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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be concluded in Barbershop thoughts part 2 ...

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

I had quite the experience today. The initial action that started of the chain reaction was the news on Senator John Kerry. As long-time readers may guess, I have serious and massive reservations on many Democrats and no love for any politician that degrades the men and women in the Armed services of this nation. Suffice to say I have anger with the comments made by Sen. Kerry.In essences for those that have not heard this yet Sen. Kerry basically said, ‘If you get a good education, study hard, you will do well. If you don’t you will go to Iraq.’

Like many, in service and not, I find those words insulting. It infers that those in the military today are less than intelligent. Perhaps Senator Kerry should have had someone do the research because the facts are that the Armed Services are better educated than the general American public of the same age group. As reported by Fox News and other sources 99.3% of the U.S. forces have a high school diploma or the equivalent, as opposed to the 88% in the general U.S. population age 18-35. In addition 99% of the military officers have had at least some college education, while 19% of the Air Force, 12% of the Army, 6% of the Navy and 3.7% of the Marine forces have at least some college education. This compares to the 56% of 18 – 35 year olds in the general populace. I hardly call that a force of idiots.

In the defense of Senator Kerry, he does claim that his comments were a failed attempt at a joke aimed at the President. I have seen the video footage of his entire commentary, and in my opinion neither his words nor his tone/phrasing gave any impression of a joke. On top of this, Senator Kerry refuses to provide the written remarks he says he misread (which would show it was intended to be a joke) and has refused – publicly – to apologize for his statements. His response to criticism was to say that the President should apologize for having the troops in Iraq.

I do not agree with why the troops were sent to Iraq. I find fault with the manner in which the war is being handled. Yet I would never assume that those who have volunteered to join the military were ignorant. Those overseas in this war made a choice to defend the views and values of this nation, in effect supporting the causes for this action. That takes thought and critical thinking. To confer otherwise is to belittle the sacrifices these men and women have offered to do for those of us sitting comfortably at home. It is this sacrifice, made by all who have served their country, that allows Americans to complain about what the government is doing and the policies of the nation.

And I am tired by the excuse used by many, especially Democrats in office, that they support the troops but not the war and its cause. Those that have, and continue, to volunteer for military service have done so knowing what is the potential cost. In doing so I believe they are standing by the war and the cause, expanding our form of democratic government. So in supporting the troops one is obligated to support the war and its causes. That does not mean agreeing with the current strategy blindly. It does not mean failing to question ways to improve the situation or find a positive resolution. But hiding your head in the sand when things are not going was well as hoped is both useless and detrimental.

Continued in the post Barbershop thoughts...

Labels: Armed Forces, democrat, Fox News, Senator John Kerry