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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Labels: AIG, American economy, cable news, news media, Senator Barack Obama, tax policy

So we are in day what 6 now of the John Edwards sex scandal. Almost every angle of this story has been covered by the media by now, except one. One particular aspect of this case kept bugging me until today I noticed what it was.

The bias of the major news media.

Forget the fact that the 24-hour nature of news today means that cable news is more about a rush to ratings than journalism. Forget that a sex scandal is primetime news. Even forget that some Clinton supporters are trying to use their best polispeak to spin the idea that had this come out during the primaries Senator Clinton would have beat Senator Obama (a fallacy proved incorrect by polls showing an overwhelming number of Edwards supporters – then and now – prefer Obama).

The bias is of the major news media to protect and fail to report negatives of Democrats and Liberals, and to highlight the same type of actions of Republicans and Conservatives.

Senator Obama is unquestionably favored by the major news media. He has been since at least January of this year. And the news showers praise on his every move, covering his actions better than our current President in some instances. And the tone of all the coverage has been overwhelmingly positive.

But John Edwards was a liberal and Democrat as well. And his press was very good for quite a while. And to preserve the image of all liberals and Democrats the major news media ignored the news we now know to be true. It took the National Enquirer to break the story – though the rumor was around for months at least.

Think about that. All the news media knew of the rumor. Not one media outlet, except the Enquirer, bothered to follow-up anything, accepting the denial of John Edwards verbatim.

Yet the New York Times was more than willing to run a story alleging that Senator John McCain was cheating on his wife, without proof or even a rumor. Without anything to back up the story they sought to destroy the career of one politician while at the same time protecting another.

That’s not reporting, that’s creation of news. That’s manipulation of facts. That’s yellow journalism. And it’s an attempt to coerce voters to make a decision that the media industry prefers. So much for the rights of the public.

And the bias has more ramifications than just that. The major news media is effectively admitting that it changes the truth to suit their ends. So how much can you believe about what they have said about Iraq, Afghanistan, or nationalized healthcare? If they would bias the public to a position they prefer in one story, why not another – or a dozen?

Do I mean that there is news about Senator McCain or Senator Obama that we don’t know about right now, or that has been altered to fit their desires? I can’t say with 100% assurance. It is quite possible that the facts reported in the polispeak 10 second soundbites the media loves is accurate, or not even close to the truth. So we have to ask what is probable.

Well it is fact that the media loves Senator Obama. And his own words and speeches do sound quite good – in a general, unspecific, ultra-liberal manner. But given their bias as displayed by the disparity between similar accusations against Senator McCain and John Edwards I must pause.

Ask yourself these questions:

What has Senator Obama done to show he is a bi-partisan politician? Pundits laud his ability to work with Republicans, but where is that in his voting or Senate record?

What plans has Senator Obama actually provided on issues like funding for national healthcare, funding for Social Security, the consequences of leaving Iraq without a victory under preset timetables? The media has lauded that he is for all these items, but not mentioned how he will do them or what the effect will be.

The media has followed Senator Obama for months, like puppies around their master, but when was the last time he had an interview that seriously questioned any policy he has touched on? How many news organizations have pursued answers on issues that will affect America, like they have with Senator McCain?

I’m not saying that Senator Obama is a bad choice for President. I am saying that relying solely on the major news media to give an unbiased presentation is like handing an alcoholic a bottle of vodka and expecting them not to drink it. They might not, but I wouldn’t go to Las Vegas and take odds on it.

Labels: cable news, John Edwards, media bias, New York Times, news media, Polispeak, Senator Barack Obama

Senator Obama better be careful, his campaign is forgetting a basic rule of modern pop culture – too much is as bad as too little. I’m speaking about the non-stop media blitz that has been Senator Obama in the media since February. It’s starting to have a negative effect.

According to the Pew Research Center a poll taken between Aug 1st – 4th of 1000 adults showed the following

Democrats:


• 34% of Democrats feel they’ve heard too much about Obama
  
• 26% say they have not hear enough about Senator McCain
  
  Republicans:
  
  
• 67% of Democrats feel they’ve heard too much about Obama
  
• 52% say they have not hear enough about Senator McCain
  
  Independants:
  
  
• 51% of Democrats feel they’ve heard too much about Obama
  
• 41% say they have not hear enough about Senator McCain
  
  
• Overall 48% feel that they heard too much about Obama vs. 26% who feel they heard too much about McCain.

Well that says a lot. It means that Senator Obama has not imparted the American public with enough substantive information on his political policies, if the poll numbers are correct. He had been all over the news for reasons that really aren’t translating into a reason to vote for him as President. But he’d win the political rockstar Hall of Fame in a heartbeat.

Perhaps the problem is that it’s difficult to explain to America how he won’t raise taxes on the average citizen while increasing spending for programs like national healthcare, and raising costs for energy. I still don’t understand how that will be done and I follow politics more than even some pundits.

Perhaps the problem is the racial factor. It is a fact that America is still uncomfortable with the issue of race, and the past of the nation. That was made obvious when the House of Representatives released an apology for slavery, that was quickly buried by the major news media, yet the Senate would not even vote on the resolution.

Add to that the delicate line of what is abusing the race issue, or using it as a weapon. I tend to think the line is a bit more defined than what the pundits proclaim – then again I’m not fighting for ratings. Senator Clinton, and former-President Bill Clinton, made it pretty obvious during the Democratic Primaries. Polls from states like West Virginia were very definitive as well.

Either way one thing is clear. Polispeak is a tool every politician wields, but the Obama campaign better start using an even more effective tool, declarative statements about policy that will improve the nation – if he has any.

Labels: cable news, news media, Pew Research Center, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hogwash.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: cable networks, cable news, Democratic Party, news media, Presidential candidates, Republican Party, Senator Clinton, social entitlement

**This is also found at Children's Health Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

So, everyone wants to talk about nationalized healthcare. Presidential candidates, Congress, Conservatives and Liberals. There are just massive amounts of communication on the issue. You hear about it from pundits on cable news channels, listen to answers (and half-answers) about it from candidates, read polls on it in newspapers and countless blogs like this one discuss all aspects of the issue. Except one.

The one item is quality of the care. Whether any citizen is able to get private care, or publicly funded medical coverage or any other solution that may be proposed the real issue is how good the quality of the care they receive is. This is no more critical than when the quality of care given to children is concerned.

I want to thank Dr. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey for the article she wrote on a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was based on 1500 children, and conducted by Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, the University of Washington School of Medicine and the RAND Corporation, with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Roughly 80% of the children had private medical coverage and nearly all had some form of coverage.

What the study found was shocking. 46% of the care that the kids should have gotten never happened. While treatment for something like the common was mostly appropriate, but for asthma and other chronic ailments it was half as effective. Let me be clear, out of 175 items that should be part of child care – including the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up – many items were never done. And this is among children that had the money.

Imagine that. Your kids are not getting the treatment they need, and politicians are arguing over how to pay for what they aren’t being given in the first place. The priorities seem to be fundamentally flawed. The question that should be asked appears to be why is the quality of care as low for children in a nation with as many resources and experts as America does?

No matter the political affiliation, I believe that everyone loves children. None would wish them harm and want only the best for them. Yet political bickering is oblivious to this issue, stuck in a quagmire of how to pay. I am not a parent but I am sure that every parent I know hasn’t a single care about cost when their child is sick. If you gave them a million dollars and stated their child would remain ill, or have lifelong complications from failing to get the right treatment, the parent might throttle you for such a suggestion. Yet that is the political environment today.

I am insulted to learn this information and to hear of this lapse. This is America, a land where the best of everything exists and the standards in virtually every aspect of life are the envy of every nation in the world. Yet our children lag far behind. Not behind our potential, but behind our actual ability to provide care. That is an insult, our children deserve more.

Labels: cable news, child health, Congress, national healthcare, New England Journal of Medicine, RAND Corporation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

So everyone is ready for the Fox News and presidential candidate debates tonight. You have heard about this correct? If you have not I will make you aware. The Republican presidential candidates, with the exception of Fred Thompson, will be gathering tonight at eight o'clock to have a debate that will be broadcast on Fox News. This should be quite interesting.

For all the anger and animosity directed towards Fox News the fact is that this one news cable channel is the most watched in the nation, as opposed to CNN which is also more aligned to the left in its political spectrum. This alignment makes this debate, interesting as it will not be similar to prior debates on CNN. In my opinion I would expect it to be a superior debate. More importantly, this debate will do what all debates are supposed to do, present the nation with opinions of the presidential candidates.

The candidates will no doubt be in top form do to the fact that more people will be seeing this then perhaps several of the other debates combined. The questions that will be posed to them, should be far more topical, if not outright controversial than any they have received to date. I expect Fox news to challenge the candidates on issues including immigration, the economy, homeland security, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hopefully this will be an opportunity for the presidential candidates to stand up and give a serious answer to some of these issues. Of course, the debate is structured like all debates these days in that soundbite answers are far more important than actual substance. Yet, if the questions are posed substantively then serious answers should still be presented. The combination of these potentials in one place makes this perhaps the most important debate to date.

The fact that Fred Thompson will not be involved in the debate is a negative. Why he would not announce, running for the presidency prior to this debate bodes ill for his chances, in my opinion. I would have to seriously question his apparent reluctance to engage in debates with the other Republican candidates. The nation needs a president who is willing to stand out on issues of significance, and be honest with the public. Not engaging in debate prevents the public from being able to make an honest choice for quantifying the issues facing the nation in the near term future.

The fact that the Democratic presidential candidates have, to date, refused to join into a debate run by Fox News is troubling. One problem is that the future president needs to be strong enough to stand up to terrorists around the world. What kind of president, would we have if they were afraid of a debate made up of reporters and newscasters in their own home nation? Another reason why I think they should is simply a matter of fairness. Multiple debates have gone on at CNN, which is almost inarguably a left leaning news channel. Most of the debates held on CNN have gotten atrocious viewership numbers. In my opinion, the Democratic candidates owe it to the public to appear on a cable news channel that reaches a wider audience, not just a friendly one. The Republican candidates have appeared on CNN, addressing a questionably unfriendly audience head on.

Regardless of personal political leanings I think it is important for the general public to watch this debate. Hopefully this will add some clarity and direction for the upcoming primaries. I look forward to hearing what you feel was said, was not said, and was said well.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: cable news, CNN, Democratic Party, Fox News, political debate, Presidential candidates, Republican Party

Continued from Rev Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton...

In Mr. Gibson’s own words, Paris Hilton getting released from prison and confined to a mansion with access to all her friends, family, servants and luxuries is “rich white privilege in action.” That is not to say that if you are African American, or Asian or Hispanic/Latino, and have a lot of money you can’t get the same privilege. It’s about money and not color of skin. Sadly, there aren’t a lot of Black Americans with net worth’s of the amounts needed to get this same treatment. If there were at least then the system would be fairer.

No one can doubt that an African American woman in jail right now would be released to home confinement if a psychiatrist said they were ‘about to have a nervous breakdown.’ It won’t happen. But I agree with Rev. Sharpton in his stated effort to go seek out women under similar circumstances and ask they receive the same treatment. It won’t happen, and thus some judge or law enforcement officer should pluck Ms. Hilton from her cozy mansion and but her spoiled butt back in a cell. As to the women Rev. Sharpton will pick to represent, I would hope they are “white daughters of coal miners” as well as African American and Hispanic/Latina women. The point is about justice, not color.

But be ready for the general news media to spin this in to a race issue. If they do it will divert attention from Paris Hilton to Rev. Al Sharpton. It will obscure what happened with issues that while real, do not apply here. Its smoke and mirrors played in front of televisions across America. And it may well happen.

Actually, thinking about it as I write I have to wonder if that isn’t the real reason Rev. Al Sharpton was sought out for a response. The Hilton family didn’t make and keep all their money because they are all as ‘smart’ as Paris. A diversion could help keep the most publicly recognizable family member out of prison and in her no doubt lavish domicile. If that is the case, then it wasn’t an inebriated exec but a very sober and far-planning Hilton that made the call. We shall see.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Al Sharpton, cable news, paris hilton

OK, I’ve played a bit of hooky. The good weather has gotten to me. But there has been something that has bugged me. The recent Democratic and Republican debates that were broadcast on MSNBC. Did anyone even see them?

My problems with the debates range from execution to interest. The debates were poorly run in my opinion. Far too many stupid questions of little relevance or impact were provided to both political parties. I mean questions like ‘who grew up with a gun in their home?’ is not relevant to whether or not the candidates are for or against gun control. [This question was asked of all the Democratic candidates, answered by a show of hands.] Another choice question that said nothing was ‘what would be your favorite tax to cut?’ [This was given to the Republican candidates.]

Questions like the above are hardly worth the time. Speaking of time, it was poorly managed. There was only 90 minutes for the entire debate, which hardly provides enough time considering the number of candidates. Added to this was the mere 90 seconds to answer a question, unless the question was cherry picked from the internet and then there was merely 30 seconds to answer. Talk about soundbites. There wasn’t enough time given to any candidate to say anything but a tagline answer. That is the candidates that were given an opportunity to answer.

Several times a question that was supposed to be asked to all the candidates was stopped mid-way through the group with a new question asked. Or the current frontrunners were directly selected to answer specific questions with lesser known candidates completely ignored. This was more obviously and painfully shown during the Republican debate. Mr. Romney dominated the airtime, with what I gather as the most questions asked and the most time to answer.

It was a joke. This wasn’t a debate; it was an extended free advertisement for each candidate. The only real question was who could look more presidential. An example is when the Democrats were asked what they would do if America was attacked 2x on the same day. It’s an odd question, why 2x, isn’t once enough? The answers were boilerplate and along party lines. Not one candidate had an answer that was straightforward. I mean what does, ‘I’d evaluate the situation and take action once I knew who was responsible.’ Really what does that mean? Every candidate answered with this response to some degree or wording. Not one said they would retaliate with force, or that they would ensure that the culprits would be chased and brought to justice regardless what rock they might hide under. I was in New York City when the Twin Towers were hit; I know and knew several people there that day. I don’t want the Presidents’ response to an attack on the citizenry to be rounds of talks at the U.N. Timeouts don’t work for children and it definitely won’t have an affect on a terrorist or nation seeking the removal of America.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: cable news, Democratic Party, MSNBC, presidential candidate, Republican Party, soundbite politics