on Georgia and Russia was weak, that his choice of Vice President directly opposes his views on Iraq, and is inaction (and in fact reluctance to discuss) on Darfur.
I agree that Senator Obama has a unique and beneficial view of America that every White President to date has not had. If Obama becomes President it will be the first time that someone who has lived with racism, prejudice, the biased legal system, and the disadvantages enforced in our media and culture will be in the Oval Office. Such a perspective is needed in a nation that is very diverse, with 1 in 3 Americans having to endure those challenges ever day.
But while the Primaries may have tested Senator Obama, they also presented his weaknesses. Senator Obama performed outstandingly in the early Primaries, only to be massively attacked and eventually beaten in the last several states. Senator Obama showed his ability to create a lead, and the inexperience to keep it. The gaffes that occurred late in the Primaries are examples similar to the choices many make in their late teens and early 20’s, which are remade and rethought upon gaining the wisdom of experience and age.
And As for Obama’s choice of running mate, I still don’t get it. There is no synergy here. Senator Biden opposed Obama on several critical points. He represents the ‘old’ politics that Obama has stated he wants to change from. Biden had even said, as did the Clinton’s, that Obama lacked experience enough to be President. I have worked for inferior bosses before, and I think anyone who has will say that it created more problems than solutions.
Thus the national security leadership Bill Clinton mentions is fractured. It is based on an internal argument of diametrically opposed views. It is anything but a team effort. Which means either Biden, or Obama, either lied about their views or do not believe in them strongly enough and will flip their previously stated thoughts. Because if either of those conditions are not met, then we have the potential for a divided Executive Office fighting against itself.
By the way, when Bill says
“revitalize the international institutions, which help to share the cost of the world’s problems”
He is speaking of the U.N. It is that organization that has always failed to match our funding, that has failed to pay its full dues. Always. The United Nations has never had a major military presence anywhere that did not involve the U.S. in an over weighted manner. And in 40 years of life I have never heard a single President mention how the U.N. has satisfactorily done anything that America has wanted. Share the cost? How about just paying their post-due fees as a start.
As for HIV/AIDS I agree that more needs to be done to highlight the fight. But it would be a lie to say that America has given up on this. More needs to be done, but we have not stopped funding or fighting this disease, abroad or domestically. The major news media may have moved on to another ratings grabbing issue but various governmental and individual efforts have continued. Still I say again that more can be done, and needs to be.
And a President Obama is seen as a weak military commander. Senator Obama is seen as without the guts to fight, or continue the efforts already on-going. That is why Iran and other Middle East nations, and various militant groups have endorsed Obama. Because they believe they can push him around, as Hillary did in the Primaries, as John McCain is currently doing in various ads. If it takes just one television political ads to take the Obama campaign off message, how hard would it be to take him off of a potential military crisis? And his initial response to Russia in the current Georgian conflict has been seen universally as weak and toothless.
While many nations in the world may need the innovations and financial support America can provide Senator Obama does not strike me as capable of providing it. He has yet to take a stance on Darfur. When asked directly about that nation at the recent Civic Forum Obama instead discussed Rwanda. As a Senator He has made no strides in Darfur, or in the Primaries drawn any attention to it. If he cannot do this, then how can we believe he will lead America in beating the Chinese at providing financial and industrial aide to Africa? Or any other nation?
But Bill Clinton then goes to attack Republicans. Now criticism is fair, and many problems exist over the last 8 years. But it is a fallacy to believe all the problems were created by Republicans, or to ignore the fact that some of these issues were created by or failed to be resolved by the Democrat-led Congress.
The issues of the economy, and in part failing retirement accounts, are partially a Republican failing. But they are also the failure of the Clinton Administration. The excesses allowed in the internet bubble, that he did nothing about, had immediate and lingering effects on the economy. Millions have still not recovered the losses they incurred then, and the debt it created. The failure of Congress to address the issues in the commodities and options markets caused the recent, and soon to recur, runs in energy prices. These are issues that both Democrats and Republicans share in, from the Clinton Administration’s 2nd term thru Bush.
And the image of American’s without healthcare is yet another example. The Clinton Administration failed to change healthcare, and after the disaster of Hillary Clinton’s attempt never picked the ball up. Bush as well has failed to run with this issue. Both are culpable. And any reform will need to be bi-partisan to effectively help anyone.
And Clinton should never talk about favors for the well connected. Mark Rich and Norman Hsu. Do I need to say more?
But he is dead on about the cronyism that helped to worsen the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But those were direct results of President Bush, not McCain or the Republican Party.
At the 15:39 minute of his speech Bill Clinton discusses Senator McCain. He mentions that McCain is defined by the extreme of the Republican Party on the issues of rebuilding America, and restoring America’s leadership. America’s leadership is something that Europe and other nations have been complaining about since the 1960’s. When Bill was President France would not let us use their airspace to bomb Quadafi in Libya – an accepted promoter of terrorism in the world outside of the U.S. American leadership has always been questioned and fought against, and it always rolls through hills and valleys – but ultimately it exists because the rest of the world needs out money, military and expressions of freedom time and again. But when we have weak Presidents, like Carter and Clinton, we see the emergence of long lasting problems – like the emergence of radical Iran, Bin Laden, and the initial problems with Saddam Hussein (which Clinton bombed constantly as Kurds were killed by the thousands).
And to rebuild America requires innovation. That innovation usually comes from small businesses growing and taking chances. Like Dell, or Apple, or Microsoft, these companies need an environment to grow in. But increased corporate taxes and higher minimum wages restrict small business and diminish that innovation. So how will that help rebuild the nation? How does increasing the burden of the nation with higher debt for funding a new department in charge of healthcare help to rebuild a nation? How does higher unemployment and lower work hours help to reduce the tax burden and higher taxes stimulate home purchases?
So in effect the extreme views of the Democratic Party are no more efficient or likely to achieve the goal of a better, stronger America. I agree that the extreme Right Wing of Republicans may be wrong, But the extreme Left Wing of the Democrats (or hardcore Democrats as Bill states) are equally wrong.
And I must dispute the claims about 2001. In that year we had the worse tragedy in American history. Caused by inaction of his Administration. All of America overreacted on multiple issues. Those reactions were not the historical claims of any Party. But the fact was that America was under attack, and the people sought the Republicans for their strength in that time, not Democrats. And now the nation is at war (rightly or wrongly, the cause is moot as our soldier fight).
And again I must also note that many of the things he mentions about that time were repercussions of the burst of the internet bubble. Caused again by his inaction on that bubble. The debt of the nation was never decreased; just the accounting of the Clinton Administration was changed. The jobs created en masse by the internet died with the bubble. The exorbitant salaries went with the start-ups, as did numerous jobs. No matter who was President, the internet crash would have caused the same problems. And the realization of that fact is in part why Democrats lost in 2004 trying to claim it was a Republican problem alone.
So yes, Bill Clinton was impressive. His ability to polispeak is nearly unmatched. His spin of facts, viewing them with squinted eyes, does sound attractive. Until you look at facts and causation. Until you pay attention to the details.
I admire that Bill Clinton has flipped his position on Senator Obama. I admire that he stepped up where his wife Hillary would not. I enjoy that while he and Obama don’t get along; Bill is able to rise to the need of the Democratic Party. He was a unifier, Hillary was out for herself.
But still he is unable to identify why America should vote for Obama. His misrepresentation of historical facts, his uniquely envisioned interpretation of actions and consequences sound great. And I am sure some will believe him wholeheartedly, because he sounds sincere. But he is not credible. And I do not believe he is sincere.
Hillary Clinton at the DNC - her words and meanings
Finally the question is over. Senator Hillary Clinton has spoken at the Democratic National Convention. And she has made her position clear.
As completely expected, Senator Clinton started her speech with her stated support of Senator Obama. Not a surprise, but it’s just so telling that she has said something that her husband – Bill Clinton – refuses to do. Not that she expressed any personal belief in Senator Obama, or mention his positives. That would have been a surprise, selfless and so anti-Clinton as to make you think you were in an alternate universe.
Now as I expected Senator Hillary Clinton did not refute any of her Primary attacks on Senator Obama. She did not refute Bill Clinton’s racist remarks. She didn’t even mention Barack Obama’s name until the 4th minute, and did not give a reason to support him til the middle of the speech (11:48). This speech was about her and how good she can make herself look.
So I went over her speech, line by line. And I looked for the honesty within the polispeak. And I pulled out the facts from the spin. And I exposed the raw ambition that will do anything to win, including selling out a fellow party member for a shot down the road.
Senator Clinton started with the same old campaign polispeak ‘misquotes’ she loves. She mentioned her “35 years in the trenches” – though she only got into elected office 8 years ago, and Bill did all the work in the past (except for a couple of months failed work on a nationalized healthcare plan). I would call that a lie, but I’m not a politician.
She mentions her “fight for women’s rights”, like her efforts while she was at Wal-Mart (never a single word while she was a Board member and had the power to change things in the company).
She mentioned how hard she and Bill have worked. Now while they are multi-millionaires, politics is hard. Not as hard as construction or retail but hard. Though I have to wonder how hard she has worked since I don’t recall the last Congressional Bill she passed into law, and I have yet to see the 200,000 jobs she promised Upstate New York to get elected as Senator (in fact there has been a net decrease in jobs of 30,000 during her time in elected office). Hard work indeed.
But she continued as we hit 6 minutes about the horrors of a guy in a Marine t-shirt. The assumption was that he was a Marine (but she failed to make that clear, or why he was in need of medical help) and wanted his buddies to be taken care of. Meaning leaving Iraq, I suppose, a war she voted for and urged others to vote for based on her extensive research of the facts (look it up, she’s on video saying it).
She then went for the heartstrings in discussing a mother that had her hours cut at a minimum wage job. Now was that after or before the Democrat-led Congress raised minimum wages forcing businesses to cut hours because they can’t afford the increase?
And Clinton correctly stated that in the last couple of years things have gotten tough. Though I have to wonder if things are better or worse than when I watched the internet bubble burst and take out businesses and retirement funds, and family savings because Bill Clinton was too busy looking good, and trying to define “is” – while Hillary was ducking invisible bullets, to stop the impending carnage. How tough was that.
How tough did it get after the Clinton’s allowed Bin Laden to live and escape the crosshairs of our military, thus giving him the chance to plan and execute the 9/11 attack? Somehow I think that was a tougher time for America.
She hinted on Iraq, the war she voted for, and Iran, a country that would like to see America wiped of the face of the Earth and where Senator Obama would talk without condition. She stated that China has bought into our banks. And it is true, and troubling. But the alternative of letting our banks fail sounds worse to me. Not that a single Democrat has a better option to present – unless it’s a secret and therefore they prefer America to be in a dangerous position financially rather than tell us.
She claims that Democrats will help Americans save for college and buy homes? Now is this like her quickly dropped campaign promise to give every child $5,000 for college – paid for by some unknown source (taxes). Does this savings happen before taxes are increased, not on the rich but everyone who makes over $31,850 as she voted for this year (along with Senator Obama and Senator Biden as well as I recall)? Or is it after taxes are raised to pay for her nationalized healthcare, causing businesses to close from the cost?
She discussed the various things she wants to promote next. Promoting clean energy – which she never advocated while Bill was in office, and only mentioned after polls showed it popular.
She wants to promote unions, who are in the pockets of Democrats. Though she skipped her time at the union-less Wal-Mart (where like women’s rights she said nothing during her time on the Board).
And her desire to promote equal rights and stop discrimination seem hollow from a woman that can’t even stop her husband from making racial remarks, at least, in front of cameras.
She desires a “nation of immigrants”, because only she can answer yes, no, and maybe when the issue of immigration is asked of her on national televised debate – all in 2 minutes too (Michael Phelps beware her polispeak speed).
And she desires to end “private plunder”, which I think means that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and her efforts to promote energy alternative that increase her personal stock investments - which she does not disclose to the public - is in trouble.
Senator Clinton wants to talk about America’s efforts to end genocide. And I believe her because she has said so much about Darfur during, or since, the Primaries. Or is it only genocides in White nations?
But this Democratic National Convention is not about Senator Clinton. It’s about Senator Barack Obama, and in the middle of her speech she finally speaks about him for a moment. She makes a great question when she asks what her supporter are for. But she forgets to ask if they were voting for her because she is White, or a woman. Both were reasons she campaigned for in the Primary and I would like to know if they were reasons they are so fanatical now?
And she mentions that ‘global warming’ (an unproven yet Democratically sound concept) is a problem that America must fix alone in the world. Never mind the growing industrialization of China and India. Nor the potential fact that some Democrats are using this subject to make money while denying any other alternative including domestic drilling.
But Hillary Clinton is correct that America should not “favor few”. Like Hollywood stars and executives, or eco-fanatics that would have you use on sheet of toilet paper, or alternative energy companies, or big money fund raisers that are criminals evading the law for 15 years (Norman Hsu).
And I want to pause here because Democrats say that Senator Obama is a good choice for America. She never said he would be great. She never mentioned a single quality for Obama.
But she did ask Americans to “imagine what America will be”. Now I do remember when she was in Bill Clinton’s White House (because he was elected and the political power not her) I recall that no major promised initiative ever was passed (correct me if I am wrong). But I do recall that Bill was busy with dictionaries, and teaching America to lip-read, and her serving tea to end the conflict in Ireland, and avoiding Whitewater.
But If I were to imagine the America she envisions (and liberal Democrats as well) I suppose it would involve being overtaxed, unemployed, under terrorist attacks, without power, on lines to get medical care, isolationist, with Spanish as the main national language and without the funds to allow Americans to retire. There is Hillary’s America as she has explained it to date, and that most liberal Democrats prefer (oh, and Senator Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress, Joe Biden is 3rd).
But Hillary emphasizes that national healthcare, especially under her plan, is great for America. Though no Democrat can explain how it will be paid for. Or how it will be efficeint. Or run on budget.
But remember that under a Democrat-led Presidency, especially as Clinton envisions it, America may well be too busy running from Iraq, and Al Quida to worry about that. Watching anti-American groups gain power as we try to create new sources of power without oil, and sending even more money to the Middle East.
But not to worry because Senator Biden is a great guy, and by default she implies Obama is not. And don’t consider that a Democratic win means an Executive Office that will be split since Biden and Obama don’t agree on Iraq and other national issues. Heck, Biden – like both Clinton’s – does not even think Senator Obama is qualified or experienced enough to be President. You can imagine how smoothly that Administration would run.
But at this point Senator Clinton looked to the past. I don’t mean Senator John McCain’s age, or his 35 years of service to America. I don’t even mean the 30+ years of Congress (and thus solid stance in old politics) of Senator Biden. I mean the Carter Administration, where many of the current Democratic policies seem to have originated.
The Carter Administration stood out for its stagflation, something the Democrats definitely did before. Along with double digit inflation, and double digit unemployment, and having Americans taken hostage by Iran (hey, don’t they still have a beef with us? Aren’t they building weapons to kill us? Didn’t Carter talk with them – and not release a single hostage?) Don’t believe me, ask someone 40 or over.
President Carter didn’t like domestic drilling of oil either. Today oil costs 1000% more than when his Democratic Administration was in charge. President Carter and Democrats didn’t like nuclear energy, a new plant hasn’t been made in decades. And all the jobs that are involved in creating those industries, and the power they provide went up in the smoke from tankers importing oil to us from overseas.
But back in the world of today Senator Clinton misquoted the policies and ideals of Senator McCain. Her “friend and colleague”, a man she said would be a good President with experience – something she has not said about Obama – was now described as being a bad choice.
I’m confused. Is he better than Obama or not? Or is it that she just wants to look helpful without being helpful?
But the last part of the speech I want to address are the points on her mother and Harriet Tubman.
I understand that her mother could not vote and her daughter can. And I’m glad they can. But I’m reminded that my Great-grandfather’s generation could not vote. And my grandfather’s generation was blocked from voting by Jim Crow laws. My parent’s generation was beat up for voting, and sitting in the wrong spot, or asking for a good education. My generation now has a chance to see the first Black President, and Senator Clinton is trying hard to do nothing to allow it. In fact her husband has been active in trying to prevent it. So excuse me if I’m not impressed that Hillary is miffed.
Because of that reason I was upset she dared to mention Harriet Tubman. Was that supposed to make me feel better? To unify the Party with the name of a Black woman that made inroads for the rights of African Americans and inspired women of the time (if not now as well).
Taking Senator Hillary Clinton’s words a bit out of context,
If you heard dogs behind you Obama, it’s Hillary trying to chase you off track. If you see torches, it’s Bill Clinton lighting the path for your competition. Don’t stop, don’t slow down.
I may not agree with Senator Obama and his policies, but I’ll be damned if I won’t make sure Hillary is revealed for the snake in the grass viper that her speech proved her to be. She did what I expected in her speech. Strike 2 for the DNC. Next up is Bill Clinton, what do you think he will do?
Senator Hillary Clinton at the DNC: what will she say?
Looking forward to Senator Hillary Clinton’s speech tonight I am wondering what will be said, just like every other pundit out there. My interest is based on a simple set of facts. Senator Clinton went a long way to damage the chances of Senator Obama winning, from his inexperience to his race. And these attacks are now the fuel of political ads from the Republicans and the Mc Cain campaign.
Senator Clinton set up this attack. In fact it is almost verbatim what she said in the Primaries. The McCain campaign can’t be blamed for using the words of the Democrats to benefit himself, whether it was Hillary or Joe Biden’s words.
So what Senator Clinton says tonight will be very interesting.
Either Senator Clinton will come out with a major flip flop, essentially saying that the Clinton campaign was willing to say and do anything to win – including making comments she felt were untrue – or she will use the well known Clinton polispeak spin to obfuscate and ignore everything she has said in the past.
The speech tonight must address the comments she has made about the lack of experience of Senator Obama, and why that is now not important as opposed to just a couple of months ago. Her speech must refute if not denounce the words of her husband, former-President Bill Clinton – and explain why he has refused to say that Senator Obama is ready for the Presidency, which he has claimed for every other Democrat that ran in the Primaries. Senator Clinton must also find a way to gap the chasm created in dividing the Democratic Party along lines of race and gender. The Clinton campaign was very effective at using race and gender, and caused a lasting question of stereotypical and racist fear in the minds of many in the nation; this must be addressed.
If the speech by Senator Clinton fails to address each of these issues, if she fails to close all these doors she opened, she will leave the Democratic Party divided in a manner not seen in decades. And if I were in Las Vegas I’d bet that she won’t do it.
My instincts, and my read on the polispeak of the Clinton’s during the Primaries and after them has given me the belief that neither Clinton is really willing to help Senator Obama. They will stand by him, raise money and say the words that need to be said. But they will also leave just a bit of doubt, leave him just a bit weak on critical issues. Because then it will not be said that they weren’t team players when the next Presidential election comes up.
To this point everything the Clinton campaign has done has been part of a plan to prepare for the 2012 election, in my opinion. We have been watching the beginnings of a new campaign and Primary run since the day Senator Obama took the presumptive nomination and Hillary Clinton refused to acknowledge it.
So my ultimate thought is that Senator Hillary Clinton will leave the door open for her supporters to try to steal the nomination for her. She will leave ajar the thought that her supporters should vote for Senator McCain or just not vote at all. She will keep her option alive to say “I told you I would have won”.
Tonight Senator Hillary Clinton will rally women, and racially sensitive Democrats. That is a given. Now whether she will polispeak and spin them closer to Senator Obama or not is a question that won’t be clear until after her last words are said.
What the Democratic National Convention means to me
As the Democratic National Convention is about to start I want to step back and address a question I am often asked. Why am I not a supporter of Senator Obama?
I have been asked that by dozens of White Americans that presume I must be for Obama because he is Black. I have been asked that by almost as many African Americans for the same reasoning. And there are the far smaller group of Americans, of all color and ethnicity, that wonder because they presume I must agree with the Democratic Party policies.
So let me state this clearly, I do not support Senator Barrack Obama at this time. I doubt if I will ever support him. And I disagree with the Democratic policies he supports.
It’s not because I was a democrat and want to switch parties like the bitter Clinton Democrats. They are often White women, upset that a White woman was denied the chance to run for President. Their switch of support, like Debra Bartoshevich, seems like sour grapes more than anything else. And Democrats are responding in kind, splitting their party.
Which leads these Democrats to the right choice for the wrong reason.
Besides the fact that I think Democrats are a split party, created by the Clinton campaign, there are other issues.
Senator Obama has no experience. His own Vice Presidential pick has said he thinks Obama is unqualified. If Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton, agree with Senator John McCain how strong and qualified is Obama?
Senator Obama will be increasing taxes. He has already voted to do so for those making $31,850 or more. My belief he will limit himself to those making an unknown and ambiguous amount qualifying them as rich is shaky at best. His expressed view that businesses, of all sizes, need to pay more in taxes strikes me as harmful to a weak American economy.
Senator Obama has stated often that our dependence on foreign oil is bad. No surprise. Yet he still only considers the idea of domestic drilling. But how else will there be a stopgap to allow us to fund and create alternative energy sources? And his position on oil shale is directly Party line. How about cleaner coal? How about Nuclear energy?
Senator Obama is exclusive in his plans, targeting only the renewable energy plans that benefit stock positions held by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. How is that a grand benefit to America when only options that profit a few are considered? How is that different than the claims made by Democrats that Republicans are in the pocket of big oil, aren’t they in the pocket of Wind and corn ethanol (which has already increased the cost of food)?
Senator Obama has stated he would speak with any threat to America, no matter the provocation. He would speak with Iran, a nation that has sought the wholesale destruction of America and Israel for 30 years now. Like mere words would stop them from their declared God-given need to wipe us off of the earth. Obama is not God, especially to the
Senator Obama would run from Iraq as quickly as possible. There is no consideration for the outcome of such actions. There are no qualms about the probable increased threat to average Americans in their homes. Terrorism has not stopped since 9/11, it just hasn’t hit our homes stateside. But thousands of orphans given no choice and every reason to blame America will grow up looking to kill America. Just as they did at the end of the Gulf War, in 5 – 10 years they will strike American soil after a retreat that will be viewed in the Middle East as a defeat of America, and thus a vindication of Al Quida and other such groups.
Senator Obama wants to give millions the support of the Government. That in itself is not a bad thing, except that it is funded by Americans and perpetuates the ideal that America would rather feed the hungry rather than teach them to fish for themselves. It creates a culture that cannot support itself; and for those that think this means minorities remember that there are more Whites in prison, on welfare, and/or in Government care than all minority groups combined.
As I mentioned the Democratic Party is split. Not on substantive differences – as the voting records of Clinton and Obama are virtually the same. It is split on racial lines, due largely to the efforts of the Clinton campaign.
It is split with a Vice President that disagrees on key issues in a massive manner from the Democratic Presidential nominee he would work for. A VP that would not vote for a less experiences candidate, one that has done less bi-partisan work than he has in a decade. A VP that embodies the ‘old’ politics that Obama has railed against throughout the primaries.
So what makes Senator Obama the right man at this time?
Well the political campaign ads for the Obama – Biden ticket are already coming out.
I notice that this ad finally notices that Darfur exists. Too bad Senator Obama did not have the balls to comment on it during the Primaries. Then again he had nothing to say about reparations either, just the same as Senator Joe Biden.
Of course the McCain campaign has already come up with a response.
I am glad that Senator Clinton is nowhere on the ticket. My thoughts on her are unchanged. She is too dangerous for America.
That said, she is right that Senator Obama has been scant in details on his plans. His definition of rich is ambiguous, his promise to lower taxes completely ignores small business owners. I disagree that Senator Obama’s friendship with Rezco is a definite problem. If it was some Chicago reporter would have found it by now.
But this Vice-President choice had me checking back to see what inconsistencies might be in the Obama campaign.
There is of course the fact that Biden disagrees with Obama on the experience needed for the Presidency, ‘old’ vs ‘new’ politics, healthcare, and of course Iraq. But that lead me to find the crazy polispeak of Senator Obama on Iraq.
Of course Senator Joe Biden disagrees with Senator Obama on Pakistan too. And has been to Iraq more.
Imagine the message this sends to the rest of the world when we know that the VP thinks the President uses “shorthand“ to discuss international policy, and the “wrong policy” at that.
If Democrats are happy with this match up, I can only imagine it’s because Senator Obama is the most liberal senator and Biden is in 3rd place. Other than that it will have to be political ads, because nothing else will work – without massive flip flops and polispeak to spin your head.
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?
Reviewing Senator Biden, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate
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.
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"
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.
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.
Now I’ve discussed my thoughts on how Senator Obama and Senator McCain answered questions about taxes and Darfur, but there were other observations from the Saddleback Civil Forum.
On of the most obvious things I noticed in comparing the 2 Presidential candidates was the amount of expirence they had. While Senator Obama had some ideas and tried to answer all the questions as best he could, Senator McCain had tons of experience. In almost every question asked McCain had a reference of something either he or his wife did. Not idea or proposals but actual facts and actions that related to the question at hand. That spoke volumes.
Another point that was divergent had to be the questions on abortion and gay marriage. The position of Senator McCain was pretty obvious on these questions. He is pro-life (now) and against gay marriage.
Senator Obama made me a bit surprised. He stated he was against gay marriage in a rather emphatic manner. I had not expected him to be so cut and dry on this issue.
“I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.”
As the most liberal Senator sitting currently, and with the huge financial support of far-left groups like Moveon.org, I expected him to have a more soft position. That is sure to cost him votes.
[Let me answer a question I inevitably will be asked. I do not support gay marriage. I do support civil unions. My reasons are different than what you may think.
The fight for gay marriage is a fight for a word. The purpose of marriage is the monogamous union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation. Everything else associated with that is a societal/cultural addition. Since a gay couple is incapable of procreation, they cannot be married.
In fighting for the word marriage, an attempt to force others that disagree with gays in general to be forced to acknowledge them, the real fight is obscured. That fight as I understand it is for the right to be treated with dignity and equal rights under the law. That right can and must be covered by civil unions.
To fight for a word is to thus fight religious beliefs of some, which is a never ending fight as we can see in Iraq and with Muslim fanatics, and distracts from the real issue. It in fact prevents some from reaching a middle ground and supporting civil unions.
That simply put is my position. Let the hate mail begin.]
Senator Obama was incredibly ambivalent on his answer about abortion. He never answered where he believes life begins. I realize that he was opposed to angering some voters with his answer, but I think his response angers everyone since he did not give an answer.
“So for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground; and by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform -- is, how do we reduce the number of abortions?”
Thus he fails groups on both sides of the argument. I dislike answers like this as I find it polispeak of the worst form. It’s an attempt to hold or gather votes without providing the public with a basis to form an opinion and make an educated vote. I dislike when any candidate pulls this kind of stunt.
A similar thing happened with the first question that Senator Obama was given. When asked to name 3 people that were the wisest he has known in his life, he gives 2 names. His wife Michelle and his grandmother. I have no problem with the women he chose, I just wonder who was the 3rd person?
He bypasses the 3rd person on the list to then discuss the people he would rely on in his potential administration. Why did he skip the 3rd person? Who was it? Was it Rev. Wright and he was afraid of the controversy? Was it another figure that politically was derisive?
Mind you I don’t like the way McCain answered the first question either.
“First one, I think, would be General David Petraeus, one of the great military leaders in American history, who took us from defeat to victory in Iraq -- one of the great leaders… John Lewis was at the Edmund Pettis Bridge… Meg Whitman; Meg Whitman, the CEO of eBay.”
His answers were equally filled with polispeak. That does not mean they aren’t true, just that the obvious political benefit is too much to not notice.
The Iraq war, thus backing his views on how to have handled the conflict from the start and the Surge which was called a failure by Democrats before it ever started. John Lewis who was hurt during the Civil Rights Movement, and a nice pick for the Black vote. Meg Whiman, very positive for business, women, and those concerned about the economy.
Again they might all be true, but the groups the answer plays to is far too obvious.
Especially in the first answer.
Now while I think McCain showed far more experience, and was ready to answer tough questions with direct answers he was a bit to blunt. Some of his answers were too much dead on Republican talking points. They may be his views, but it just seemed that his campaign banged in his best response too well. It was like he was springloaded to respond to certain questions with exact answers. That does not mean they knew the question in advance, just that he was prepared overly-well.
What do I come away from this all? Basically that Senator McCain is far more experienced and ready to lead ther nation. That some of his views are far more defined and closer to the centrist nature of the general American public than Senator Obama.
And sadly for Senator Obama he gave a strong reason not to vote for him. His reason to not accept Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is exactly the reason that you can oppose him as President.
“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.”
If inexperience is a disqualifier for Supreme Court, how can it not be a disqualifier for the highest elected office?
So that you can compare the candidates and draw your own conclusion. Don't rely on any one media source or any pundit (including myself); see their full comments for yourself.
Your vote is worth too much not to.
REV. WARREN: Well, welcome to the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. I guess you got my invitation. (Laughter.) We're here at Saddleback Church here in Lake Forest, California. And tonight we're going to use the interview format with these two candidates.
Now, we believe in the separation of church and state, but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just a world view, and everybody has some kind of world view, and it's important to know what they are.
Now, what I've decided, to allow for proper comparison, I'm going to ask identical questions to each of these candidates so you can compare apples to apples. Now, Senator Obama's going to go first. We flipped a coin. And we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence. (Laughter.) Now, each of the interviews will be segmented into four different sections. We're going to look at four different things, and the number of questions answered in each segment will depend on how succinct the senator is.
I have to tell you up front, both of these guys are my friends. I don't happen to agree with everything either of them teach or believe, but they both care deeply about America. They're both patriots, and they have very different views on how America can be strengthened.
Now, in America, we've got to learn how to disagree without demonizing each other. And we need to restore civility -- (applause) -- we need to restore civility in our civil discourse, and that's the goal of the Saddleback Civil Forum.
So let's get started. And will you welcome Senator Barack Obama.
(Applause and cheers.)
REV. WARREN: Glad you're here. Thank you for being here.
SEN. OBAMA: Thank you. Pretty good crowd you got here. (Laughter.)
REV. WARREN: I got a good crowd.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, it's a nice looking crowd.
REV. WARREN: We're going to talk about four different issues tonight, Barack. The first issue is on leadership.
SEN. OBAMA: Right.
REV. WARREN: These first set of questions deal with your personal life as a leader. And I'm not going to do this with any other segment, but as a pastor I've got some verses that have to do with leadership. And the first issue is the area of listening. Now, there's a verse in Proverbs that says, "fools think they need no advice, but wise listen to other people." Who are the three wisest people you know in your life? And who are you going to rely on heavily in your administration?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, let me thank you for having me here, Rick.
REV. WARREN: You're welcome.
SEN. OBAMA: And I love the ministries that are taking place here at Saddleback. This is the second time I've been here. The first time, we had a wonderful time.
Excluding you, of course -- (laughter and applause) -- as one of the --
REV. WARREN: (Laughs.) And your wife. (Applause.)
SEN. OBAMA: I was going to say -- you know, there are so many people that are constantly helping to shape my views and my opinions. You mentioned one person I'd be listening to, and that's Michelle, my wife --
REV. WARREN: Yeah, yeah.
SEN. OBAMA: -- who is not only wise, but she's honest. And one of the things you need, I think any leader needs, is somebody who can get up in your face and say, boy, you really screwed that one up, you really blew that.
REV. WARREN: (Laughs.) Your wife's like that, too? (Laughter.)
SEN. OBAMA: She is. So that's very helpful.
Another person in that category is my grandmother, who is an extraordinary woman. She never went to college. She worked on a bomber assembly line during World War II when my grandfather was away. Came back, got a job as a secretary and worked her way up to become a bank vice president before she retired. And she's just a very grounded, common-sense, no-fuss, no-frills kind of person. And when I've got big decisions, I often check in with her.
Now, in terms of the administration or how I would approach the presidency, I don't think I'd restrict myself to three people. There are people like Sam Nunn, a Democrat, or Dick Lugar, a Republican, who I'd listen to on foreign policy. On domestic policy, you know, I've got friends ranging from Ted Kennedy to Tom Coburn, who don't necessarily agree on a lot of things but who both, I think, have a sincere desire to see this country improve.
REV. WARREN: Yeah.
SEN. OBAMA: What I've found is very helpful to me is to have a table where a lot of different points of view are represented and where I can sit and poke and prod and ask them questions so that any blind spots I have or predispositions that I have that my assumptions are challenged. And I think that that's extraordinarily important.
REV. WARREN: All right. Let's talk about personal life. The Bible says that integrity and love are the basis of leadership. This is a tough question. What would be, looking over your life -- everybody's got weaknesses, nobody's perfect -- would be the greatest moral failure in your life? And what would be the greatest moral failure of America?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, in my own life, I'd break it up in stages. I had a difficult youth. My father wasn't in the house. I've written about this. You know, there were times when I experimented with drugs, I drank, you know, in my teenage years. And what I trace this to is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. And you know, I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it's not about me. It's about --
REV. WARREN: I like that. (Laughter and applause.) I like that.
SEN. OBAMA: Absolutely. But look, you know, when I find myself taking the wrong step, I think a lot of times it's because I'm trying to protect myself instead of do God's work.
REV. WARREN: Yeah, fundamental selfishness.
SEN. OBAMA: And so that, I think, is my own failure.
REV. WARREN: How about America?
SEN. OBAMA: I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers you do for me. (Applause.) And that notion of -- that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class.
I mean, there's a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don't spend enough time thinking about "the least of these."
REV. WARREN: Okay. We've talked about this before, about the common good and the common ground and common good. Can you give me an example of a time -- you know, I've seen that a lot of good legislation gets killed because of party loyalty.
SEN. OBAMA: Yeah.
REV. WARREN: Can you give me a good example of where you went against party loyalty and maybe even went against your own best interest for the good of America.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I'll give you an example that in fact I worked with John McCain on, and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform. That wasn't probably in my interest or his, for that matter, because the truth was that both Democrats and Republicans sort of like the status quo. And I was new to the Senate, and it didn't necessarily then engender a lot of popularity when I started saying, you know, we're going to eliminate meals and gifts from corporate lobbyists. I remember one of my colleagues, whose name will be unmentioned, who said, well, where do you expect us to eat, McDonald's?
REV. WARREN: (Laughs.)
SEN. OBAMA: And I thought, well, actually, a lot of your constituents probably do eat at McDonald's, so that wouldn't be such a bad thing. But I think that we were able to get a bill passed that hasn't made Washington perfect but at least has started moving things forward.
And you know, I guess the other example where I'm not sure that this was more of a partisan issue but it was something that I felt very deeply was when I posed the initial decision to go into war in Iraq. That was not a popular view at the time. And I was just starting my campaign for the United State Senate. And I think there were a lot of people who advised me, you should be cautious, this is going to be successful, the president has a very high approval rating, and you could end up losing the election as a consequence of this.
REV. WARREN: Let me ask it this way. A lot of times, candidates are accused of flip-flopping, but actually sometimes flip-flopping is smart because you actually have decided a better position based on knowledge that you didn't have.
SEN. OBAMA: Right.
REV. WARREN: What's the most significant position you held 10 years ago that you no longer hold today, that you've flipped on, you've changed on because you actually see it differently?
SEN. OBAMA: Because I actually changed my mind.
REV. WARREN: You changed your mind, exactly.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I'm trying to think back 10 years ago. I think that a good example would be the issue of welfare reform where I always believed that welfare had to be changed. I was much more concerned 10 years ago, when President Clinton initially signed the bill, that this could have disastrous results. I worked in the Illinois legislature to make sure that we were providing child care and health care and other support services for the women who were going to be kicked off the rolls at a certain time. It worked better than I think a lot of people anticipated.
And you know, one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is that we have to have work as a centerpiece of any social policy -- (applause) -- not only because ultimately people who work are going to get more income, but the intrinsic dignity of work, the sense of purpose --
REV. WARREN: We were made for work.
SEN. OBAMA: We were made for work.
REV. WARREN: Yeah.
SEN. OBAMA: And the sense that you are part of a community because you are making a contribution, no matter how small, to the well being of the country as a whole, I think that is something that Democrats generally I think have made a significant shift on.
REV. WARREN: What's the most significant -- let me ask it this way. What's the most gut-wrenching decision you've ever had to make? And how did you process that to come to that decision?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I think the opposition to the war in Iraq is as tough a decision as I've had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a real bad person. And there was no doubt that he meant America ill. But I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
And there were a lot of questions that, as I spoke to experts, kept on coming up. Do we know how the Shi'a and the Sunni and the Kurds are going to get along in a post-Saddam situation? You know, what's our assessment as to how this will affect the battle against terrorists like al Qaeda? Have we finished the job in Afghanistan?
So I agonized over that. And I think that questions of war and peace generally are so profound. You know, when you meet the troops, they're 19, 20, 21-year-old kids, and you're putting them into harms way. There is a solemn obligation that you do everything you can to get that decision right.
Now, as the war went forward, there were difficult decisions about, you know, how long do you keep on funding the war if you strongly believe that it's not in America's national interest? At the same time, you don't want to have troops who are out there without the equipment they need. So all those questions surrounding the war have been very difficult for me.
REV. WARREN: Okay. We'll be back, and we're going to talk about world view in the next section.
(Announcements.)
REV. WARREN: Everybody's got a world view. A Buddhist, a Baptist, a secularist, an atheist, everybody's got a world view. I wrote or invited people who get my newsletter to write in their questions. We have about 200,000 questions that came in -- (laughter) -- and I only have 500 in this section. So no matter how you answer these world-view questions, somebody's not going to like it --
SEN. OBAMA: All right.
REV. WARREN: -- because we're all different kinds of world views in America, but people want to know what your world view is. So as we go through these minefields, let's just kind of tick them off -- the minefields of America.
The first one is Christianity. Now, you've made no doubt about your faith in Jesus Christ. What does that mean to you? What does that mean to you to trust in Christ? What does that mean on a daily basis? I mean, what does that really look like?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, as a starting point, it means I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. I know that I don't walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way that, you know, I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have, on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.
You know, but what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words but through deeds, the expectations, I think, that God has for us. And that means thinking about "the least of these." It means acting, well, acting justly, loving mercy and walking humbly with our God. And that, I think, trying to apply those lessons on a daily basis, knowing that you're going to fall a little bit short each day, and being able to kind of take note and saying, well, that didn't quite work out the way I think it should have, but maybe I can get a little bit better. It gives me the confidence to try things, including things like running for president where you're going to screw up once in a while.
REV. WARREN: Yeah.
SEN. OBAMA: Yeah.
REV. WARREN: Okay, let's go through the tough ones. Now, the most -- (laughter) --
SEN. OBAMA: I thought that was pretty tough.
REV. WARREN: No, that was a freebie. That was a gimme. (Laughter.) That was a gimme.
Okay, now, let's deal with abortion. Forty million abortions since Roe v Wade. You know, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue.
Forty million abortions -- at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with.
One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe versus Wade. And I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with these pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members.
So for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground; and by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform -- is, how do we reduce the number of abortions? Because the fact is is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down. And that, I think, is something that we have to ask ourselves.
REV. WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I am in favor, for example, of limits on late- term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. Now, from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. I mean, one of the things that I've always said is is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you.
What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions? And as an example of that, one of the things that I've talked about is, how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child? You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That, I think, can make a genuine difference.
REV. WARREN: Okay. There's a lot more I'd like to ask on that, but we got 15 other questions here.
Define marriage.
SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?
SEN. OBAMA: No, I would not.
REV. WARREN: Why not?
SEN. OBAMA: (Applause.) Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law that has been our tradition. Now, I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.
I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: Okay. How about this? What about stem cells? Now, we've had this scientific breakthrough of creating these pluripotent stem cells in adult cells. Do we still need federal funding for research? Would you still support that for embryo stem cells?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, keep in mind the way the stem cell legislation that was vetoed by the president was structured. What it said was you could only use embryos that were about to be discarded, that had been created as a consequence of attempts at in vitro fertilization. So there were very tightly circumscribed mechanisms that were permitted.
I think that that is a legitimate, moral approach to take. If we're going to discard those embryos and we know that there's potential research that could lead to curing debilitating diseases -- Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease -- you know, if that possibility presents itself, then I think that we should, in a careful way, go ahead and pursue that research.
Now, if in fact adult stem cell lines are working just as well, then, of course, we should try to avoid any kind of moral arguments that may be in place.
But I want to make a broader point, Pastor Rick, on an issue like stem cell research. I mean, it's not like people who are in favor of stem cell research are going around thinking to themselves, you know, boy, let's go destroy some embryos. Right? I mean, that's not the perspective that I think people come to that issue on.
I think what they say is, we would not tolerate a situation in which, you know, we're encouraging human cloning or in some ways diminishing the sacredness of human life and what it means to be human. But that in narrow circumstances, you know, there is nothing inappropriate with us pursuing scientific research that could lead to cures so long as, you know, we're not designing embryos for that purpose.
REV. WARREN: Okay, we've got one last -- I've got a bunch more, but let me just ask you one about evil. Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, do we defeat it?
SEN. OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. And I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely.
And one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task. But we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.
Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil because, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.
REV. WARREN: In the name of good.
SEN. OBAMA: In the name of good.
REV. WARREN: Yeah, okay.
SEN. OBAMA: And I think, you know, one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that, you know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good.
REV. WARREN: Okay, all right. Let's move on to some domestic issues. Don't give me your stump speech on these. Let's go through it.
SEN. OBAMA: All right. This is hard. (Laughter.)
REV. WARREN: I know it is.
SEN. OBAMA: I've been on the stump for a long time.
REV. WARREN: I know it is. The courts -- let me ask it this way. Which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?
SEN. OBAMA: That's a good one. That's a good one. (Laughter.)
I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. (Applause.) I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice Scalia, although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance, because he and I just disagree. You know, he taught at the University of Chicago, as did I, in the law school.
REV. WARREN: How about John Roberts?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, John Roberts I have to say was a tougher question only because I find him to be a very compelling person, you know, in conversation individually. He's clearly smart, very thoughtful.
I will tell you that how I've seen him operate since he went to the bench confirms the suspicions that I had and the reason that I voted against him.
And I'll give you one very specific instance, and this is not a stump speech. I think one of the --
REV. WARREN: (Laughs.) When I pick this up, it means --
SEN. OBAMA: Right, exactly. I'm getting the cues, I'm getting the cues. (Laughter.
One of the most important jobs of, I believe, the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power of the other branches.
REV. WARREN: Okay.
SEN. OBAMA: And I think that he has been a little bit too willing and eager to give an administration, whether it's mine or George Bush's, more power than I think the Constitution originally intended.
REV. WARREN: Okay. The role of faith-based organizations -- a recent poll says 80 percent of Americans think faith-based organizations do a better job at community services than the government -- helping addictions -- (applause) -- you know, prisoner reentry, you know, all the different homeless, poverty, things like this. And the Civil Rights Act of '64 says that faith-based organizations have a right to hire people who believe like they do. Would you insist that faith-based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think you're aware, Pastor Rick, that I gave a speech earlier this summer promoting faith-based initiatives. I think that we should have an all-hands-on-deck approach when it comes to issues like poverty and substance abuse. And as somebody who got my start out of college working with churches who were trying to deal with the devastation of steel plants closing on the south side of Chicago, I know the power of faith-based institutions to get stuff done.
What I have said is that when it comes, first of all, to funding faith-based organizations, they are always free to hire whoever they want when it comes to their own mission, who their pastor is, various ministries that they want to set up. And this has been a long- standing rule.
REV. WARREN: Like on Christian college, Christian university.
SEN. OBAMA: Absolutely. When it comes to the programs that are federally funded, then we do have to be careful to make sure that we are not creating a situation where people are being discriminated against using federal money. That's not new. That's a concept that was true under the Clinton administration. That was true under the Bush administration. There are in 95 percent of the circumstances, it's not an issue because people are careful about how they use the funds.
There are some tough issues, 5 percent of the situations, where people might say, you know, I want to hire somebody of my faith for a program that is fully funded by the federal government and we're offering services to the public. And my --
REV. WARREN: For instance, like in relief, like in Katrina.
SEN. OBAMA: Right, right.
REV. WARREN: If I took people to Katrina and I wanted to hire some people to do relief, if I took federal money to help in that relief, I wouldn't be able to say, well, I only want people who believe like we do.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, it's one of those situations where the devil is in the details. I think generally speaking, faith-based organizations should not be advantaged or disadvantaged when it comes to getting federal funds by virtue of the fact that they are faith- based organizations. They just want a level playing field.
But what we do want to make sure of is that, as a general principle, we're not using federal funding to discriminate. But that is only when it comes to the narrow program that is being funded by the federal government. That does not affect any of the other ministries that are taking place.
REV. WARREN: Okay, let's go to education. America right now ranks 19th in high school graduations. We're first in incarcerations.
SEN. OBAMA: Not good.
REV. WARREN: Not good. Eighty percent of Americans, a recent poll said they believe in merit pay for teachers. Now, I'm not asking do you think all teachers should get a raise. Do you think better teachers should be paid better, they should be paid more than poor teachers?
SEN. OBAMA: I think that we should, and I've said this publicly, that we should set up a system of performance pay for teachers, negotiated with teachers, worked with the teachers to figure out the assessments so that they feel like they're being judged fairly, that it's not at the whim of the principal, that it's not simply based on a single high-stakes standardized test. But the basic notion that teaching is a profession, that teachers are underpaid so we need to pay them all more and create a higher baseline, but then we should also reward excellence. I think that is a concept that all of us should invest in. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: Okay. Taxes -- this is a real simple question. Define "rich." (Laughter.) I mean, give me a number. Is it 50,000 (dollars)? One hundred thousand (dollars)? Two hundred thousand (dollars)? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How do you define that?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, if you've got book sales of 25 million, then you qualify. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: (Laughs.) I'm not asking about me. (Laughter.)
SEN. OBAMA: Look, here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it, and this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less as a family, then you're middle class, or you may be poor. But 150 (thousand dollars) down, you're basically middle class. Obviously, it depends on region and where you're living.
REV. WARREN: In this region, you're poor. (Laughter and applause.)
SEN. OBAMA: I don't know what housing prices are doing lately. (Applause.) I would argue that if you're making more than 250,000 (dollars) then you're in the top 3, 4 percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative, and I'm not suggesting that everybody who is making over 250,000 (dollars) is living on Easy Street.
But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roads, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation, then we've got to pay for these things. They don't come for free. And it is irresponsible -- (applause) -- I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. (Applause.) That, I think, is unacceptable.
So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books, but I've been selling some books lately. (Laughter.) So I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is is that under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase.
What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of.
REV. WARREN: Great.
Okay, we'll be right back. (Applause.)
(Announcements.)
REV. WARREN: (In progress) -- on the presidency.
In this last section, I want us to talk about America's responsibility to the rest of the world. We are the most blessed nation in the world, and we're blessed to be a blessing. To whom much is given, much is required. So let's just go down some of those international issues.
First thing, let's just talk about war. As an American, what's worth dying for? What's worth having sacrifice of American lives for?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, obviously, American freedom, American lives, America's national interests. You know, I was just with my family on vacation in Hawaii and visited the place where my grandfather is laid to rest, the Punchbowl National Cemetery, and then went out to the Arizona out in Pearl Harbor. And you know, you're reminded of the sacrifices that have been made on behalf of our freedom. And I think that is a solemn obligation that we all have.
I think we also have forged alliances with countries, NATO being a prime example, where we have pledged to act militarily for the common defense.
That is in our national interest, and that is something that I think that we have to abide by.
REV. WARREN: What would be the criteria that you would commit troops to end the genocide, for instance like what's going on in Darfur or could happen in Georgia or anywhere else? A mass killing.
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I don't think that there is a hard-and- fast line at which you say, okay, we are going in. I think it is always a judgment call. I think that the basic principle has to be that if we have it within our power to prevent mass killing and genocide and we can work in concert with the international community to prevent it, then we should act. (Applause.) Now, we have to do so -- I think that international component is very critical. We may not get 100 percent agreement, but let's --
REV. WARREN: Would you ever go to war without U.N. Approval?
SEN. OBAMA: Yes, absolutely. Yeah. But you know, I think you take an example like Bosnia when we went in and undoubtedly saved lives, we did not have U.N. Approval, but there was a strong international case that had been made that ethnic cleansing was taking place. And under those circumstances, when we have it within our power, you know, we should take action.
REV. WARREN: Okay. This one is dear to my heart. Most people don't know that there are 148 million orphans in the world. One hundred forty-eight million kids growing up without mommies and dads. They don't need to be in an orphanage, they need to be in families, but a lot of families can't afford to take these kids in. Would you be willing to consider and even commit to doing some kind of an emergency plan for orphans like President Bush did with AIDS, almost a president's emergency plan for orphans to deal with this issue?
SEN. OBAMA: I cheated a little bit. I actually looked at this idea ahead of time, and I think it is a great idea. I think it's something that we should sit down and figure out working between non- governmental organizations, international institutions, the U.S. government and try to figure out what can we do.
I think that part of our plan, though, has to be, how do we prevent more orphans in the first place? And that means that we're helping to build a public health infrastructure around the world. That we are, you know, building on the great work that you and, by the way, this president has done when it comes to AIDS funding around the world. I think, you know, I'm often a critic of President Bush. But I think the PEPFAR program has saved lives and has done very good work. (Applause.) And he deserves enormous credit for that.
REV. WARREN: Religious persecution -- what do you think the U.S. should do to end religious persecution, for instance, in China, in Iraq and in many of our supposed allies? I'm not just talking about persecution of Christianity, but there's religious persecution around the world that persecutes millions of people.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think the first thing we have to do is to bear witness and to speak out and not pretend that it's not taking place. You know, our relationship with China, for example, is a very complicated one. You know, we're trading partners. Unfortunately, they are now lenders to us because we haven't been taking care of our economy the way we need to be. I don't think any of us want to see military conflict with China.
So we want to manage this relationship and move them into the world community as a full partner. But we can't purchase that by ignoring the very real persecutions that are taking place. And so having an administration that's speaking out, joining in international forums where we can point out human rights abuses and the absence of religious freedom, that, I think, is absolutely critical.
Over time, what we are doing is setting up new norms and creating a universal principle that people's faith and people's beliefs have to be protected. And as you said, it's not just Christians. And we've got to make sure -- you know, one thing that I think is very important for us to do on all these issues is to lead by example. That's why I think it's so important for us to have religious tolerance here in the United States. That's why it's so important for us, when we are criticizing other countries about rule of law, to make sure that we're abiding by rule of law and habeas corpus and we're not engaging in torture -- (applause) -- because that gives us a moral standing to talk about these other issues.
REV. WARREN: Okay, another issue. The third-largest and the fastest-growing criminal industry in the world is human trafficking, $32 billion a year. A lot of people don't know that there are about 27 million people living in slavery right now, many of them in sex trafficking but in the others. How do we speak out? And how do you plan to do something about that?
SEN. OBAMA: This has to be a top priority. And this is an area where we've already seen bipartisan agreement on this issue. What we have to do is to create better, more effective tools for prosecuting those who are engaging in human trafficking. And we have to do that within our country. Sadly, there are thousands who are trapped in various forms of enslavement here in our country, oftentimes young women who are caught up in prostitution.
So we've got to give prosecutors the tools to crack down on these human-trafficking networks. Internationally, we've got to speak out, and we've got to forge alliances with other countries to share intelligence, to roll up the financing networks that are involved in them. It is a debasement of our common humanity whenever we see something like that taking place. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: Okay. In a minute -- in one minute because I know you could take the entire hour on this -- tell me in a minute why you want to be president.
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I remember what my mother used to tell me. I was talking to somebody a while back, and I said, the one time that she'd get really angry with me is if she ever thought that I was being mean to somebody or unfair to somebody. She said, imagine standing in their shoes, imagine looking through their eyes. That basic idea of empathy.
And that, I think, is what's made America special is that notion that everybody's got a shot. If we see somebody down and out, if we see a kid who can't afford college, that we care for them, too. And I want to be president because that's the America I believe in. And I feel like that American dream is slipping away.
I think we are at a critical juncture economically. I think we are at a critical juncture internationally. We've got to make some big decisions, not just for us but for the next generation. And we keep on putting it off. And unfortunately, our politics is so broken and Washington is so broken that we can't seem to bring together people of good will to solve these common problems. I think I have the ability to build bridges across partisan lines, racial, regional lines to get people to work on some common-sense solutions to critical issues. (Applause.) And I hope that I have the opportunity to do that.
REV. WARREN: Great, thank you. (Applause.)
I'm going to skip over a couple of these other important ones, and I'll just ask you, what do you say to people who oppose me asking you these questions? (Laughter.) That will the last one.
SEN. OBAMA: These are the kinds of forums we need where we have a conversation. (Applause.) And I think based on these conversations, the American people can make a good judgment. I mean, one of the things if you're a person of faith like me, I believe that things will work out, and we will get the president that we need. What you want, though, is just to make sure that people have good information, that they're not just consuming negative ads or the kind of nasty tit for tat that has become so common in politics.
You know, I want people to know me well. And I want people -- I'm sure John McCain feels the same way in that if we are both known and people know where we stand on issues, you know, I trust in the American people. They're going to make a good decision, and we're going to be able to solve the big problems that we face.
REV. WARREN: Okay, I've got 30 seconds. What would you tell the American public if you knew there wouldn't be any repercussions? (Laughter.)
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know what I would tell them is that solving big problems, like for example energy, is not going to be easy. And everybody is going to have to get involved. And we are going to have to all think about how are we using energy more efficiently. And there's going to be a price to pay in transitioning to a more energy efficient economy and dealing with issues like climate change.
And if we pretend like everything is free and there's no sacrifice involved, then we are betraying the tradition of America. I think about my grandparent's generation coming out of the Depression, fighting World War II. You know, they confronted some challenges we can't even imagine. If they were willing to make sacrifices on our behalf, we should be able to make some sacrifices on behalf of the next generation. (Applause and cheers.)
REV. WARREN: Senator, thank you.
SEN. OBAMA: Thank you.
REV. WARREN: Now, would you stand and thank Senator Barack Obama.
(Applause and cheers.)
SEN. OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you.
REV. WARREN: Thank you so much. Thank you.
And while you're still standing, would you welcome at the same time Senator John McCain. Would you welcome him as he comes out here.
(Applause and cheers.)
SEN. OBAMA: Hi, John. Good to see you.
SEN. MCCAIN: Good to see you. Thank you guys.
REV. WARREN: Thank you so much.
END.
SADDLEBACK CIVIL FORUM ON THE PRESIDENCY INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ) INTERVIEWER: REVEREND RICK WARREN, SENIOR PASTOR, SADDLEBACK CHURCH
SADDLEBACK CHURCH, LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA 9:00 P.M. EDT, SATURDAY ===============================================================
REV. WARREN: Welcome back to the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency.
And welcome, Senator John McCain. Thank you for being here. (Cheers, applause.)
SEN. MCCAIN: I'm very glad to be here.
REV. WARREN: Thank you for coming.
Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now? (Laughs.)
SEN. MCCAIN: (Laughs.) I was trying to hear through the wall.
REV. WARREN: (Laughs.) Okay, this first set of questions deals with leadership and the personal life of leadership. First question is, who are the three wisest people that you know that you would rely on heavily in an administration?
SEN. MCCAIN: First one, I think, would be General David Petraeus, one of the great military leaders in American history, who took us from defeat to victory in Iraq -- one of the great leaders -- (applause) -- (inaudible).
Fourth of July a year ago, Senator Lindsey Graham and I were in Baghdad. Six hundred and eighty-eight brave young Americans whose enlistment had expired swore an oath of re-enlistment to stay and fight for freedom. Only someone like General David Petraeus could motivate someone like that.
I think John Lewis. John Lewis was at the Edmund Pettis Bridge, had his skull fractured, continued to serve, continues to have the most optimistic outlook about America. He can teach us all a lot about the meaning of courage and commitment to causes greater than our self-interest.
Meg Whitman; Meg Whitman, the CEO of eBay. Meg Whitman -- 12 years ago, there were five employees. Today there are one and a half million people that make a living off eBay in America and the world. It's one of these great American success stories. And in these economic challenging times, we need to call on the wisdom and knowledge and background of people like Meg Whitman, who have been able to make such a great American success story part of the world's folklore.
REV. WARREN: Okay. Let me ask you this. This is a character question.
SEN. MCCAIN: I hope they get easier. (Laughter.)
REV. WARREN: Well, this one isn't easier. We've had a lot of leaders, because of their weaknesses, character flaws, stumble, become ineffective, are not even serving anymore, serving our country. What's been your greatest moral failure? And what has been the -- what do you think is the greatest moral failure of America?
SEN. MCCAIN: They don't get any easier. (Laughter.)
REV. WARREN: No, they don't get any easier.
SEN. MCCAIN: My greatest moral failing -- and I have been -- (audio break) -- is the failure of my first marriage. It's my greatest moral failure.
I think America's greatest moral failure has been throughout our existence perhaps we have not devoted ourselves to causes greater than our self-interest, although we've been the best at it of anybody in the world.
I think after 9/11, my friends, instead of telling people to go shopping or take a trip, we should have told Americans to join the Peace Corps, Americorps, the military, expand our volunteer -- expand what you're doing -- (applause) -- expand the great missions that you are doing, that you're carrying out not only here in America but throughout the world, especially in Rwanda. And I hope we have a chance to talk a little bit about that later on.
And, you know, a little pandering here -- the first words of your very successful book is "This is not about you." You know what that really also means? Serve a cause greater than your self-interest. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: John, you know that a lot of good legislation dies because of partisan politics. And party loyalty keeps people from really getting forward on putting America's best first. Can you give me an example of where you led against your party's interest -- oh, this is hard -- (laughter) -- and really maybe against your own best interest for the good of America?
SEN. MCCAIN: You know, by a strange coincidence -- (laughter) -- I was not elected Miss Congeniality again in the United States Senate this year. (Laughter.) I don't know why. I don't know why. I don't know why.
Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture; the list goes on on a large number of issues that I have put my country first and I've reached across the aisle. But I'd probably have to say that one of the times that probably was one of the most trying was when I was first a member of Congress and a new freshman in the House of Representatives and very loyal and dedicated to President Reagan, who I still think is one of the great, great presidents in American history -- (applause) -- who won the Cold War without firing a shot, in the words of Margaret Thatcher.
He wanted to send troops to Beirut for a peacekeeping mission. My knowledge and my background told me that a few hundred Marines in a situation like that could not successfully carry out any kind of peacekeeping mission, and I thought they were going into harm's way. Tragically, as many of you recall, there was a bombing of the Marine barracks and well over 100 brave Marines gave their lives.
But it was tough, that vote, because I went against the president I believed in and the party that believed that maybe I was disloyal very early in my political career.
REV. WARREN: There's a verse in the Bible that says intelligent people look for ideas. In fact, they search for them. What's the most significant position that you've held 10 years ago that you no longer hold today?
I think the point I'm trying to make is that leaders are not stubborn; they do change their mind with additional information. So give me a good example of something that 10 years ago you said, "That's the way I feel about it," and now, 10 years later, it's different. That's not flip-flopping; it's just sometimes growing in wisdom.
SEN. MCCAIN: Offshore drilling. We've got to drill now and we've got to drill here, and we've got to become independent of foreign oil. (Cheers, applause.) I know that there are some here in California that disagree -- (laughter) -- that disagree with that position. (Laughs.)
Could I also mention very seriously about this issue -- my friends, you know that this is a national security issue. We're sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much, that some of that money is ending up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We cannot allow this greatest transfer of wealth in our history when our national security will continue to be threatened. (Applause.)
And Rick, I know we've got a lot of issues to cover, but let me just say, at the town hall meetings that I have every day, that's the issue on people's mind is energy. So I think if I could just take one -- 30 seconds. One, we've got to do everything. We've got to do wind, tide, solar, natural gas, hydrogen cars, hybrid cars, electric cars. And we have to have nuclear power in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- (applause) -- and save on our energy costs.
And by the way, in case you hadn't noticed it, the French -- 80 percent -- we love to imitate the French -- 80 percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear power. If they can do it and reprocess, we can too, my friends. And by the way, if you hadn't noticed, we now have a pro-American president of France, which shows if you live long enough, anything can happen in America. (Laughter, applause.)
REV. WARREN: (Audio break.) What's the most gut-wrenching decision you've ever had to make? And what was the process that you used to make it?
SEN. MCCAIN: It was long ago and far away in a prison camp in North Vietnam. My father was a high-ranking admiral. The Vietnamese came and said that I could leave prison early. And we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture. I also had a dear and beloved friend who was from California named Ev Alvarez, who had been shot down and captured a couple of years before me. But I wasn't in good physical shape. In fact, I was in rather bad physical shape. And so I said no.
Now, in interest of full disclosure, I'm very happy I didn't know the war was going to last for another three years or so. But I said no, and I'll never forget sitting in my last answer, and the high- ranking officer who offered it slammed the door and the interrogator said, "Go back to your cell. It's going to be very tough on you now." And it was; but not only the toughest decision I ever made, but I'm most happy about that decision than any decision I ever made in my life. (Applause.)
Could I finally say, it look a lot of prayer. It took a lot of prayer.
REV. WARREN: Great. We'll be right back with John McCain. (Applause.)
(Announcements.)
REV. WARREN: Welcome back. And we're here with Senator John McCain.
Now, John, in this next section we're going to talk about world view. And I actually invited a couple of hundred thousand people, my personal friends, to send me their questions. And these are heartland questions that came in from all over America. No matter how you answer them, somebody's not going to like it, because we have many world views, obviously, in America. But let's walk through these mine fields together.
First, you've made no doubt about the fact that you are a Christian. You publicly say you're a follower of Christ. What does that mean to you? And how does faith work out in your life on a daily basis? What does it mean to you?
SEN. MCCAIN: It means I'm saved and forgiven. And we're talking about the world. Our faith encompasses not just the United States of America, but the world.
Can I tell you another story real quick?
REV. WARREN: Sure. (Laughter.)
SEN. MCCAIN: The Vietnamese kept us imprisoned in conditions of solitary confinement or two or three to a cell. They did that because they knew they could break down our resistance. One of the techniques that they used to get information was to take ropes and tie them around your biceps, pull your biceps behind you, loop the rope around your head, pull your head down between your knees, and leave you in that position. You can imagine, it was very uncomfortable.
One night I was being punished in that fashion. All of a sudden the door of the cell opened and the guard came in; a guy who was just what we called a gun guard. He just walked around the camp with a gun on his shoulder. He went like this and then he loosened the ropes. He came back about four hours later; he tightened them up again and left.
The following Christmas, because it was Christmas Day, we were allowed to stand outside of our cell for a few minutes. In those days, we were not allowed to see or communicate with each other, although we certainly did. And I was standing outside for my few minutes outside of my cell. He came walking up. He stood there for a minute. And with his sandal on the dirt in the courtyard, he drew a cross. And he stood there, and a minute later he rubbed it out and walked away. For a minute there, there was just two Christians worshiping together. I'll never forget that moment. (Applause.)
(Off mike) -- so every day.
REV. WARREN: All right, let's go into the tough ones. That was just (opening ?). Let's deal with abortion. I, as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time -- every different angle, every different pain, all the decisions and all of that. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people -- people who believe that life begins at conception would say that's a holocaust for many people.
What point is a baby entitled to human rights?
SEN. MCCAIN: At the moment of conception. (Cheers, applause.) I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. (Cheers, applause.) That's my commitment. That's my commitment to you.
REV. WARREN: Okay. We don't have to go longer on that one. (Laughter.)
Define marriage.
SEN. MCCAIN: A union -- a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. That's my definition of marriage. (Applause.)
Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court justices, or should I mention it?
REV. WARREN: We will get to that.
SEN. MCCAIN: Okay. All right. (Laughter.) Okay.
REV. WARREN: Man, you're jumping ahead. You know all my questions.
SEN. MCCAIN: No, no, that's -- when we speak of the issue of the rights of the unborn, we need to talk about judges. But anyway, go ahead.
REV. WARREN: Well, let me just ask you a question related to that. We've got a bill right here in California, Proposition 8, that's going on because the court overturned --
SEN. MCCAIN: Yes.
REV. WARREN: -- this definition of marriage. Was the Supreme Court of California wrong?
SEN. MCCAIN: I believe they were wrong. And I strongly support -- (applause) -- preserving the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I'm a federalist. I believe that states should make those decisions.
In my state, I hope we will make that decision -- in other states they have -- to recognize the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And that means -- that doesn't mean that people can't enter into legal agreements. That doesn't mean that they don't have the rights of all citizens. I'm not saying that. I am saying that we should preserve the unique status of marriage between one man and one woman.
And if a federal court, if a federal court decided that my state of Arizona had to observe what the state of Massachusetts decided, then I would favor a constitutional amendment. Until then, I believe the states should make the decisions within their own states.
REV. WARREN: Okay. (Applause.) All right. Another issue is stem cells. Now, we've had this scientific breakthrough of creating pluripotent stem cells through adult stem cells.
SEN. MCCAIN: Yes.
REV. WARREN: So would you favor or oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research since we have this other breakthrough?
SEN. MCCAIN: For those of us in the pro-life community, this has been a great struggle and a terrible dilemma, because we're also taught other obligations that we have as well. I've come down on the side of stem cell research, but I am wildly optimistic that skin cell research, which is coming more and more into focus and practicability, will make this debate an academic one.
REV. WARREN: All right. How about the issue of evil? I asked this of your rival in the previous thing. Does evil exist? And, if so, should we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it, or defeat it?
SEN. MCCAIN: Defeat it. (Applause.) A couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. (Applause.) I will do that, and I know how to do it. I will get that guy. (Applause.) No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of American -- innocent American lives.
Of course evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century -- radical Islamic extremism. Not long ago in Baghdad, al Qaeda took two young women who were mentally disabled and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace, and, by remote control, detonated those suicide vests. If that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is. (Applause.)
And we're going to defeat this evil. And the central battleground, according to David Petraeus and Osama bin Laden, is the battle -- is Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and Iraq. And we are winning and we are succeeding, and our troops will come home with honor and with victory, and not in defeat. And that's what's happening. (Applause.) And we have -- and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us al Qaeda continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America.
My friends, we must face this challenge. We can face this challenge, and we must totally defeat it. And we're in a long struggle. But when I'm around the young men and women who are serving us in uniform, I have no doubt -- none. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: All right. These next questions have to do with domestic issues. I believe that leadership is stewardship, not ownership. And for a few years, you're asking us to place the stewardship of our freedom and our security and our economy and the environment, everything, into your hands. So I have about 500 questions in this category.
The first one is on the courts. Which existing Supreme Court justices would you not have nominated?
SEN. MCCAIN: With all due respect, Justice Ginsberg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter, and Justice Stevens.
REV. WARREN: Why? Tell me why.
SEN. MCCAIN: Well, I think that the president of the United States has incredible responsibility in nominating people to the United States Supreme Court. They are lifetime positions -- as well as the federal bench. There will be two or maybe three vacancies.
This nomination should be based on the criteria of proven record, of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America and not legislating from the bench. (Applause.) Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench. (Applause.) And, by the way, Justices Alito and Roberts are two of my most recent favorites, by the way. They really are. They're very fine. (Applause.) And I'm proud of President Bush for nominating them.
REV. WARREN: All right, let's talk about the role of faith-based organizations. There was a recent poll that came out that said over 70 percent of Americans believe that faith-based organizations do a better job at community services --
SEN. MCCAIN: Because Americans are right. (Laughs.)
REV. WARREN: -- than the government. (Laughter.) You know, addictions, homelessness, poverty, all of these -- prisoner rehab, things like that. Now, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows religious organizations, not just churches but faith-based organizations, to keep and hire the people that they believe share common beliefs with.
SEN. MCCAIN: Yes.
REV. WARREN: Would you insist that faith-based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?
SEN. MCCAIN: Absolutely not. And if you did, it would mean a severe crippling of faith-based organizations and their abilities to do the things that they have done so successfully.
Life is full of anecdotes, and I'm sorry to tell you so many anecdotes, but I went to New Orleans after Katrina. The Resurrection Baptist Church was doing tremendous work with thousands of volunteers, I'm sure probably from here at Saddleback, coordinating the efforts of thousands of volunteers, including my own church, the North Phoenix Baptist Church, who came from all over America.
And various authorities, off the record, told me off the record that they were doing so much more good than the government organizations; said it was incredible. And New Orleans could not have been on the path -- they've got a long way to go -- on the path to recovery if it hadn't been for the faith-based organizations, who are still operating in New Orleans, much to their great credit, thank God.
REV. WARREN: First in, last out.
SEN. MCCAIN: Yes. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: All right, let's talk about education. America ranks 19th in high school graduations, but we're first in incarcerations. Everybody says they want more accountability in schools. About 80 percent of America says they support merit pay for the best teachers. Now, I don't want to hear your stump speech on education.
SEN. MCCAIN: Yes, yes, and find bad -- (laughter) -- find bad teachers another line of work. (Laughter, applause.)
REV. WARREN: You know, we're going to end this -- you're answering so quickly.
SEN. MCCAIN: Can I --
REV. WARREN: Do you want to play a game of poker? (Laughter.)
SEN. MCCAIN: Choice and competition, choice and competition, home schooling, charter schools, vouchers, all the choice and competition. (Applause.) I want -- look, I want every American family to have the same choice that Cindy and I made and Senator Obama and Mrs. Obama made as well, and that was, we wanted to send our children to the school of our choice. And charter schools work, my friends. Home schooling works. Vouchers in our nation's capital works. We've got thousands of people in Washington, D.C. that are applying for a voucher system. New York City is reforming.
I go back to New Orleans. They were -- as we know, the tragedy devastated them. They now have over 30 charter schools in the city of New Orleans, and guess what -- it's all coming up. It's all coming up. It's a simple principle, but it's going to take dedicated men and women, particularly in the teaching profession, to make it happen.
And by the way, here in -- I won't go any further. But the point is, it's all based and it's being proven that choice and competition for every American family. And it is the civil rights issue of the 21st century, because every citizen's child now has an opportunity go to school. But what kind of opportunity is it if you send them to a failing school? That's why we've got to give everybody the same opportunity and choice.
REV. WARREN: Okay. All right, let's move on to --
SEN. MCCAIN: You're sorry you mentioned that my answers were short, aren't you? (Laughter.)
REV. WARREN: No, no, no. Actually, this is great, because I may actually get to ask you a couple of extra questions, which are good. They're the lightning bonus round, actually. (Laughter.)
SEN. MCCAIN: (Makes buzzing sound.)
REV. WARREN: Okay, on taxes, define "rich." Everybody talks about, you know, taxing the rich but not the poor, the middle class. At what point -- give me a number. Give me a specific number. Where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000? Is it $50,000? Is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?
SEN. MCCAIN: Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education, and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited.
I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. (Laughter.) I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week, that some people would classify as, quote, "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes.
Let's have -- keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. (Applause.)
So I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million? (Laughter.) So, no, but seriously, I don't think you can -- I don't think, seriously, that -- the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously -- and I'm sure that comment will be distorted -- (laughter) -- but the point is, the point is, the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
And my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money -- (applause) -- in a way that mortgaged our kids' future.
My friend, we spent $3 million of your money to study the DNA of bears in Montana. (Laughter.) Now, I don't know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue. (Laughter.) But the point is, but the point is, it was $3 million of your money. It was your money.
And, you know, we laugh about it, but we cry. And we should cry, because the Congress is supposed to be careful stewards of your tax dollars. So what did they just do in the middle of an energy crisis, when in California we're paying $4 a gallon for gas? Went on vacation for five weeks. I guarantee you, two things they never miss -- a pay raise and a vacation. And we should stop that and call them back -- (applause) -- and not raise your taxes. We should not and cannot raise taxes in tough economic times.
So it doesn't matter, really, what my definition of "rich" is, because I don't want to raise anybody's taxes. I really don't. In fact, I want to give working Americans a better shot at having a better life. And we all know the challenges, my friends, if I could be serious.
Americans tonight in California and all over America are sitting at the kitchen table, recently and suddenly lost a job, can't afford to stay in their home, education for their kids, affordable health care. These are tough problems. These are tough problems. You talk to them every day --
REV. WARREN: All the time.
SEN. MCCAIN: -- every day. My friends, we've got to give them hope and confidence in the future. That's what we need to give them. And I can inspire them. I can lead. And I know that our best days are ahead of us. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: All right, great. All right, thank you. Now, we've got a couple of minutes left in this section. Here's a security question. I didn't get to it with Senator Obama; we didn't have enough time. When is our right to privacy -- when our right to privacy and our right to national security collide, how do you decide what takes precedence?
SEN. MCCAIN: It does collide. And there are always competing priorities. We must preserve the privacy of all of our citizens as much as possible because that's one of the fundamental and basic rights we have; and, by the way, including a secret ballot for union organizers, a secret ballot, not a ballot that someone comes around and signs you up. That's a different subject.
But the point is that we have now had technological advances over the last 20 or 30 years in communications that are remarkable. It's remarkable the ability that our enemies have to communicate. So we have to keep up with that capability. I mean, there's too many ways, through cyberspace and through other ways, that people are able to communicate with one another.
So we're going to have to step up our capabilities to monitor those. Sometimes there are calls from outside the United States, inside the United States. There's all kinds of communications of every different kind. So you need Congress to work together. You need a judiciary that will review these laws that we pass.
And at the same time, it's just an example of our failure to sit down, Republican and Democrat, and work these things out together for the good of the nation's security instead of this constant fighting which, according to our Director of National Intelligence, until we finally reached an agreement not long ago, was compromising our ability to keep America from attack. And so there's a constant tension. It is changing with changes in technology, and we have to stay up with it.
REV. WARREN: We'll be right back with Senator John McCain.
(Announcements.)
REV. WARREN: Welcome back to Saddleback's Civil Forum on the Presidency, and we're here with Senator John McCain.
John, these last questions are about America's responsibility to the world. We are, without a doubt, the most blessed nation in the world. We are blessed to be a blessing. And the Bible says to whom much is given, much has been required. So I want to talk about what is our stewardship to everybody else? And let's first talk about freedom and war.
As an American, what is worth dying for and what's worth committing American lives for?
SEN. MCCAIN: Freedom, our national security, our security as a nation. Wars have started in obscure places that have enveloped us. We also must temper that with the ability to effectively and beneficially cause the outcome that we want. In other words, there's tyranny and there's tragedy throughout the world. And we can't right every wrong, but we can do what America has done throughout our history, and that is be a beacon of hope and liberty and freedom for everyone in the world; as Ronald Reagan used to quote, a shining city on a hill.
And so there are conflicts that we can't settle. The most precious asset we have is American blood. And throughout our history, Americans have gone to all four corners of the world and shed that blood in defense of someone else's freedom. No other nation on earth has ever done that. But we've also succeeded in other ways. We won the Cold War, as I mentioned earlier, without firing a shot, because of our ideology and that communism was wrong and evil. And we can defeat it, just as we can defeat radical Islamic extremism.
Can we talk just a second about the latest in Georgia before --
REV. WARREN: Let me ask you this. What would be the criteria for which you would commit troops to --
SEN. MCCAIN: American national security interests are threatened.
REV. WARREN: Okay, I understand that one. What about, like genocide in Darfur or if mass killings took place in Georgia?
SEN. MCCAIN: Our obligation is to stop genocide wherever we can. We all know about Rwanda. No one knows that better than you and the Saddleback church, who have been so active. By the way, Cindy was just there with Mike Huckabee and Dr. Bill Frist and have seen what the women of Rwanda are doing. The women are taking charge of the future of Rwanda, because they're saying, "Never again." (Applause.) And they're doing an incredible job.
Darfur, our most respected former secretary of State, Colin Powell, called genocide some years ago. The question is, how can we effectively stop it? And obviously we've got to do more and we've got to try to marshal the forces all over the world to join us.
I think one of the things we ought to explore more carefully is us supplying the logistics and equipment and the aid, and the African countries step forward with the personnel to enforce a genuine cease- fire. It's a very complicated situation, as you know, but we've got to be committed to never saying "Never again" again.
REV. WARREN: What about -- you know, you're seeing Russia reassert itself in Georgia, and maybe now Poland. What's happening?
SEN. MCCAIN: I'm very saddened here to be with you and talk about a Russian re-emergence in the centuries-old ambition of the Russian empire to dominate that part of the world -- killings, murder. Villages are being burned. People are being wantonly ejected from their homes. The latest figures from a human rights organization is 118,000 people in that small country. It was one of the earliest Christian nations. The king of then-Georgia in the third century converted to Christianity. You go to Georgia and you see these old churches that go back to the 4th and 5th century.
My friends, the president, the president, Saakashvili, is a man who was educated in the United States of America on a scholarship. He went back to Georgia, and with other young people who had also received an education, they achieved a revolution. They had democracy, prosperity and a great little nation.
And now the Russians are coming in there in an act of aggression. And we have to not only bring about cease-fire, but we have to have honored one of the most fundamental rights of any nation, and that is territorial integrity. We must respect the entire territory of Russia -- excuse me -- the Russians must respect the entire territorial integrity of Georgia. And there's only 4 million people in Georgia, my friends. I've been there. It's a beautiful little country. They're wonderful people. They're suffering terribly now.
And there's two other aspects of this, very quickly. One of them: Don't think it was an accident that the presidents of Lithuania -- the presidents (of) Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Ukraine flew to Tbilisi to show their solidarity with the president of Georgia, because they all have something in common with Georgia. They lived under Russian domination for a long period of time.
Second of all, of course, it's about energy. There's an oil pipeline that goes across Georgia that, up till now, had not been controlled by the Russians; and my friend, energy the Russians are using as a tremendous lever against the Europeans.
So keep them in your prayers. Let's get the humanitarian aid as quickly as possible to them and send the message to the Russians that this behavior is not acceptable in the 21st century. (Applause.
)
REV. WARREN: Related to that, America's responsibility in the world -- religious persecution. What would you do in your administration to end -- to put pressure on the Chinese, in Iraq and all the other places, so-called allies of ours, that will allow -- will not allow religious freedom, whether it's Christian or any other faith?
SEN. MCCAIN: The president of the United States, his greatest asset is the bully pulpit. The president of the United States -- and I go back again to Ronald Reagan; he went to the Berlin Wall and said, "Take down this wall," called them an evil empire. Many said, "Don't antagonize the Russians. Don't cause a confrontation with the Soviet Union." He stood for what he believed and he said what he believed, and he said to those people who were then captive nations, "The day will come when you will know freedom and democracy and the fundamental rights of man."
Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world. And I'd like to tell you that I still think that even in the worst places in the world today, in the darkest corners, little countries like Belarus, they still harbor this hope and dream someday to be like us and have freedom and democracy.
And we have our flaws and we have our failings, and we talk about them all the time, and we should. But we remain, my friends, the most unusual experiment in history. And I'm privileged to spend every day of my life in it. I know what it's like to be without it. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: John, most people don't know that there are 148 million orphans in the world growing up without parents. What should we do about this? And would you be willing to consider or even commit to something similar to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS, which he said AIDS is an emergency, a PEPFAR. Could we do a PEPFAR for the emergency plan for 148 million orphans? Most of these -- they don't need to grow up in orphanages. They need to be in families. And many of those families could take them if they had some kind of assistance.
SEN. MCCAIN: Well, I think we have to make adoption a lot easier in this country. That's why so many people go to other countries -- (applause) -- to get to be able to adopt children. My great hero and role model, Teddy Roosevelt, was the first modern American president to talk about adoption and how important it was.
And I promise you, this is my last story. (Laughter.) Seventeen years ago, Cindy was in Dacca, Bangladesh. She went to Mother Teresa's orphanage. The nuns brought her two little babies who were not going to live. Cindy came home. I met her at the airplane. She showed me this five-week-old baby and said, "Meet your new daughter." She's 17, and my life is blessed. And that's what adoption is all about. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: All right, you've got one minute to answer this one, and that is, why do you want to be president?
SEN. MCCAIN: I want to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest. I believe that America's best days are ahead of us. But I also believe that we face enormous challenges, both national security and domestic, as we have found out in the last few days in the case of Georgia.
And I want to be -- make sure that everybody understands that this is a time for us to come together. Throughout my life, from the time I was 17 and raised my hand and was sworn in as a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy, I've always put my country first. I put my country first when I had the honor of serving in the military, and I had the honor of putting my country first as a member of the House of Representatives and then the United States Senate.
America wants hope. America wants optimism. America wants us to sit down together. I have a record of reaching across the aisle and working with the other party. And I want to do that. And I believe, as I said, that Americans feel it's time for us to put our country first. And we may disagree on a specific issue, and I won't (review ?) them now -- (laughter) -- but I want every American to know that when I go to Gee's Bend, Alabama and meet the African-American women there who are so wonderful and lovely, in an experience I'll never forget, and when I go to places where I know they probably won't vote for me, I know that my job is to tell them that I'll be the president of every American and I'll always put my country first. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: Thank you.
All right, 20 seconds left. What would you say to people who opposed me asking you these questions in a church?
SEN. MCCAIN: I say to them that I'd like to be in every venue in America. This is an important -- this is a very important election. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles. I'm happy to be here in a church. (Applause.) I'm happy to be here in a place that, with your program, such as peace, such as your help throughout the world, such as your outreach to so many thousands of Americans, I'm honored to be here. And I thank you.
REV. WARREN: Would you stand and welcome -- thank Senator John McCain. (Cheers, applause.)
There is a lot of review and commentary on the Saddleback Civil Forum today. And I don’t doubt that we will see even more about it in commercials in the near future. But I have some further thoughts about the event as well.
I already mentioned that my first 2 questions from the event were about Senator Obama; and dealt specifically with his answers on Darfur, America’s aid to foreign nations, and taxes. I felt that he failed to provide serious answers to either question, and in fact raised more questions by the manner of his answer.
Before I continue to make other comments I will address how Senator McCain responded to those same questions.
In listening, and then reviewing the answer by Senator McCain on taxes I note that he too failed to give a proper response. While Senator Obama was very vague about how his policies might affect single Americans, and/or any business owner – whether the business is small or large – McCain was no less vague. He too avoided giving a significant defined number to qualify ‘rich’.
The way he avoided the answer makes it seem like neither candidate knows what is a rich person. McCain did emphasize his desire to not redistribute wealth, and to further ensure that the income that all Americans make will tend to stay in their pockets rather than go to the Government.
Still this was not a satisfactory answer.
As for his comments about Darfur, McCain stood head and shoulders above Obama. Where Senator Obama ignored the troubled region in the Sudan, John McCain directly addressed it. He noted the acknowledgement of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, that Darfur is a genocide and has been for years. He noted that we need to do more.
McCain could have made far more significant answers on this issue. He could have noted that Congress has failed to act, and that because of this inaction America is still funding the murder of children in Darfur – right now. He did not go nearly as far in addressing this as I would have preferred. But he went further than Senator Obama by miles.
I was very displeased with the responses by Senator Obama and McCain on these 2 issues. Neither was very direct or informative about their future plans. And these are questions I want to see addressed more fully in debates and as they clarify their full policy plans in the near future.
But overall, I have to give the edge to Senator McCain on these 2 issues. While neither was clear about taxes, the general issue seems more favorable from the McCain view than Senator Obama’s. And considering Obama’s complete dismissal of Darfur when asked about it, McCain shone brightly by comparison.
Senator Obama - 2 questions from Saddleback Civil Forum
So just a few quick thoughts about Senator Obama’s comments at the Saddleback Civil Forum.
There were 2 items that stood out in my mind. Darfur and taxes. I am passionate about both and have written a great deal on each subject. So his answers were very important to me.
In terms of taxes I noticed that when Obama was asked to directly quote a single amount that qualifies as rich he could not do so. He in fact avoided the answer. He responded with the answer that if you make $150,000 or less – depending where you live in America – AS A FAMILY then you are most likely middle-class. And he stated that basically if you are a family making $250,000 or more you are in the top 1% of the nation, again depending on where you live. He then promised that families making $150, 000 or less will receive a tax benefit from his tax plans, and those above it will pay more.
That answer is both insufficient and deceptive.
He did not address individuals. Does he mean that $75,000 and less is middle-class? Or under $150,000? Or are you rich? He did not make it clear.
And what if you are a business owner? He wants to increase business taxes; and roughly 60% of businesses in the nation are small-businesses owned by individuals and families. So does he count raising the business tax in his promise to lower taxes of those families as well?
So if we follow what he is saying, and has said, it is very possible that people other than just the ambiguous ‘rich’ will have their taxes increased as well. Which says nothing of the 94 votes he has made to date to increase taxes, including the most recent that would increase taxes of Americans making as little as $31,850.
On top of that is this bit of intuitive thought. America, from a federal tax basis, is not New York City, or Chicago, or Little Rock, or any other region. The IRS does not adjust our taxes based on where your income comes from. The IRS has fixed numbers on what is rich, middle-class, and poor. Any candidate that fails to answer this questions fails to give America a real chance to make a choice.
The other issue that caught my intention is Darfur. When Senator Obama was directly asked about what America should do about places like Darfur where perhaps 1 million men, women and children have died in the last 4+ years – and where America has done nothing (look up the history on HR 180 IH).
Senator Obama completely bypassed Darfur. He went directly to Georgia and other areas. Now I realize that Georgia is a hot topic these days. But this was an opportunity to address a genocide that America has blocked out. I mean a virtually complete major media blackout. And it was a credit to the Minister to bring up the issue as the media has not.
Senator Obama had a chance to go beyond the popular, and to make America aware that if we want to obligate ourselves to international issues, places with no oil and little strategic importance are as valuable as those that do. Simply because there are people, children, that are being murdered – and that is wrong.
Senator Obama failed on that question. That seriously pissed me off.
Now I will be looking forward to the responses of Senator McCain on these same issues.
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 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
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 chanc
