Welcome to the U.S. of Socialistic States A.
His uncharacteristic deficiencies alone gives us hope to 2012
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Obama wins....
Welcome to the U.S. of Socialistic States A.
His uncharacteristic deficiencies alone gives us hope to 2012
Monday, November 03, 2008
my final case to vote against Obama
In a post a few days ago I noted my reasoning for voting for John McCain. Now I present my reasons to vote against Barack Obama.
1. Mr. Obama continues to ask voters to believe he can pay for every dime of an ambitious health care plan and other spending proposals while cutting taxes for all but the most affluent. Budget experts say that's unlikely. Mr. Obama claims to have "offered spending cuts above and beyond" the cost of his proposals. Mr. Obama is one-upping himself, again. When he accepted the Democratic nomination, Obama said that he would "pay for every dime" of his new programs with spending cuts. This is just pure misleading. Independent budget experts say that Obama's proposals will increase the already swollen federal deficit substantially.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget just revised its "Promises, Promises" guide, and now says Obama's tax and spending proposals – in the unlikely event that Congress enacted them unchanged – would add anywhere between $262 billion and $316 billion to the federal deficit in 2013, the final year of the next president's first term. They also have increased their estimate of the likely cost of Obama's health care plan and now figures it could cost anywhere from $52 billion to $106 billion per year when it is fully phased in. Since the Congressional Budget Office recently projected the deficit in 2013 to be about $147 billion if no laws are changed, that would mean a tidal wave of red ink. This does not even take into account passage of the $700 billion bailout package and worsening economy. Plus, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 17 percent since this projection was issued.
Mr. Obama himself conceded that he probably won't be able to fulfill his promises, at least not right away. He acknowledged on September 30th that, in light of the financial crisis, "it is likely that some useful programs or policies that I've proposed on the campaign trail may need to be delayed." He somehow did not fit this statement into his 30 minute informercial last week.
The Tax Policy Center stated on September 15, 2008 that without "substantial cuts in government spending" the plans "would sharply increase the national debt. Including interest costs, Obama’s tax plan would boost the national debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018.
2. Mr. Obama also kept up the rhetoric with a promise to end "tax breaks for sending jobs overseas," as though that could do much to keep jobs at home. Experts say it can't. Obama's infomercial last week and his end of the election season TV ads have continued to preach on the theme of "tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas," which Obama proposes to eliminate. But, eliminating them won't do much to keep jobs in the United States. The Tax Policy Center concluded that eliminating such tax breaks "is a nice political slogan, but will do little or nothing for U.S. employment or incomes."
3. Obama's Health Care promises are pure spin, too. In his infomercial/sermon last week, Mr. Obama claimed his "health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and preexisting conditions, and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year." Back in June an Obama adviser told FactCheck.org "that more than half of it is attributed to savings from the widespread adoption of electronic records, at least some of which is expected to go to government, employers and insurance companies. The campaign, we were told, expects a trickle-down effect that could reach consumers in the form of lower taxes, reduced premiums or higher wages. So even if the savings materialized, some of them would be passed along in a variety of ways that might not be seen as lowering health care costs, such as premiums, by $2,500 a year."
I quote from Factcheck.org: "The savings estimate, though, is a goal unlikely to be met. Obama's claim assumes that 90 percent of doctors and hospitals will adopt health IT. But adoption has been slow, and experts say getting to that level of use will take much longer than one presidential term. Estimates vary, but in 2006, the Congressional Budget Office said only 12 percent of physicians and 11 percent of hospitals had electronic records systems.
Dr. Rainu Kaushal, a professor of public health at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, told us that with the right policies, 90 percent adoption is achievable. But, "I think it's pie in the sky for the next five years," she said. "I think we're looking more in the eight to 10 [year] range."
And more important, experts also believe that any big-dollar savings from health IT are unlikely to flow through directly to the general public. Catherine Desroches, an instructor at the Harvard Medical School and a researcher at the Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital, called the idea of trickle-down premium reductions an “unlikely event.” Despite the doubt expressed by some, Obama has continued to cite this optimistic – to say the least – figure."
One of many reasons, besides questionable character issues I have with Mr. Obama, are reasons to vote NO for Obama.
1. Mr. Obama continues to ask voters to believe he can pay for every dime of an ambitious health care plan and other spending proposals while cutting taxes for all but the most affluent. Budget experts say that's unlikely. Mr. Obama claims to have "offered spending cuts above and beyond" the cost of his proposals. Mr. Obama is one-upping himself, again. When he accepted the Democratic nomination, Obama said that he would "pay for every dime" of his new programs with spending cuts. This is just pure misleading. Independent budget experts say that Obama's proposals will increase the already swollen federal deficit substantially.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget just revised its "Promises, Promises" guide, and now says Obama's tax and spending proposals – in the unlikely event that Congress enacted them unchanged – would add anywhere between $262 billion and $316 billion to the federal deficit in 2013, the final year of the next president's first term. They also have increased their estimate of the likely cost of Obama's health care plan and now figures it could cost anywhere from $52 billion to $106 billion per year when it is fully phased in. Since the Congressional Budget Office recently projected the deficit in 2013 to be about $147 billion if no laws are changed, that would mean a tidal wave of red ink. This does not even take into account passage of the $700 billion bailout package and worsening economy. Plus, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 17 percent since this projection was issued.
Mr. Obama himself conceded that he probably won't be able to fulfill his promises, at least not right away. He acknowledged on September 30th that, in light of the financial crisis, "it is likely that some useful programs or policies that I've proposed on the campaign trail may need to be delayed." He somehow did not fit this statement into his 30 minute informercial last week.
The Tax Policy Center stated on September 15, 2008 that without "substantial cuts in government spending" the plans "would sharply increase the national debt. Including interest costs, Obama’s tax plan would boost the national debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018.
2. Mr. Obama also kept up the rhetoric with a promise to end "tax breaks for sending jobs overseas," as though that could do much to keep jobs at home. Experts say it can't. Obama's infomercial last week and his end of the election season TV ads have continued to preach on the theme of "tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas," which Obama proposes to eliminate. But, eliminating them won't do much to keep jobs in the United States. The Tax Policy Center concluded that eliminating such tax breaks "is a nice political slogan, but will do little or nothing for U.S. employment or incomes."
3. Obama's Health Care promises are pure spin, too. In his infomercial/sermon last week, Mr. Obama claimed his "health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and preexisting conditions, and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year." Back in June an Obama adviser told FactCheck.org "that more than half of it is attributed to savings from the widespread adoption of electronic records, at least some of which is expected to go to government, employers and insurance companies. The campaign, we were told, expects a trickle-down effect that could reach consumers in the form of lower taxes, reduced premiums or higher wages. So even if the savings materialized, some of them would be passed along in a variety of ways that might not be seen as lowering health care costs, such as premiums, by $2,500 a year."
I quote from Factcheck.org: "The savings estimate, though, is a goal unlikely to be met. Obama's claim assumes that 90 percent of doctors and hospitals will adopt health IT. But adoption has been slow, and experts say getting to that level of use will take much longer than one presidential term. Estimates vary, but in 2006, the Congressional Budget Office said only 12 percent of physicians and 11 percent of hospitals had electronic records systems.
Dr. Rainu Kaushal, a professor of public health at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, told us that with the right policies, 90 percent adoption is achievable. But, "I think it's pie in the sky for the next five years," she said. "I think we're looking more in the eight to 10 [year] range."
And more important, experts also believe that any big-dollar savings from health IT are unlikely to flow through directly to the general public. Catherine Desroches, an instructor at the Harvard Medical School and a researcher at the Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital, called the idea of trickle-down premium reductions an “unlikely event.” Despite the doubt expressed by some, Obama has continued to cite this optimistic – to say the least – figure."
One of many reasons, besides questionable character issues I have with Mr. Obama, are reasons to vote NO for Obama.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Obama praises Rev. Wright
I found a very interesting interview from when Mr. Obama spoke quite fondly of the racist Reverand Wright...
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e46UaG2GaG
This just reassures me of my earlier post questioning the character of Mr. Obama.
Thomas Sewell wrote a great column which I include below:
Ego and Mouth
Thomas Sowell
Friday, October 31, 2008
After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?
Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.
Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.
The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.
The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents.
The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity.
"This is our time!" he proclaimed. And "I will change the world." But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon.
For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries.
The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law.
After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.
Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion.
People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn't handle some "gotcha" questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden.
Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin-- grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly.
Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did.
Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do." He added, "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship" and "ended up in the top half" of the class.
But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: "He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85."
Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown. Let us not forget that the Roman Empire did decline and fall, blighting the lives of millions for centuries.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e46UaG2GaG
This just reassures me of my earlier post questioning the character of Mr. Obama.
Thomas Sewell wrote a great column which I include below:
Ego and Mouth
Thomas Sowell
Friday, October 31, 2008
After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?
Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.
Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.
The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.
The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents.
The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity.
"This is our time!" he proclaimed. And "I will change the world." But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon.
For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries.
The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law.
After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.
Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion.
People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn't handle some "gotcha" questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden.
Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin-- grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly.
Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did.
Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do." He added, "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship" and "ended up in the top half" of the class.
But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: "He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85."
Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown. Let us not forget that the Roman Empire did decline and fall, blighting the lives of millions for centuries.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
why I am voting for John McCain...
It is true...the banner reads "Libertarian Conservative." But, in wake of this important election, I cannot vote for Bobb Barr, the Libertarian candidate for President, who was a former Republican. I am voting for John McCain (yes I have and still do and will refer to him as "Juan McAmnesty-McCain", due to his "crim-aliens" (kudos to Jay Severin) policy, for the following reasons:
Taxes: Mr. Obama wants to make the nation's progressive tax system more progressive by cutting taxes for most while raising taxes on the top earners. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has even commented that "unemployment compensation, retirement savings, taxation of capital gains, and job creation....the proposals would provide some benefit, they have significant shortcomings."
Obama would "allow penalty-free withdrawals of up to 15 percent (but no more than $10,000) from retirement accounts. Withdrawals would still be subject to income tax.
Any relaxation of rules that enables people to use retirement funds during their working years jeopardizes the availability of those resources in retirement. It is also not entirely clear why policymakers should encourage people to sell assets when the market may be temporarily depressed.
Provide a refundable $3,000 per employee credit for increases in employment for firms with growing employment. The proposal is similar to a proposal enacted under the Carter Administration in 1977 and then converted to a much more limited credit for disadvantaged workers in 1978. (The Carter credit was non-refundable and applied to changes in payroll costs, not number of employees.) It aims to subsidize increases in employment without paying firms a credit for workers they already employ. The basic problem is that the base number of workers who would otherwise be employed by a firm is unobservable and the previous year’s employment is a poor proxy for what firms would otherwise do. The new credit would favor firms in expanding industries over those experiencing a reduction in demand and only provide an incentive for expanding firms, without discouraging other firms from laying off more workers. That is, it would help the firms that least need assistance while doing nothing for those that are in distress. In addition to numerous equity issues, designing such a proposal would pose many practical and administrative issues. Legislation would have to specify how long a worker has to remain employed to count because without a minimum employment period, firms could churn workers to collect multiple credits. There would be demands to adjust baseline payroll for distressed industries and Congress would need to weigh those claims against revenue costs and enforcement issues. In general, the more stringent the definition of additional workers, the fewer firms would qualify for the credit, but easing law requirements would allow more firms to game the system to maximize their tax gains without raising employment."
Economic Crisis: In 1999 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was passed in 1999 and repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, a piece of legislation from the era of the Great Depression that imposed a number of regulations on financial institutions.
what became law was a widely accepted bipartisan compromise. The measure passed the House 362 - 57, with 155 Democrats voting for the bill. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 90 - 8. Among the Democrats voting for the bill: Obama's running mate, Joe Biden. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat. If this bill really had "stripped the safeguards that would have protected us," then both parties share the blame, not just "John McCain's friend"--Gramm.
The truth is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the fence have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.
(using FactCheck.org as a reference)
Last year liberal columnist Robert Kuttner wrote in a piece in "The American Prospect" argued that "this old-fashioned panic is a child of deregulation." But even Kuttner didn't lay the blame primarily on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Instead, he described "serial bouts of financial deregulation" going back to the 1970s. And he laid blame on policies of the Federal Reserve Board under Alan Greenspan, saying "the Fed has become the chief enabler of a dangerously speculative economy." I note in his appearance at a recent hearing how he just shrugged his shoulders and kind of said oops I made a mistake.
What the Gramm-Leach-Bliley did was to allow commercial banks to get into investment banking. Commercial banks normally just accept deposits and make loans such as mortgages; investment banks accept money for investment into stocks and commodities. In 1998, regulators had allowed Citicorp, a commercial bank, to acquire Traveler's Group, an insurance company that was partly involved in investment banking, to form Citigroup. That was seen as a "signal that Glass-Steagall was a dead letter as a practical matter, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley made its repeal formal. But it had little to do with mortgages." (FactCheck.org)
In actuality, those deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current mess. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase have done ok in the financial mess and are in pretty good shape, while Bear Stearns collapsed and Lehman Brothers has entered bankruptcy, to name but two of the investment banks which had remained independent despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
"Observers as diverse as former Clinton Treasury official and current Berkeley economist Brad DeLong and George Mason University's Tyler Cowen, a libertarian, have praised Gramm-Leach-Bliley has having softened the crisis. The deregulation allowed Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have now converted themselves into unified banks to better ride out the storm. That idea is also endorsed by former President Clinton himself, who, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo published in the Sept. 24 issue of Business Week, said he had no regrets about signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall:
Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. ...You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into."
(FactCheck.org)
"Washington failed to rein in" (Washington Post) the two government-sponsored entities, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), both of which ran into deep trouble by underwriting too many risky home mortgages to buyers who have been unable to repay them. Key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (of Massachusetts...a little background on Mr. Frank..In 1990, the House voted to reprimand him when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home. Frank fired Gobie earlier in 1990 and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee after learning of Gobie's activities. The committee recommended that Frank receive a formal reprimand for his relationship with a prostitute.) Back to the blog..Frank had opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), and in 2003 and 2004, saying that the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." (you can insert you own joke here after reading about his prostitute activity..) Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised." (A little background on Mr. Dodd...The Center for Public Integrity has criticized Dodd for "being the leading advocate in the Senate on behalf of the accounting industry." Former Clinton, as in Bill, political consultant and now FOX News commentator and author Dick Morris recently wrote that Dodd had received more from the accounting firm Arthur Andersen than any other Democrat and bore responsibility for trying to shield accounting firms from investor fraud liability in cases such as the Enron scandal.)
So, according to FactCheck.org...a partial list of who is to blame...
# The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
# Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
# Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses. (Even though the Republicans controlled Congress up to 2006, the last two years of Democratic control has yielded no "change.")
# Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
# The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
# Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
# Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
# Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
# The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
# An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
# Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
Health Care: Mr. Obama claims that Mr. McCain's health care plan contains the "largest middle-class tax increase in history." While I believe it to be true that McCain's plan would, for the first time ever, require workers to pay federal income tax on the value of their employer-provided health insurance, it would be offset by the tax credits that he would provide of up to $2,500 per individual and $5,000 per couple or family – and most people would come out ahead in the long run.
Energy: Mr. Obama has stated he wants to "fast track alternatives" to imported oil.
In actuality, he has offered a 10 year "research and development" fund. That is not fast at all. Mr. Obama states that Mr. McCain would give $4B in tax breaks to oil companies. These tax breaks are a result of an across the board increase in corporate taxes which would be benefiting those companies that provide alternative energy.
Social Security: Mr. McCain does not want to cut benefits in half. McCain did support Bush's Social Security plan. "But that plan would not have cut benefits at all. Everybody who gets a check now, or who is nearing retirement, would have remained in the current system. For younger workers who retire in the future, Bush proposed to slow the rate at which benefits grow – keeping pace with the rise of prices but not with the faster rise in wages, as is now the case. Compared with what today's retirees get, that's a smaller increase, not a reduction.
Obama also claimed that if McCain had his way, "millions" who rely on Social Security would have seen their investments disappearing in the recent stock market turmoil. He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers." Balderdash. The Bush plan, which McCain embraced, would not have allowed anybody born before 1950 to have private accounts, so nobody retired on Social Security today could possibly be relying on private accounts for even a small portion of his or her benefit check. For younger workers, the accounts would have been voluntary anyway." FactCheck.org
I am voting for John McCain as I am a pure and simple capitalist. Mr. Obama's socialist agenda is simply going against my grain. Mr. Obama's prior comments demonstrate his desire to create a socialist agenda, being soft on terrorism with comments like the one on July 24, 2007 in the CNN/YouTube debate when Obama said when asked whether he would meet with the leaders of nations that have been hostile to U.S. interests, "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous." Even Mrs. Clinton responded by saying Mr. Obama's comments were "irresponsible and frankly naive." The question that ignited the controversy at the debate: Would the candidates for president be willing to meet, within their first year in office, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea? Clinton said "I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort, because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse." ABC News claimed that this dispute "highlighted Clinton's vast experience and foreign-policy know-how — and Obama's naivete. Madeleine Albright, who served as secretary of state under Clinton's husband, called Clinton's answer "perfect" — and strongly implied that Obama was wrong to not recognize the importance of the "diplomatic spade work" that is best performed by lower-level personnel, not the president. "Having been involved in this myself, I think she showed a very sophisticated and nuanced view of what really happened, and for me, it shows the kind of experience she has," Albright said.
An Obama administration equals (besides higher taxes) racial preferences, (What if we took the black value system right from Obama's own church's website, which he attended for 20 years, and substituted the word "white" for "black"? You'd get some interesting results:
The God of our weary years" will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become White Christian Activists, soldiers for White freedom and the dignity of all humankind.
The highest level of achievement for any White person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the White Community.
Pledge Allegiance to All White Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the White Value System.
Personal Commitment to Embracement of the White Value System. To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the White Community and the Advancement of White People towards freedom.
(kudos to Michael Graham)
An Obama administration equals liberal judges, and the end of the American way of life. I can just picture Bill Clinton as a Supreme Court Justice. Yes, Bill the only impeached President of the United States.
An Obama adminstration equals a possible revocation of the Fairness Doctrine. "Barack Obama believes that the nation’s rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum." (BarackObama.com) Although I would love to hear Rush Limbaugh on NPR. (aka National Propaganda Radio)
Mr. Obama has opposed expansion of drilling (Obama says he’ll "think about it", McCain will push for it). Obama has a history of opposing nuclear energy, McCain a history of supporting it. Both have talked about other energy initiatives but the short term solution is lower oil prices through expanding our production and refining capacity. But it has been decades since we built either new refineries or nuclear facilities.
Recently..more reasons why I am voting for John McCain...
Mr. Obama’s Aunt Zeituni is in the U.S. illegally. She’s also on welfare, living in taxpayer-funded housing and working a part-time, taxpayer-funded job. Why? Because she’s broke and doesn’t seem to have any family members willing to help her out. That’s why WE get to pick up the tab. (Michael Graham)
Rashid Khalidi: Mr. Obama's good friend and political ally Rashid Khalidi a political ally of terrorist Yassir Arafat, "an American-educated Palestinian who teaches political science at the American University of Beirut and also works for the P.L.O.?" (according to the NY Times) Every Chicago politician who supported Palestinian terrorism also supported Mr. Obama. Some of them were at the tribute party to Mr. Khalidi listening to Mr. Obama praise him--on videotape that the LA Times won't let us see. Some pro-PLO folks attended Sen. Obama's church, and sat next to him as their anti-Semitic pastor denounced the "terrorist" nation of Israel and praised Louis Farrakhan. What should matter today is that Israel will be in far more danger tomorrow if Mr. Obama is elected president.
George Hussein Onyango Obama, Senator Barack Obama's long lost brother was tracked down living in a hut on the outskirts of Nairobi. Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender. "No one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month." According to Italy's Vanity Fair his two metre by three metre shack is decorated with football posters of the Italian football giants AC Milan and Inter, as well as a calendar showing exotic beaches of the world. Vanity Fair also noted that he had a front page newspaper picture of his famous brother - born of the same father as him, Barack Hussein Obama, but to a different mother, named only as Jael. He told the magazine: "I live like a recluse, no-one knows I exist."
Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation. "If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed," he said. For ten years George Obama lived rough. However he now hopes to try to sort his life out by starting a course at a local technical college. He has only met his famous older brother twice - once when he was just five and the last time in 2006 when Senator Obama was on a tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi. The Illinois senator mentions his brother in his autobiography, describing him in just one passing paragraph as a "beautiful boy with a rounded head". Of their second meeting, George Obama said: "It was very brief, we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger." George added he was no longer in contact with his mother and said:"I have had to learn to live and take what I need. "Huruma is a tough place, last January during the elections there was rioting and six people were hacked to death. The police don't even arrest you they just shoot you. "I have seen two of my friends killed. I have scars from defending myself with my fists. I am good with my fists."
(Telegraph.co.uk)
And I am not even including issues involving the Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and ACORN.
Perhaps more last minute goodies will come about. While there may be some questions about Mr. McCain, I don't think in wake of my case, made above, that there are any circumstances that can top the questionable character and beliefs of Mr. Obama.
This is why I am voting for John McCain.
Taxes: Mr. Obama wants to make the nation's progressive tax system more progressive by cutting taxes for most while raising taxes on the top earners. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has even commented that "unemployment compensation, retirement savings, taxation of capital gains, and job creation....the proposals would provide some benefit, they have significant shortcomings."
Obama would "allow penalty-free withdrawals of up to 15 percent (but no more than $10,000) from retirement accounts. Withdrawals would still be subject to income tax.
Any relaxation of rules that enables people to use retirement funds during their working years jeopardizes the availability of those resources in retirement. It is also not entirely clear why policymakers should encourage people to sell assets when the market may be temporarily depressed.
Provide a refundable $3,000 per employee credit for increases in employment for firms with growing employment. The proposal is similar to a proposal enacted under the Carter Administration in 1977 and then converted to a much more limited credit for disadvantaged workers in 1978. (The Carter credit was non-refundable and applied to changes in payroll costs, not number of employees.) It aims to subsidize increases in employment without paying firms a credit for workers they already employ. The basic problem is that the base number of workers who would otherwise be employed by a firm is unobservable and the previous year’s employment is a poor proxy for what firms would otherwise do. The new credit would favor firms in expanding industries over those experiencing a reduction in demand and only provide an incentive for expanding firms, without discouraging other firms from laying off more workers. That is, it would help the firms that least need assistance while doing nothing for those that are in distress. In addition to numerous equity issues, designing such a proposal would pose many practical and administrative issues. Legislation would have to specify how long a worker has to remain employed to count because without a minimum employment period, firms could churn workers to collect multiple credits. There would be demands to adjust baseline payroll for distressed industries and Congress would need to weigh those claims against revenue costs and enforcement issues. In general, the more stringent the definition of additional workers, the fewer firms would qualify for the credit, but easing law requirements would allow more firms to game the system to maximize their tax gains without raising employment."
Economic Crisis: In 1999 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was passed in 1999 and repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, a piece of legislation from the era of the Great Depression that imposed a number of regulations on financial institutions.
what became law was a widely accepted bipartisan compromise. The measure passed the House 362 - 57, with 155 Democrats voting for the bill. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 90 - 8. Among the Democrats voting for the bill: Obama's running mate, Joe Biden. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat. If this bill really had "stripped the safeguards that would have protected us," then both parties share the blame, not just "John McCain's friend"--Gramm.
The truth is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the fence have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.
(using FactCheck.org as a reference)
Last year liberal columnist Robert Kuttner wrote in a piece in "The American Prospect" argued that "this old-fashioned panic is a child of deregulation." But even Kuttner didn't lay the blame primarily on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Instead, he described "serial bouts of financial deregulation" going back to the 1970s. And he laid blame on policies of the Federal Reserve Board under Alan Greenspan, saying "the Fed has become the chief enabler of a dangerously speculative economy." I note in his appearance at a recent hearing how he just shrugged his shoulders and kind of said oops I made a mistake.
What the Gramm-Leach-Bliley did was to allow commercial banks to get into investment banking. Commercial banks normally just accept deposits and make loans such as mortgages; investment banks accept money for investment into stocks and commodities. In 1998, regulators had allowed Citicorp, a commercial bank, to acquire Traveler's Group, an insurance company that was partly involved in investment banking, to form Citigroup. That was seen as a "signal that Glass-Steagall was a dead letter as a practical matter, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley made its repeal formal. But it had little to do with mortgages." (FactCheck.org)
In actuality, those deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current mess. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase have done ok in the financial mess and are in pretty good shape, while Bear Stearns collapsed and Lehman Brothers has entered bankruptcy, to name but two of the investment banks which had remained independent despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
"Observers as diverse as former Clinton Treasury official and current Berkeley economist Brad DeLong and George Mason University's Tyler Cowen, a libertarian, have praised Gramm-Leach-Bliley has having softened the crisis. The deregulation allowed Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have now converted themselves into unified banks to better ride out the storm. That idea is also endorsed by former President Clinton himself, who, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo published in the Sept. 24 issue of Business Week, said he had no regrets about signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall:
Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. ...You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into."
(FactCheck.org)
"Washington failed to rein in" (Washington Post) the two government-sponsored entities, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), both of which ran into deep trouble by underwriting too many risky home mortgages to buyers who have been unable to repay them. Key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (of Massachusetts...a little background on Mr. Frank..In 1990, the House voted to reprimand him when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home. Frank fired Gobie earlier in 1990 and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee after learning of Gobie's activities. The committee recommended that Frank receive a formal reprimand for his relationship with a prostitute.) Back to the blog..Frank had opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), and in 2003 and 2004, saying that the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." (you can insert you own joke here after reading about his prostitute activity..) Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised." (A little background on Mr. Dodd...The Center for Public Integrity has criticized Dodd for "being the leading advocate in the Senate on behalf of the accounting industry." Former Clinton, as in Bill, political consultant and now FOX News commentator and author Dick Morris recently wrote that Dodd had received more from the accounting firm Arthur Andersen than any other Democrat and bore responsibility for trying to shield accounting firms from investor fraud liability in cases such as the Enron scandal.)
So, according to FactCheck.org...a partial list of who is to blame...
# The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
# Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
# Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses. (Even though the Republicans controlled Congress up to 2006, the last two years of Democratic control has yielded no "change.")
# Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
# The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
# Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
# Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
# Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
# The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
# An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
# Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
Health Care: Mr. Obama claims that Mr. McCain's health care plan contains the "largest middle-class tax increase in history." While I believe it to be true that McCain's plan would, for the first time ever, require workers to pay federal income tax on the value of their employer-provided health insurance, it would be offset by the tax credits that he would provide of up to $2,500 per individual and $5,000 per couple or family – and most people would come out ahead in the long run.
Energy: Mr. Obama has stated he wants to "fast track alternatives" to imported oil.
In actuality, he has offered a 10 year "research and development" fund. That is not fast at all. Mr. Obama states that Mr. McCain would give $4B in tax breaks to oil companies. These tax breaks are a result of an across the board increase in corporate taxes which would be benefiting those companies that provide alternative energy.
Social Security: Mr. McCain does not want to cut benefits in half. McCain did support Bush's Social Security plan. "But that plan would not have cut benefits at all. Everybody who gets a check now, or who is nearing retirement, would have remained in the current system. For younger workers who retire in the future, Bush proposed to slow the rate at which benefits grow – keeping pace with the rise of prices but not with the faster rise in wages, as is now the case. Compared with what today's retirees get, that's a smaller increase, not a reduction.
Obama also claimed that if McCain had his way, "millions" who rely on Social Security would have seen their investments disappearing in the recent stock market turmoil. He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers." Balderdash. The Bush plan, which McCain embraced, would not have allowed anybody born before 1950 to have private accounts, so nobody retired on Social Security today could possibly be relying on private accounts for even a small portion of his or her benefit check. For younger workers, the accounts would have been voluntary anyway." FactCheck.org
I am voting for John McCain as I am a pure and simple capitalist. Mr. Obama's socialist agenda is simply going against my grain. Mr. Obama's prior comments demonstrate his desire to create a socialist agenda, being soft on terrorism with comments like the one on July 24, 2007 in the CNN/YouTube debate when Obama said when asked whether he would meet with the leaders of nations that have been hostile to U.S. interests, "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous." Even Mrs. Clinton responded by saying Mr. Obama's comments were "irresponsible and frankly naive." The question that ignited the controversy at the debate: Would the candidates for president be willing to meet, within their first year in office, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea? Clinton said "I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort, because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse." ABC News claimed that this dispute "highlighted Clinton's vast experience and foreign-policy know-how — and Obama's naivete. Madeleine Albright, who served as secretary of state under Clinton's husband, called Clinton's answer "perfect" — and strongly implied that Obama was wrong to not recognize the importance of the "diplomatic spade work" that is best performed by lower-level personnel, not the president. "Having been involved in this myself, I think she showed a very sophisticated and nuanced view of what really happened, and for me, it shows the kind of experience she has," Albright said.
An Obama administration equals (besides higher taxes) racial preferences, (What if we took the black value system right from Obama's own church's website, which he attended for 20 years, and substituted the word "white" for "black"? You'd get some interesting results:
The God of our weary years" will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become White Christian Activists, soldiers for White freedom and the dignity of all humankind.
The highest level of achievement for any White person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the White Community.
Pledge Allegiance to All White Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the White Value System.
Personal Commitment to Embracement of the White Value System. To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the White Community and the Advancement of White People towards freedom.
(kudos to Michael Graham)
An Obama administration equals liberal judges, and the end of the American way of life. I can just picture Bill Clinton as a Supreme Court Justice. Yes, Bill the only impeached President of the United States.
An Obama adminstration equals a possible revocation of the Fairness Doctrine. "Barack Obama believes that the nation’s rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum." (BarackObama.com) Although I would love to hear Rush Limbaugh on NPR. (aka National Propaganda Radio)
Mr. Obama has opposed expansion of drilling (Obama says he’ll "think about it", McCain will push for it). Obama has a history of opposing nuclear energy, McCain a history of supporting it. Both have talked about other energy initiatives but the short term solution is lower oil prices through expanding our production and refining capacity. But it has been decades since we built either new refineries or nuclear facilities.
Recently..more reasons why I am voting for John McCain...
Mr. Obama’s Aunt Zeituni is in the U.S. illegally. She’s also on welfare, living in taxpayer-funded housing and working a part-time, taxpayer-funded job. Why? Because she’s broke and doesn’t seem to have any family members willing to help her out. That’s why WE get to pick up the tab. (Michael Graham)
Rashid Khalidi: Mr. Obama's good friend and political ally Rashid Khalidi a political ally of terrorist Yassir Arafat, "an American-educated Palestinian who teaches political science at the American University of Beirut and also works for the P.L.O.?" (according to the NY Times) Every Chicago politician who supported Palestinian terrorism also supported Mr. Obama. Some of them were at the tribute party to Mr. Khalidi listening to Mr. Obama praise him--on videotape that the LA Times won't let us see. Some pro-PLO folks attended Sen. Obama's church, and sat next to him as their anti-Semitic pastor denounced the "terrorist" nation of Israel and praised Louis Farrakhan. What should matter today is that Israel will be in far more danger tomorrow if Mr. Obama is elected president.
George Hussein Onyango Obama, Senator Barack Obama's long lost brother was tracked down living in a hut on the outskirts of Nairobi. Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender. "No one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month." According to Italy's Vanity Fair his two metre by three metre shack is decorated with football posters of the Italian football giants AC Milan and Inter, as well as a calendar showing exotic beaches of the world. Vanity Fair also noted that he had a front page newspaper picture of his famous brother - born of the same father as him, Barack Hussein Obama, but to a different mother, named only as Jael. He told the magazine: "I live like a recluse, no-one knows I exist."
Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation. "If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed," he said. For ten years George Obama lived rough. However he now hopes to try to sort his life out by starting a course at a local technical college. He has only met his famous older brother twice - once when he was just five and the last time in 2006 when Senator Obama was on a tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi. The Illinois senator mentions his brother in his autobiography, describing him in just one passing paragraph as a "beautiful boy with a rounded head". Of their second meeting, George Obama said: "It was very brief, we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger." George added he was no longer in contact with his mother and said:"I have had to learn to live and take what I need. "Huruma is a tough place, last January during the elections there was rioting and six people were hacked to death. The police don't even arrest you they just shoot you. "I have seen two of my friends killed. I have scars from defending myself with my fists. I am good with my fists."
(Telegraph.co.uk)
And I am not even including issues involving the Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and ACORN.
Perhaps more last minute goodies will come about. While there may be some questions about Mr. McCain, I don't think in wake of my case, made above, that there are any circumstances that can top the questionable character and beliefs of Mr. Obama.
This is why I am voting for John McCain.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Obama campaign ousts reporters....
from the Drudge Report....
why am I not surprised in wake of the email I received earlier in a blog posted recently....
PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET
NY POST, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, WASHINGTON TIMES TOLD TO GET OUT... ALL 3 ENDORSED MCCAIN
**Exclusive**
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.
MORE
Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES' Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain's Straight Talk Express airplane.
After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.
Developing...
why am I not surprised in wake of the email I received earlier in a blog posted recently....
PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET
NY POST, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, WASHINGTON TIMES TOLD TO GET OUT... ALL 3 ENDORSED MCCAIN
**Exclusive**
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.
MORE
Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES' Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain's Straight Talk Express airplane.
After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.
Developing...
Monday night fights.....
From my friend Chris....a true conservative...
This video is both awesome and infuriating! I love Megyn Kelly and want to beat the shit out of the snotty, snide runt of of a man called Bill Burton. He is typical of the elites that are about to take over our country. He never answers the question and just blames Fox News for bringing it up. How dare they question the Chosen One!!! We're pretty f(screwed)'d next year. Come April 15th, we'll all be screaming BOHICA! Bend Over Here It Comes Again! There's one simple question that the Obama-iites can't and will never answer truthfully. How do you give a tax cut to 95% of the people when more than a third of them pay no income taxes???? The answer - You Can't! Instead, it's called a transfer of wealth and it's right out of Marx's manifesto: "From each, according to his ability and to each, according to his need."
Please watch this video!
Monday Night Fights: FNC's Megyn Kelly vs. Obama's Bill Burton | NewsBusters.org
.
This video is both awesome and infuriating! I love Megyn Kelly and want to beat the shit out of the snotty, snide runt of of a man called Bill Burton. He is typical of the elites that are about to take over our country. He never answers the question and just blames Fox News for bringing it up. How dare they question the Chosen One!!! We're pretty f(screwed)'d next year. Come April 15th, we'll all be screaming BOHICA! Bend Over Here It Comes Again! There's one simple question that the Obama-iites can't and will never answer truthfully. How do you give a tax cut to 95% of the people when more than a third of them pay no income taxes???? The answer - You Can't! Instead, it's called a transfer of wealth and it's right out of Marx's manifesto: "From each, according to his ability and to each, according to his need."
Please watch this video!
Monday Night Fights: FNC's Megyn Kelly vs. Obama's Bill Burton | NewsBusters.org
.
from an Obama campaign worker?
very interesting email received earlier today from the "left" coast....
and a Hilliary blogger...??
Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow Clinton supporters out.
I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over.
I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.
The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.
We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”
We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.
We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
People makes posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad”
Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.
We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
See, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”
The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.
Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.
This is why nothing sticks.
The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.
There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.
Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.
There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.
The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.
Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.
This is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.
We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.
Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.
I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don’t feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.
I wish you all well, and goodluck.
PS my name is not really sarah. but I am a female and I understand your plight.
and a Hilliary blogger...??
Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow Clinton supporters out.
I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over.
I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.
The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.
We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”
We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.
We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
People makes posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad”
Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.
We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
See, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”
The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.
Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.
This is why nothing sticks.
The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.
There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.
Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.
There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.
The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.
Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.
This is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.
We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.
Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.
I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don’t feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.
I wish you all well, and goodluck.
PS my name is not really sarah. but I am a female and I understand your plight.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
a question any Obama support can't answer
from Michael Graham's blog..
How can you vote for a man who chose, every Sunday for 20 years, to attend a racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American church run by a lunatic? Sunday a, even the Sundays after 9/11, this man--this free moral agent--made the decision "You know where I belong today? Listening to the racist rantings of Rev. Wright. Honey, grab the kids and let's bring them, too."
How can you vote for a man who chose, every Sunday for 20 years, to attend a racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American church run by a lunatic? Sunday a, even the Sundays after 9/11, this man--this free moral agent--made the decision "You know where I belong today? Listening to the racist rantings of Rev. Wright. Honey, grab the kids and let's bring them, too."
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Let me introduce you........
to the next President of the United States...soon to be called the United States of USSR....
Unless something spectacular happens in the next few weeks...
McCain had to break ribs. He had a few good shots but like Rocky found out in Rocky 1, unless you break the ribs, it don't mean shite.
With much disappointment, we saw a McCain we should of seen months ago. He seemed so uncomfortable, at times, almost like he said what he was told to say.
He needed to smack around. He shadow boxed and bitch slapped Obama but Obama just shook off the slaps. A tie ain't good enough. A tie was a loss, and, as much as I would of preferred another candidate instead of Juan "Amnesty" McCain...a RINO (Republican In Name Only), it is better than the socialistic communist style of Obama.
So with much continued disappointment, I close this post.....
Unless something spectacular happens in the next few weeks...
McCain had to break ribs. He had a few good shots but like Rocky found out in Rocky 1, unless you break the ribs, it don't mean shite.
With much disappointment, we saw a McCain we should of seen months ago. He seemed so uncomfortable, at times, almost like he said what he was told to say.
He needed to smack around. He shadow boxed and bitch slapped Obama but Obama just shook off the slaps. A tie ain't good enough. A tie was a loss, and, as much as I would of preferred another candidate instead of Juan "Amnesty" McCain...a RINO (Republican In Name Only), it is better than the socialistic communist style of Obama.
So with much continued disappointment, I close this post.....
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
not a surprise at all..........
In a piece from the Boston Herald...(and not a surprise at all)
When it comes to the race for positive press, Barack Obama is the winner.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs just released these findings:
* Comments about Obama on the three network evening newscasts have been 65% positive since the party conventions.
* Comments about John McCain have been 36% positive.
* Comments about Sarah Palin have been 42% positive.
* There have been too few evaluations of Joe Biden for “meaningful analysis.”
* The study found that Obama’s press on the FOX network has been 28% positive while McCain’s has been 38% and Palin’s 49% positive.
The final debate is Wednesday night. Unless McCain comes out with boxing gloves and verbally punches Obama in the nose and gives a head butt or two.....it is a done deal. Can it be done?
Thursday, October 09, 2008
it's about time....
It's about time John. These issues, according to Mr. Hussein-Obama are "cheap political points.." Well even though the Keating five stuff is deserved to be brought up...can this Ayers/Wright stuff be left alone? Which is worse?
Hussein-Obama is the worst candidate to come along in memory. (though I do have some Jimmy Carter flashbacks every so often..)
McCain is not the best the Repubs could of come up with. But he was chosen despite his RINO colors.
A short time to go for McCain to stop being Mr. Nice guy. This ain't a tennis match. It is rock-em sock-em time.
Hussein-Obama is the worst candidate to come along in memory. (though I do have some Jimmy Carter flashbacks every so often..)
McCain is not the best the Repubs could of come up with. But he was chosen despite his RINO colors.
A short time to go for McCain to stop being Mr. Nice guy. This ain't a tennis match. It is rock-em sock-em time.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
"that one" won the second debate
AOL POLL Who won the debate?
Barack Obama
52% 150,821
John McCain
40% 116,396
It was a draw
8% 21,615
Released: October 08, 2008
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll:
Obama 47%, McCain 45%
from Michael Graham of 96.9 FM Talk...
If You Missed Tuesday Night's "Town Hall" Debate...
by Michael Graham October 7, 2008 @ 22:47
...congratulations!
It was a WOT: Waste of time.
It wasn't a debate, because actual debating was prohibited by the rules. It wasn't a town hall--normal people didn't get to speak. The questions were straight off of Meet The Press. And it wasn't an ideological battle, because Obama and McCain share so much of the same big-government ideology. And it wasn't even good television.
Be glad you missed it, because you didn't miss a thing.
My take: McCain had to change the pace and blast away at the Obama armor. He made some dings but the armor still shines. The ship is sinking fast in the McCain's Navy. The government issues buckets to bail out the navy have holes and are continuing to take on water.
Barack Obama
52% 150,821
John McCain
40% 116,396
It was a draw
8% 21,615
Released: October 08, 2008
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll:
Obama 47%, McCain 45%
from Michael Graham of 96.9 FM Talk...
If You Missed Tuesday Night's "Town Hall" Debate...
by Michael Graham October 7, 2008 @ 22:47
...congratulations!
It was a WOT: Waste of time.
It wasn't a debate, because actual debating was prohibited by the rules. It wasn't a town hall--normal people didn't get to speak. The questions were straight off of Meet The Press. And it wasn't an ideological battle, because Obama and McCain share so much of the same big-government ideology. And it wasn't even good television.
Be glad you missed it, because you didn't miss a thing.
My take: McCain had to change the pace and blast away at the Obama armor. He made some dings but the armor still shines. The ship is sinking fast in the McCain's Navy. The government issues buckets to bail out the navy have holes and are continuing to take on water.
I want to work for AIG....
WASHINGTON (AP) - Less than a week after the federal government had to bail out American International Group Inc. (AIG), the company sent executives on a $440,000 retreat to a posh California resort, lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown said Tuesday.
Here is the bill:
Here is the bill:
Sunday, October 05, 2008
it does not look good for McCain in the polls
Election 2008 National Head-to-Head Polls as of Sunday, October 05, 2008
General Election: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 09/26 - 10/03 49.3 43.4 Obama +5.9
Gallup Tracking 10/01 - 10/03 2703 RV 50 42 Obama +8
Rasmussen Tracking 10/01 - 10/03 3000 LV 51 45 Obama +6
Hotline/FD Tracking 10/01 - 10/03 915 LV 48 41 Obama +7
GW/Battleground Tracking 09/29 - 10/02 800 LV 49 46 Obama +3
Marist 09/28 - 09/30 943 LV 49 44 Obama +5
CBS News 09/27 - 09/30 769 LV 50 41 Obama +9
Associated Press/GfK 09/27 - 09/30 808 LV 48 41 Obama +7
ABC News/Wash Post 09/27 - 09/29 916 LV 50 46 Obama +4
Pew Research 09/27 - 09/29 1181 LV 49 43 Obama +6
Ipsos/McClatchy 09/26 - 09/29 1007 RV 48 45 Obama +3
Time 09/26 - 09/29 1133 LV 50 43 Obama +7
General Election: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 09/26 - 10/03 49.3 43.4 Obama +5.9
Gallup Tracking 10/01 - 10/03 2703 RV 50 42 Obama +8
Rasmussen Tracking 10/01 - 10/03 3000 LV 51 45 Obama +6
Hotline/FD Tracking 10/01 - 10/03 915 LV 48 41 Obama +7
GW/Battleground Tracking 09/29 - 10/02 800 LV 49 46 Obama +3
Marist 09/28 - 09/30 943 LV 49 44 Obama +5
CBS News 09/27 - 09/30 769 LV 50 41 Obama +9
Associated Press/GfK 09/27 - 09/30 808 LV 48 41 Obama +7
ABC News/Wash Post 09/27 - 09/29 916 LV 50 46 Obama +4
Pew Research 09/27 - 09/29 1181 LV 49 43 Obama +6
Ipsos/McClatchy 09/26 - 09/29 1007 RV 48 45 Obama +3
Time 09/26 - 09/29 1133 LV 50 43 Obama +7
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
the VP debate
Ok...I give her alot of credit. She has been in this "game" for, what, 12 weeks?
I think Sarah gave it as good as she got. And she got good. While her expectations were low, she hit a homerun. She may of been weak on some (ok alot) of substance, she kept her wits about her, used her lines (she reminds me of the sheriff in the movie "Fargo" sometimes) and brushed off Big Bad Joe Biden. (who, by the way, kept it together, except when going "Hollywood" in reminiceing about his tragic loss many years ago..)
Now it is up to McCain to come out swinging and hard in the next debate. He is beginning to start to look like Bob Dole. DULL! When I read that his campaign was giving up on Michigan and conceding the critical state to Hussein-Obama, I felt a bit defeated (already). Polls remain negative against McCain as of this writing.
If he can't turn it around, name names, take issues, mention some problem solving ideas instead of the usual..."My friends..." he is done. It will be a landslide.
There is still plenty of time to "get 'er done."
Maybe.
McCain for President (Boston Herald and my endorsement)
McCain for president: A certain leader for uncertain times
(I, too, endorse him for President. This country is in need of a capitalist agenda..not to be turned into socialist, quasi-Communist states.. Despite my grand appeal of McCain, he is the most conservative, as compared to Obama. The Republican party has been energized by the addition of Sarah Palin, a new kind of future conservative/Republican. Keep an eye on this one. No matter what happens in November, this won't be the last you heard of her "fur sure.."
By Boston Herald editorial staff | Wednesday, October 1, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Editorials
Another sobering start to an exceedingly sobering week - but one which points to the need for a political leader who is steady in the face of crisis, mature in judgment and able to reach across the aisle to break the gridlock that has for too long gripped Washington.
That man is Sen. John McCain and at this critical moment in history, this paper is pleased to endorse his candidacy for president of the United States.
McCain won a lot of hearts and minds around here in 2000, and we can’t help but wonder how history might have been different had he won his party’s nomination and the White House back then.
But there is no going back. There is only the future and it is impossible to envision the future of this great nation being put in the hands of an articulate but inexperienced first-term senator from Illinois.
Being commander in chief isn’t the place for on-the-job training; it’s a job for someone who has already proven his leadership skills - in battle, as a prisoner of war and during more than two decades on the floor of the Senate.
John McCain’s heroic resume isn’t just about his sacrifice and his experience; it’s about what he learned from those experiences. And on that issue his own words from “Faith of My Fathers” are telling:
“In Vietnam I had come to understand how brief a moment a life is. That discovery did not, however, make me overly fearful of time’s brisk passing. For I had also learned that you can fill the moment with purpose and experiences that will make your life greater than the sum of its days. I have learned to acknowledge my failings and to recognize opportunities for redemption.”
John McCain sought that purpose - and, yes, at times redemption - in public life and in public service. And that helps account for that independent streak that has often driven members of his own party slightly wild, but has endeared him to millions of American voters who, truth be told, usually put doing the right thing ahead of party too.
•This Senate maverick has spent years forging coalitions - on campaign finance reform, immigration reform, on judicial nominations - all with the intent of getting things done in the toxically partisan world of Washington.
His efforts at budget reform, at controlling congressional earmarks - not just because taxpayers can no longer afford them, but because of the corrupting effect they have on the political process - have surely not endeared him to fellow Republicans. But McCain has never shied away from a good fight - on issues worth fighting for.
•The economic future of this nation surely has to top the list of those issues right now.
Whatever becomes of the latest version of a bailout proposal, it is clear that this nation is in for years of economic uncertainty.
So who do we want to help guide us through that uncertainty?
McCain insisted during his Friday night debate with Barack Obama that “the first thing we need to do [post-bailout] is get spending under control in Washington.
“We’ve let government get completely out of control. . . the point is we need to examine every agency of government,” he said, adding that cutting ethanol subsidies and doing away with Defense Department cost-plus contracts would top his list. And he’d support a spending freeze on everything but entitlement programs, defense and veterans benefits.
The most that Obama will concede is that some of the $800 billion in new spending programs he’s proposing “are probably going to have to be delayed.”
Then, of course, he reiterated all the things on his agenda that simply “have to” be done.
One thing is clear: John McCain has the courage to make those cuts; Barack Obama has no interest in doing so.
•These are also times that demand experienced leadership in foreign affairs. When Russian troops invaded the sovereign democratic nation of Georgia, it took Obama three full days to figure it all out. Not so McCain, who immediately pinned the aggressor label on Russia.
And during Friday’s debate McCain spoofed Obama’s plan to have face to face talks with some of the world’s tyrants, including Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, forcing us all to imagine the scenario:
“So let me get this right,” McCain said. “We sit down with Ahmadinejad and he says, ‘We’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,’ and we say, ‘No, you’re not?’ Oh, please!”
There is no room for a naif in the Oval Office.
Being president is about policy and about getting that policy right.
But being president is also about character. During his decades of service to his country John McCain has given us all ample evidence of his courage, his character and his leadership. And never more has this nation needed a president with all that John McCain has to offer.
(I, too, endorse him for President. This country is in need of a capitalist agenda..not to be turned into socialist, quasi-Communist states.. Despite my grand appeal of McCain, he is the most conservative, as compared to Obama. The Republican party has been energized by the addition of Sarah Palin, a new kind of future conservative/Republican. Keep an eye on this one. No matter what happens in November, this won't be the last you heard of her "fur sure.."
By Boston Herald editorial staff | Wednesday, October 1, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Editorials
Another sobering start to an exceedingly sobering week - but one which points to the need for a political leader who is steady in the face of crisis, mature in judgment and able to reach across the aisle to break the gridlock that has for too long gripped Washington.
That man is Sen. John McCain and at this critical moment in history, this paper is pleased to endorse his candidacy for president of the United States.
McCain won a lot of hearts and minds around here in 2000, and we can’t help but wonder how history might have been different had he won his party’s nomination and the White House back then.
But there is no going back. There is only the future and it is impossible to envision the future of this great nation being put in the hands of an articulate but inexperienced first-term senator from Illinois.
Being commander in chief isn’t the place for on-the-job training; it’s a job for someone who has already proven his leadership skills - in battle, as a prisoner of war and during more than two decades on the floor of the Senate.
John McCain’s heroic resume isn’t just about his sacrifice and his experience; it’s about what he learned from those experiences. And on that issue his own words from “Faith of My Fathers” are telling:
“In Vietnam I had come to understand how brief a moment a life is. That discovery did not, however, make me overly fearful of time’s brisk passing. For I had also learned that you can fill the moment with purpose and experiences that will make your life greater than the sum of its days. I have learned to acknowledge my failings and to recognize opportunities for redemption.”
John McCain sought that purpose - and, yes, at times redemption - in public life and in public service. And that helps account for that independent streak that has often driven members of his own party slightly wild, but has endeared him to millions of American voters who, truth be told, usually put doing the right thing ahead of party too.
•This Senate maverick has spent years forging coalitions - on campaign finance reform, immigration reform, on judicial nominations - all with the intent of getting things done in the toxically partisan world of Washington.
His efforts at budget reform, at controlling congressional earmarks - not just because taxpayers can no longer afford them, but because of the corrupting effect they have on the political process - have surely not endeared him to fellow Republicans. But McCain has never shied away from a good fight - on issues worth fighting for.
•The economic future of this nation surely has to top the list of those issues right now.
Whatever becomes of the latest version of a bailout proposal, it is clear that this nation is in for years of economic uncertainty.
So who do we want to help guide us through that uncertainty?
McCain insisted during his Friday night debate with Barack Obama that “the first thing we need to do [post-bailout] is get spending under control in Washington.
“We’ve let government get completely out of control. . . the point is we need to examine every agency of government,” he said, adding that cutting ethanol subsidies and doing away with Defense Department cost-plus contracts would top his list. And he’d support a spending freeze on everything but entitlement programs, defense and veterans benefits.
The most that Obama will concede is that some of the $800 billion in new spending programs he’s proposing “are probably going to have to be delayed.”
Then, of course, he reiterated all the things on his agenda that simply “have to” be done.
One thing is clear: John McCain has the courage to make those cuts; Barack Obama has no interest in doing so.
•These are also times that demand experienced leadership in foreign affairs. When Russian troops invaded the sovereign democratic nation of Georgia, it took Obama three full days to figure it all out. Not so McCain, who immediately pinned the aggressor label on Russia.
And during Friday’s debate McCain spoofed Obama’s plan to have face to face talks with some of the world’s tyrants, including Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, forcing us all to imagine the scenario:
“So let me get this right,” McCain said. “We sit down with Ahmadinejad and he says, ‘We’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,’ and we say, ‘No, you’re not?’ Oh, please!”
There is no room for a naif in the Oval Office.
Being president is about policy and about getting that policy right.
But being president is also about character. During his decades of service to his country John McCain has given us all ample evidence of his courage, his character and his leadership. And never more has this nation needed a president with all that John McCain has to offer.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
the end of the ???
My oh my what a crisis. Or is it? My diagnosis:
One columnist penned this mess correctly...a charge into chaos.
Who to blame? Bush, Frank, Pelosi? My pick of the day...
Let me be "Frank." This zealot refuses to admit to his own blame to the meltdown of the Fannie and Freddie show. I quote “in 2003, nobody that I knew of foresaw the crisis of subprime lending” please...........
The b.s. of lenders being "subprime" back in the early 90's was there...and there sure were predatory in many vulnerable communities.
Both parties have their "spin.." Conservatives don't seem to give a hoot about the man on "Main Street" (like that catch all phrase of late)...and how the market doesn't seem to want to police itself...Liberals just can't face the rhetoric b.s about covering up their own greed, ignorance of basic economics (Thomas Sewell where are you?) and the drive for power.
Then we top off the event with Madam Pelosi's partisan b.s. rant denying what is looking her in the face (but with her liberal San Fran blinders), she can't see.
Now we have a two day break for the Jewish Holiday and then back to the b.s.
Oh..and then the debate between Sarah and Joey....(or did we forget about them?)
One columnist penned this mess correctly...a charge into chaos.
Who to blame? Bush, Frank, Pelosi? My pick of the day...
Let me be "Frank." This zealot refuses to admit to his own blame to the meltdown of the Fannie and Freddie show. I quote “in 2003, nobody that I knew of foresaw the crisis of subprime lending” please...........
The b.s. of lenders being "subprime" back in the early 90's was there...and there sure were predatory in many vulnerable communities.
Both parties have their "spin.." Conservatives don't seem to give a hoot about the man on "Main Street" (like that catch all phrase of late)...and how the market doesn't seem to want to police itself...Liberals just can't face the rhetoric b.s about covering up their own greed, ignorance of basic economics (Thomas Sewell where are you?) and the drive for power.
Then we top off the event with Madam Pelosi's partisan b.s. rant denying what is looking her in the face (but with her liberal San Fran blinders), she can't see.
Now we have a two day break for the Jewish Holiday and then back to the b.s.
Oh..and then the debate between Sarah and Joey....(or did we forget about them?)
Sunday, September 28, 2008
liberal actor passes away
Yes, Paul Newman was a major liberal activist and contributor. He died on Friday at the age of 83. Mr. Newman was known for many things, his philanthropy and his politics. He turned into this "mega-liberal" back in the Vietnam era days.
His support for wanna be winning candidates such as McCarthy and McGovern was legendary. He was a major player in trying to get Ned Lamont to defeat Joe Lieberman. His final political act was to give the maximum contribution to the Hussein-Obama campaign. He was for gay rights, civil rights, women's rights and committed to ending the nuclear arms race. Yes, he saw the world through rose colored glasses. Perhaps now that he with his "Creator" he can look down on the world and see in horror where some of his beliefs would of taken this World.
His support for wanna be winning candidates such as McCarthy and McGovern was legendary. He was a major player in trying to get Ned Lamont to defeat Joe Lieberman. His final political act was to give the maximum contribution to the Hussein-Obama campaign. He was for gay rights, civil rights, women's rights and committed to ending the nuclear arms race. Yes, he saw the world through rose colored glasses. Perhaps now that he with his "Creator" he can look down on the world and see in horror where some of his beliefs would of taken this World.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
here is a different post...
Introducing the National Black Republican Association.....
their website: http://www.nbra.info./
their website: http://www.nbra.info./
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)