John McCain may have missed his opportunity to take the mantle of good steward of the economy from Barack Obama.
He took an important first step last week when he went back to Washington D.C. and made sure House Republicans were engaged in the bailout negotiations. It almost paid off - the Republicans were able to get some important provisions into the bill (like changing the mark to market rules and creating a provision to insure the loans instead of buying the mortgage-backed securities) while removing typical liberal ridiculousness, like creating a slush fund for ACORN.
McCain then missed an opportunity at the debates to spell out his support for the provisions the Republicans were getting into the bill. Instead, he offered tepid support for doing something, without really specifying what he would like to see in the bill. Obama did mostly the same thing - and McCain also whiffed - he could have stated that Obama had basically supported Bush's proposal while he (McCain) preferred more protection for taxpayers. But he did nothing like that.
He then lost whatever political edge he might have gained from his work last week when the House decided not to pass the bill.
But he had a chance to change the message again. He could have come out and explicitly stated that he supported the House's decision to turn down a bad bill. He then could have come out and explicitly supported the Republicans' proposals and stated that was the specific reason he got involved in the process in the first place.
But he has instead flubbed the issue again - coming out stronger in favor of the failed bill. He is now telling supporters that the bill may be unpopular, but is necessary to heal the economy. Obama is giving essentially the same argument to his people.
McCain could have distanced himself from Obama, Bush and the unpopular legislation. Instead, he tied himself to all of the above.
Obama continues to surge in the polls. McCain has to do something to stem the tide. He has had three good chances and completely missed them all. His only hope now is that the government does something, the problem goes away, and he can get the economy off the front page somehow. It seems unlikely.
McCain had a big chance and missed it. And he might have just given away the White House along with it.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
So Much for Bipartisanship
The Bailout Bill didn't survive the House floor.
Instantly, Republicans blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's heavy-handed speech before the vote that blamed President Bush for everything.
Democrats instantly blamed Republicans for not supporting the bill enough. Of course, everyone knows that Democrats could pass the bill without a single Republican vote. So, there is more to it.
The key word on the lips of Democrats is that Republicans didn't "deliver" the necessary votes. Some Democrats have even specifically blamed John McCain for not "delivering".
The story seems to be that Democrats agreed to deliver 120 votes if Republicans would deliver 100. See, Democrats don't want to be on the hook for passing an unpopular bill and wanted to make sure there was enough "bipartisan" support to ensure they didn't lose control of Congress. House Republicans have vigorously rejected the bailout plan since it was first proposed. Some think the government doesn't have to do anything. Others think that the government should do something - just not this huge government bailout.
Of course, if Democrats really believed that the bailout was necessary to preserving the financial well-being of the country, shouldn't they have voted for the bill regardless of what voters think and regardless of bipartisan support? Maybe Democrats are more concerned about covering their own rear ends than passing unpopular but necessary legislation. This is the least accomplished Congress in the history of the country after all. And how can they blame McCain for not "delivering" the votes. Barack Obama supports the legislation, yet 95 Democrats voted against it. If that number had been 83, the bill would have passed.
Another interesting point - according to Republicans on the Hill, they never had more than 70 votes. Meaning, Nancy Pelosi knew the bill was going to fail, but called for a vote anyway. Why would she do that? Perhaps to blame Republicans for the failure?
This is not to say Republicans are blameless when it comes to partisan politics. Instead of blaming the demise of the bill on Pelosi, they should have simply said that the bill was too flawed and they are looking out for the tax payers. But instead, they partake in the same useless finger pointing.
And after the bill failed and the parties threw blame on each other, the Dow fell 450 points (it was down about 250 before the vote and ended up more than 700 down).
Maybe the only good thing is that the price of oil has dropped significantly. Donald Trump today said that this was the best thing that could come of Congress' inaction. He also seemed to indicate that continuing to do nothing will make oil prices keep falling - and that perhaps Congress would decide not to pass a bill to keep oil prices low. This might be an unintended benefit. And might also give the markets enough time to regulate themselves.
More to come.
Instantly, Republicans blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's heavy-handed speech before the vote that blamed President Bush for everything.
Democrats instantly blamed Republicans for not supporting the bill enough. Of course, everyone knows that Democrats could pass the bill without a single Republican vote. So, there is more to it.
The key word on the lips of Democrats is that Republicans didn't "deliver" the necessary votes. Some Democrats have even specifically blamed John McCain for not "delivering".
The story seems to be that Democrats agreed to deliver 120 votes if Republicans would deliver 100. See, Democrats don't want to be on the hook for passing an unpopular bill and wanted to make sure there was enough "bipartisan" support to ensure they didn't lose control of Congress. House Republicans have vigorously rejected the bailout plan since it was first proposed. Some think the government doesn't have to do anything. Others think that the government should do something - just not this huge government bailout.
Of course, if Democrats really believed that the bailout was necessary to preserving the financial well-being of the country, shouldn't they have voted for the bill regardless of what voters think and regardless of bipartisan support? Maybe Democrats are more concerned about covering their own rear ends than passing unpopular but necessary legislation. This is the least accomplished Congress in the history of the country after all. And how can they blame McCain for not "delivering" the votes. Barack Obama supports the legislation, yet 95 Democrats voted against it. If that number had been 83, the bill would have passed.
Another interesting point - according to Republicans on the Hill, they never had more than 70 votes. Meaning, Nancy Pelosi knew the bill was going to fail, but called for a vote anyway. Why would she do that? Perhaps to blame Republicans for the failure?
This is not to say Republicans are blameless when it comes to partisan politics. Instead of blaming the demise of the bill on Pelosi, they should have simply said that the bill was too flawed and they are looking out for the tax payers. But instead, they partake in the same useless finger pointing.
And after the bill failed and the parties threw blame on each other, the Dow fell 450 points (it was down about 250 before the vote and ended up more than 700 down).
Maybe the only good thing is that the price of oil has dropped significantly. Donald Trump today said that this was the best thing that could come of Congress' inaction. He also seemed to indicate that continuing to do nothing will make oil prices keep falling - and that perhaps Congress would decide not to pass a bill to keep oil prices low. This might be an unintended benefit. And might also give the markets enough time to regulate themselves.
More to come.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Everyone Get Our Your Buckets and Start Bailing
The bailout.
I haven't blogged all week because I didn't know what to say about the bailout.
I am opposed in theory. But I think we all agree that something has to be done. Even Newt Gingrich has finally agreed that the government has to do SOMETHING, if for no other reason than that the government has to look like it is doing something. So much of the market is based on investor confidence - a lack of government intervention would erode that confidence, even as people in all walks of life decry a government bailout.
I disagree with President Bush's plan, even though I believe that it has gotten an unfair shake. Apparently, the plan is not to use $700 billion to buy all of the mortgaged backed securities that are clogging banks and investment houses on Wall St. To simplify the issue: mortgage-backed securities are the cause of the current problem. Mortgage companies began packaging and selling mortgages as investments. People bought the securities because it looked like the housing market would never go down. When the market did drop and people started defaulting on their mortgages, the securities on which the mortgages relied began to lose value. Now, because no one knows how many people will eventually default on their loans, no one wants to buy these securities. So banks have two problems: valuation (no one knows the value of the securities, so no one buys them) and liquidity (they can't easily sell the securities, so they don't have the necessary liquidity to give out loans, make other investments, etc.)
The basics of Bush's plan is that the government will start to buy the mortgage-backed securities through what is called a reverse auction. Basically, banks will offer the securities at a certain price and the government will buy the lowest priced securities. The point is that, once the government sets the price for the mortgage backed securities, there will no longer be a valuation problem - everyone will know what they are worth. Theoretically, once the valuation problem is gone, the liquidity problem will also be solved as people again start trading in the securities.
Another aspect of Bush's plan is that the government will actually be investing. On the whole, most of the mortgages will be paid in the long run and the government will likely make a decent return on the investment. So, it may end up having a high short-term cost, but a long-term benefit. Of course, no investment is guaranteed.
One might ask: if the government is only going to aid in the valuation of the securities, why does it need $700 billion. This seems to be the question that Congress is asking, as they have toyed with the idea of only approving $250 billion initially with the rest conditionally available. Not a bad idea, though Paulson says it's not enough.
The reason for his assertion is his philosophy that if everyone knows you have a bazooka, you might never have to use it. If investors see that the government is willing to put $700 billion where it's mouth is, consumer confidence will be high and Paulson will never have to spend all of it. That's the theory anyway.
But I disagree with Bush's plan for two reasons: first, it does put $700 billion of the tax payers' money at risk. Paulson might be a wise steward of the money, but he will not be the treasury secretary forever. The next one might not be so principled. In addition, you do not solve problems in the market by giving the players a do-over - buying up all their bad debt and letting them stay in business and go out and make other bad decisions. We shouldn't be afraid to let companies fail when they make bad decisions.
However, as I stated earlier, the government must do something. I believe the best course of action would be for the government to do two things: first, instead of buying the bad investments, set up a system to guarantee the underlying mortgages. This will basically fix the valuation problem, since the securities can once against be valued on the basis of knowledge that the loans will be paid off. In addition, the government should suspend the capital gains tax, as Newt and other have suggested. This will further encourage other to invest in these securities, especially if they know that they will keep all of the profits if the securities once again increase in value.
This idea has one huge benefit over President Bush's plan. Wall Street has to get itself out of the mess. The Government will help bu guaranteeing the mortgages, but it is Wall Street that will have to figure out the valuations and buy the bad debt. In addition, while the government will have to pay money for loans that have defaulted, most loans will be paid back and the overall cost will be much less than $700 billion. Government basically stays out of the market and saves a lot of money.
This type of plan is currently being supported by House Republicans. Some suggest that Democrats will eventually agree with this plan because they are afraid of the political fallout if they pass a bill without Republican support - and Republicans have said they will not support Bush's plan.
One other interesting note. When McCain "suspended" his campaign and went to DC to help fix the problem, Democrats like Harry Reid and Barney Frank began complaining that they basically had a deal done and that McCain inserting himself into the negotiations basically destroyed that agreement. They complain that McCain has cause more harm than good. But here is the thing, if we end up with a better plan than what Democrats would have passed, McCain will be able to take a lot of credit. McCain correctly noted that House Republicans were essentially not involved in the negotiations. He went into DC and got the Republicans to the table. If we get a better deal out of this, McCain will not be a problem, but part of the solution. This will certainly help in November, even though the last week has been very bad to McCain at the polls.
We should see what Congress comes up with by Monday.
I haven't blogged all week because I didn't know what to say about the bailout.
I am opposed in theory. But I think we all agree that something has to be done. Even Newt Gingrich has finally agreed that the government has to do SOMETHING, if for no other reason than that the government has to look like it is doing something. So much of the market is based on investor confidence - a lack of government intervention would erode that confidence, even as people in all walks of life decry a government bailout.
I disagree with President Bush's plan, even though I believe that it has gotten an unfair shake. Apparently, the plan is not to use $700 billion to buy all of the mortgaged backed securities that are clogging banks and investment houses on Wall St. To simplify the issue: mortgage-backed securities are the cause of the current problem. Mortgage companies began packaging and selling mortgages as investments. People bought the securities because it looked like the housing market would never go down. When the market did drop and people started defaulting on their mortgages, the securities on which the mortgages relied began to lose value. Now, because no one knows how many people will eventually default on their loans, no one wants to buy these securities. So banks have two problems: valuation (no one knows the value of the securities, so no one buys them) and liquidity (they can't easily sell the securities, so they don't have the necessary liquidity to give out loans, make other investments, etc.)
The basics of Bush's plan is that the government will start to buy the mortgage-backed securities through what is called a reverse auction. Basically, banks will offer the securities at a certain price and the government will buy the lowest priced securities. The point is that, once the government sets the price for the mortgage backed securities, there will no longer be a valuation problem - everyone will know what they are worth. Theoretically, once the valuation problem is gone, the liquidity problem will also be solved as people again start trading in the securities.
Another aspect of Bush's plan is that the government will actually be investing. On the whole, most of the mortgages will be paid in the long run and the government will likely make a decent return on the investment. So, it may end up having a high short-term cost, but a long-term benefit. Of course, no investment is guaranteed.
One might ask: if the government is only going to aid in the valuation of the securities, why does it need $700 billion. This seems to be the question that Congress is asking, as they have toyed with the idea of only approving $250 billion initially with the rest conditionally available. Not a bad idea, though Paulson says it's not enough.
The reason for his assertion is his philosophy that if everyone knows you have a bazooka, you might never have to use it. If investors see that the government is willing to put $700 billion where it's mouth is, consumer confidence will be high and Paulson will never have to spend all of it. That's the theory anyway.
But I disagree with Bush's plan for two reasons: first, it does put $700 billion of the tax payers' money at risk. Paulson might be a wise steward of the money, but he will not be the treasury secretary forever. The next one might not be so principled. In addition, you do not solve problems in the market by giving the players a do-over - buying up all their bad debt and letting them stay in business and go out and make other bad decisions. We shouldn't be afraid to let companies fail when they make bad decisions.
However, as I stated earlier, the government must do something. I believe the best course of action would be for the government to do two things: first, instead of buying the bad investments, set up a system to guarantee the underlying mortgages. This will basically fix the valuation problem, since the securities can once against be valued on the basis of knowledge that the loans will be paid off. In addition, the government should suspend the capital gains tax, as Newt and other have suggested. This will further encourage other to invest in these securities, especially if they know that they will keep all of the profits if the securities once again increase in value.
This idea has one huge benefit over President Bush's plan. Wall Street has to get itself out of the mess. The Government will help bu guaranteeing the mortgages, but it is Wall Street that will have to figure out the valuations and buy the bad debt. In addition, while the government will have to pay money for loans that have defaulted, most loans will be paid back and the overall cost will be much less than $700 billion. Government basically stays out of the market and saves a lot of money.
This type of plan is currently being supported by House Republicans. Some suggest that Democrats will eventually agree with this plan because they are afraid of the political fallout if they pass a bill without Republican support - and Republicans have said they will not support Bush's plan.
One other interesting note. When McCain "suspended" his campaign and went to DC to help fix the problem, Democrats like Harry Reid and Barney Frank began complaining that they basically had a deal done and that McCain inserting himself into the negotiations basically destroyed that agreement. They complain that McCain has cause more harm than good. But here is the thing, if we end up with a better plan than what Democrats would have passed, McCain will be able to take a lot of credit. McCain correctly noted that House Republicans were essentially not involved in the negotiations. He went into DC and got the Republicans to the table. If we get a better deal out of this, McCain will not be a problem, but part of the solution. This will certainly help in November, even though the last week has been very bad to McCain at the polls.
We should see what Congress comes up with by Monday.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Obama's "New" Economic Plan
Barack Obama has been saying for the past two days that he has a plan to help America overcome the sudden financial crisis. He has given a couple speeches, made a video and sent an email out to supporters laying out this "new" plan.
Strangely enough, this new plan is the exact same stuff he has been pimping all along. This from his email to supporters:
None of these are new proposals. None of these address the issues of mortgages, banks and investment companies going bankrupt, government bailouts, or anything else.
Barack Obama has criticized McCain's response to the economic crisis (McCain said he would fire SEC Chairman Chris Cox, said despite the crisis the fundamentals of the economy are strong, meaning a recovery is possible, and called for a separate division within the treasury department to oversee Wall Street). But Obama has put forward no ideas of his own.
In addition, McCain co-sponsored legislation in 2005 that would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama opposed the legislation. Interestingly enough, he is friends with former CEO's of Fannie Mae that made millions of dollars while allowing the companies to go under. Also, in his three years in the Senate, Obama has received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other Senator except for Chris Dodd. No wonder Obama hasn't come up with a plan to specifically address the current problems.
Obama has not shown a bit of sense of how to fix the economy. He wants to raise taxes on individuals and small businesses that make more than $250,000. he wants to raise the payroll tax on people making more that $150,000. He wants to raise capital gains taxes, which will keep people from investing. His plans will slow the economy. And he has no plans for fixing the current crisis. Is this the person we want running the country?
Strangely enough, this new plan is the exact same stuff he has been pimping all along. This from his email to supporters:
Here are some key elements of Barack's plan:
A $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families with high fuel costs right now while putting $50 billion into job creation to get our economy back on track.Families making less than $250,000 a year will get a tax cut three times larger than under John McCain's plan and will face absolutely no tax increases.
While John McCain has voted against raising the minimum wage 19 times, Barack would raise the minimum wage and set it to rise automatically with inflation.
Invest $15 billion a year in green energy research to reduce our economy's dependence on foreign oil and create 5 million American jobs a year.
None of these are new proposals. None of these address the issues of mortgages, banks and investment companies going bankrupt, government bailouts, or anything else.
Barack Obama has criticized McCain's response to the economic crisis (McCain said he would fire SEC Chairman Chris Cox, said despite the crisis the fundamentals of the economy are strong, meaning a recovery is possible, and called for a separate division within the treasury department to oversee Wall Street). But Obama has put forward no ideas of his own.
In addition, McCain co-sponsored legislation in 2005 that would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama opposed the legislation. Interestingly enough, he is friends with former CEO's of Fannie Mae that made millions of dollars while allowing the companies to go under. Also, in his three years in the Senate, Obama has received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other Senator except for Chris Dodd. No wonder Obama hasn't come up with a plan to specifically address the current problems.
Obama has not shown a bit of sense of how to fix the economy. He wants to raise taxes on individuals and small businesses that make more than $250,000. he wants to raise the payroll tax on people making more that $150,000. He wants to raise capital gains taxes, which will keep people from investing. His plans will slow the economy. And he has no plans for fixing the current crisis. Is this the person we want running the country?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
This Reminds Me of an Old Joke
An article on CNN.com this morning had the headline:
"Fiorina: Palin Doesn't Have Experience to Run a Major Company"
Carly Fiorina formerly ran Hewlett Packard. She was asked whether Palin had the experience to run a company like Hewlett Packard. She said that Palin does not have experience for something like that, but that is not what she is running for. She went on to say that McCain, Obama and Biden also don't have enough experience to run a company like Hewlett Packard. Finally, Fiorina said that Palin has more executive experience than Obama.
But look at the headline. Is that really what Fiorina was saying?
Here's the old joke:
President Bush and the Pope go out sailing. The Pope's pointy hat falls off and into the water. President Bush says, "Don't worry, Father. I'll get your hat."
President Bush gets out of the boat, walks across the water to the hat, picks it up, walks back and hands the hat to the Pope.
The headline in the newspapers the next day:
President Bush Cannot Swim
"Fiorina: Palin Doesn't Have Experience to Run a Major Company"
Carly Fiorina formerly ran Hewlett Packard. She was asked whether Palin had the experience to run a company like Hewlett Packard. She said that Palin does not have experience for something like that, but that is not what she is running for. She went on to say that McCain, Obama and Biden also don't have enough experience to run a company like Hewlett Packard. Finally, Fiorina said that Palin has more executive experience than Obama.
But look at the headline. Is that really what Fiorina was saying?
Here's the old joke:
President Bush and the Pope go out sailing. The Pope's pointy hat falls off and into the water. President Bush says, "Don't worry, Father. I'll get your hat."
President Bush gets out of the boat, walks across the water to the hat, picks it up, walks back and hands the hat to the Pope.
The headline in the newspapers the next day:
President Bush Cannot Swim
US Embassy in Yemen Attacked
Islamic jihadists carried out an attack on the US Embassy in yemen today, which killed 10 people. In addition, the six attackers were also killed.
So far, reports indicate that no Americans have been wounded. Instead, the attacks killed three Yemenese civilians, an Indian national and six security officers.
This is an important reminder that the war on terror still rages on.
Apparently, the government of Yemen has been cracking down on Al-Qaeda cells in Yemen in recent months. Yemen has led several successful raids on terrorist stongholds and have arrested or killed at least 12 terrorists in the past week.
And because Yemen has been actively opposing terrorist organizations, the terrorists struck back. But one should not wonder if Yemen did something wrong to make terrorists mad at it. This is what the jihadists do - we should not worry about their feelings.
And we must also remember that the war on terror will continue and must continue until these things never happen again.
So far, reports indicate that no Americans have been wounded. Instead, the attacks killed three Yemenese civilians, an Indian national and six security officers.
This is an important reminder that the war on terror still rages on.
Apparently, the government of Yemen has been cracking down on Al-Qaeda cells in Yemen in recent months. Yemen has led several successful raids on terrorist stongholds and have arrested or killed at least 12 terrorists in the past week.
And because Yemen has been actively opposing terrorist organizations, the terrorists struck back. But one should not wonder if Yemen did something wrong to make terrorists mad at it. This is what the jihadists do - we should not worry about their feelings.
And we must also remember that the war on terror will continue and must continue until these things never happen again.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Obama's True Feelings on Taxes
I was re-watching Barack Obama's interview with Bill O'Reilly yesterday. I noticed something interesting.
O'Reilly stated that Obama was planning on raising taxes on the wealthy. Obama's joking reply: "Just you Bill. I think you make too much money."
I think Obama let something slip when he made that statement. He doesn't want to tax "the rich" because they can afford it. He wants to tax them more because they "make too much money."
That, my friends, is socialism.
Obama plans to raise income and payroll taxes on anyone making $150,000 per year or more. Does anyone think a person, a couple, or a small business making $150,000 is making "too much money?" Socialists do. Anything more than that necessary to live is too much - and the surplus must be given to those who make too little; for the good of the community and all the people in it.
Sadly, no one has noticed this comment. Obama's slip of the mask has gone ignored. But, hopefully it will not be his last. And the next one might just be glaring enough to show people who Obama really is and what he really believes in.
O'Reilly stated that Obama was planning on raising taxes on the wealthy. Obama's joking reply: "Just you Bill. I think you make too much money."
I think Obama let something slip when he made that statement. He doesn't want to tax "the rich" because they can afford it. He wants to tax them more because they "make too much money."
That, my friends, is socialism.
Obama plans to raise income and payroll taxes on anyone making $150,000 per year or more. Does anyone think a person, a couple, or a small business making $150,000 is making "too much money?" Socialists do. Anything more than that necessary to live is too much - and the surplus must be given to those who make too little; for the good of the community and all the people in it.
Sadly, no one has noticed this comment. Obama's slip of the mask has gone ignored. But, hopefully it will not be his last. And the next one might just be glaring enough to show people who Obama really is and what he really believes in.
Monday, September 15, 2008
If the Polls Hold True...
John McCain will win the popular vote and Barack Obama will win the Electoral College; this is the exact opposite of what happened in 2000.
If this happens, I wonder if Republicans will hypocritically complain about the Electoral College. I also wonder if Democrats will hypocritically say that the popular vote is meaningless.
I have been against the Electoral College for a long time - I actually hoped in 1992 that Ross Perot's presence in the election would have kept someone from getting 270 electoral votes and might have led to abolishing the electoral college. Sadly, it didn't happen and we are stuck with the system that really makes no sense anymore.
Whatever happens, its time to get rid of the electoral college. Then we can live in a system where every vote really does matter.
If this happens, I wonder if Republicans will hypocritically complain about the Electoral College. I also wonder if Democrats will hypocritically say that the popular vote is meaningless.
I have been against the Electoral College for a long time - I actually hoped in 1992 that Ross Perot's presence in the election would have kept someone from getting 270 electoral votes and might have led to abolishing the electoral college. Sadly, it didn't happen and we are stuck with the system that really makes no sense anymore.
Whatever happens, its time to get rid of the electoral college. Then we can live in a system where every vote really does matter.
Obama's "New Politics"
According to an article in the New York Post, Barack Obama attempted to delay the time for US troops to leave Iraq.
In essence, he didn't want an agreement for troop withdrawals to be completed during President Bush's tenure in office.
One can only speculate as to the reason, but it seems clear: Obama wants the credit for bringing troops home. Conversely, he wants no credit to go to Pres. Bush.
This is the new style of politics employed by Democrats in the past few years. Let nothing good happen during the term of a Republican. It is the same tactic employed by the Democratically controlled state senate of California during the Governorship of Arnold Schwartzenegger. The tactic almost cost him re-election.
Democrats in Congress have used this tactic to keep Pres. Bush's approval ratings low. However, it has had the unintended effect of lowering Congress' approval ratings to a staggering historical low of 15%.
Democrats were willing to do it though because they assumed an unpopular Bush would invariably lead to a Democrat winning the Presidency. While it is no longer a guarantee, it is certainly possible.
But now we get another look at the "character" and "leadership" of Obama - a man who would sell out his own grandmother to get ahead. He claims he wants troops out of Iraq ASAP, but then attempted to delay a plan for troop withdrawal. As the New York Post article indicates, waiting until he becomes President will mean pushing back troop reductions at least a year. But Obama is willing to wait on something that has been a central tenet in his campaign just because he wants more credit later.
This means his pledge to bring troops home within 16 months is a lie. What else is he lying about? Tax cuts for 95% of Americans? Pursuing the war on terror, even if it means unilaterally attacking across Pakistan's border?
Whatever he does, it is now clear he will do it, not because he thinks it is the right thing to do, but because it is politically expedient.
In essence, he didn't want an agreement for troop withdrawals to be completed during President Bush's tenure in office.
One can only speculate as to the reason, but it seems clear: Obama wants the credit for bringing troops home. Conversely, he wants no credit to go to Pres. Bush.
This is the new style of politics employed by Democrats in the past few years. Let nothing good happen during the term of a Republican. It is the same tactic employed by the Democratically controlled state senate of California during the Governorship of Arnold Schwartzenegger. The tactic almost cost him re-election.
Democrats in Congress have used this tactic to keep Pres. Bush's approval ratings low. However, it has had the unintended effect of lowering Congress' approval ratings to a staggering historical low of 15%.
Democrats were willing to do it though because they assumed an unpopular Bush would invariably lead to a Democrat winning the Presidency. While it is no longer a guarantee, it is certainly possible.
But now we get another look at the "character" and "leadership" of Obama - a man who would sell out his own grandmother to get ahead. He claims he wants troops out of Iraq ASAP, but then attempted to delay a plan for troop withdrawal. As the New York Post article indicates, waiting until he becomes President will mean pushing back troop reductions at least a year. But Obama is willing to wait on something that has been a central tenet in his campaign just because he wants more credit later.
This means his pledge to bring troops home within 16 months is a lie. What else is he lying about? Tax cuts for 95% of Americans? Pursuing the war on terror, even if it means unilaterally attacking across Pakistan's border?
Whatever he does, it is now clear he will do it, not because he thinks it is the right thing to do, but because it is politically expedient.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/11/sept-11-seven-years-on.aspx
Don't think I'll be talking politics today
Don't think I'll be talking politics today
Monday, September 8, 2008
Liberals Direct Scare Tactics at Women
The Obama campaign, the National Organization for Women, and countless liberals in the media have had a hard time making any significant argument against Gov. Sarah Palin. So now they resort to calling John McCain's choice a "cynical" one - a play designed to attract women voters. Their response is all the same - women aren't stupid enough to vote for her just because she's a woman. What they mean is, women won't vote for her because she is pro-life, which sets the feminist movement back.
Women have had two different responses:
1) I'm not voting for her just because she is a woman - I am voting for her because I believe in what she has to say. I guess not all woman (even all "feminists") think abortion is the be-all, end-all of women's "rights."
2) Don't tell me what I'm too stupid to do - I'll vote for a woman if I want to. These women realize that it is far more important for the women's movement to have a women in the White House than to have a pro-choicer in the White House.
This second response is exemplified perfectly in an article by Tammy Bruce for The San Francisco Chronicle. She says: "For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously."
There are a lot of women who were disgusted by Hillary Clinton's treatment during the Democratic primary campaign. And while the Party Unity Convention might have brought most of them back into the fold, they must resist the liberal line of being to stupid to voting for Gov. Palin just because she is a woman.
I don't think John McCain chose Palin just because she is a woman. But that doesn't mean other women won't chose her for that very reason. And why shouldn't they? Obama gets about 90% of the African-American vote and no one claims that African-Americans are only voting for him based on his father's heritage.
Women today see a chance to change history and many of them are seizing on it. And I don't think a single one of them is stupid.
Women have had two different responses:
1) I'm not voting for her just because she is a woman - I am voting for her because I believe in what she has to say. I guess not all woman (even all "feminists") think abortion is the be-all, end-all of women's "rights."
2) Don't tell me what I'm too stupid to do - I'll vote for a woman if I want to. These women realize that it is far more important for the women's movement to have a women in the White House than to have a pro-choicer in the White House.
This second response is exemplified perfectly in an article by Tammy Bruce for The San Francisco Chronicle. She says: "For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously."
There are a lot of women who were disgusted by Hillary Clinton's treatment during the Democratic primary campaign. And while the Party Unity Convention might have brought most of them back into the fold, they must resist the liberal line of being to stupid to voting for Gov. Palin just because she is a woman.
I don't think John McCain chose Palin just because she is a woman. But that doesn't mean other women won't chose her for that very reason. And why shouldn't they? Obama gets about 90% of the African-American vote and no one claims that African-Americans are only voting for him based on his father's heritage.
Women today see a chance to change history and many of them are seizing on it. And I don't think a single one of them is stupid.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
I Know Polls Don't Tell Us Everything, But...
A USA Today/Gallup poll to be released Monday has John McCain up 54-44 over Barack Obama. This is a 17% change from a post-Republican Convention poll that showed McCain down 7%.
Obviously it is hard to know if this poll truly shows voter opinion, especially since a Gallup poll released today had McCain up 3%. That is still a convention "bounce" of 11%, since Gallup had Obama up 8% a week ago.
Rassmussen and Gallup polls released tomorrow will give us a better indication of the full impact of the Republican convention.
Obviously it is hard to know if this poll truly shows voter opinion, especially since a Gallup poll released today had McCain up 3%. That is still a convention "bounce" of 11%, since Gallup had Obama up 8% a week ago.
Rassmussen and Gallup polls released tomorrow will give us a better indication of the full impact of the Republican convention.
A Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day
Barack Obama (and now Joe Biden on Meet the Press) have been claiming that the Iraqi government and even President Bush have now agreed with Obama's plan to get out of Iraq.
Obama has been saying for more than a year that he will pull troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
President Bush and John McCain has said they won't set such a timeline to leave Iraq until it is appropriate for American troops to hand over control of Iraqi security to the Iraqi military.
As conditions in Iraq continue to improve, the ability for American troops to leave also improves. And now, as Iraq meets one benchmark after another, the time is starting to be appropriate to set some time frame for pulling troops out of Iraq.
So, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says 16 months is a pretty decent estimate. President Bush says setting "time horizons" is appropriate given the success in Iraq.
But does that mean that they are supporting Obama's plan? They day necessarily has to come when we are 16 months from leaving Iraq. Does that mean that we do so because Obama has been saying 16 months for the last year and a half? Of course not.
Obama is a broken clock. But there will be a day when Bush's time horizon is the same as Obama's. It doesn't mean Obama was right all along. And it certainly doesn't mean that Bush supports Obama. Obama has been wrong all along - his 16-month plan is regardless of conditions in Iraq.
Obama has been wrong and will continue to be wrong - until the moment we are 16 months from leaving Iraq. But the idea that Bush and Maliki are suddenly agreeing with him is both wrong and ingenuous. It's just another attempt to bolster his shockingly weak resume.
Obama has been saying for more than a year that he will pull troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
President Bush and John McCain has said they won't set such a timeline to leave Iraq until it is appropriate for American troops to hand over control of Iraqi security to the Iraqi military.
As conditions in Iraq continue to improve, the ability for American troops to leave also improves. And now, as Iraq meets one benchmark after another, the time is starting to be appropriate to set some time frame for pulling troops out of Iraq.
So, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says 16 months is a pretty decent estimate. President Bush says setting "time horizons" is appropriate given the success in Iraq.
But does that mean that they are supporting Obama's plan? They day necessarily has to come when we are 16 months from leaving Iraq. Does that mean that we do so because Obama has been saying 16 months for the last year and a half? Of course not.
Obama is a broken clock. But there will be a day when Bush's time horizon is the same as Obama's. It doesn't mean Obama was right all along. And it certainly doesn't mean that Bush supports Obama. Obama has been wrong all along - his 16-month plan is regardless of conditions in Iraq.
Obama has been wrong and will continue to be wrong - until the moment we are 16 months from leaving Iraq. But the idea that Bush and Maliki are suddenly agreeing with him is both wrong and ingenuous. It's just another attempt to bolster his shockingly weak resume.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Democrats Respond to Republican Convention
Barack Obama's campaign manager sent out an email after the close of the Republican National Convention, complaining that Republicans didn't talk enough about the issues. Obama each carried the message into Pennsylvania on Thursday, telling supporters that Republicans must not have answers to the problems facing America because they didn't talk much about it at the convention.
Obama et. al. must have a short memory - they seem to have forgotten their own convention. They spent the first evening attempting to rehabilitate Michelle Obama's image into that of someone who always has and always will love her country, and make Barack look like an average citizen, not the elitist that he is. The second night was dedicated to wooing Hillary supporters, with Hillary's strong, but neutered call to support Obama (more of a call to support the generic Democrat than anything else). The third night featured Bill Clinton doing more of the same to "unify" the party followed by Joe Biden doing whatever he could to convince voters that McCain is "more of the same." Finally, on the final night, the night of Obama's coronation, Obama talked generally about some problems in the country, talked more about the Bush-McCain connection, talked about change, and tried to convince voters that he could somehow cut taxes for 95% of the population while also increasing government spending exponentially by instituting universal heath care and recruiting an "army" of teachers. It was pretty light on specifics about how such a plan could be fiscally possible. Oh, and did anyone else notice Barack wearing a flag lapel pin?
The Republic Convention was somewhat light on specifics too. But Palin did talk about building a natural gas pipeline running through Canada (in addition to adding nuclear, solar, wind, bio fuel and offshore drilling). McCain mentioned cutting the corporate tax in half to increase jobs and research and development, doubling the child tax credit to put more money into family's pockets, allowing for school choice (presumably through a voucher system) to increase competition and ultimately results, increasing free trade, and he also discussed cutting our dependence on foreign oil. It might not have been a complete speech about specifics, but at least it offered more than Obama's.
At his speech in Pennsylvania Friday, Biden complained that not once during the Republican Convention did a speaker mention the words "middle class". This was probably a play in Palin noting that Obama gave an entire speech about the wars America is engaged in without mentioning the word "victory." But Biden misses the point. The Republican platform isn't just designed to appeal to the middle class. It is a platform that will improve the lives of all Americans. Fewer taxes, less government spending, lower corporate taxes to help businesses grow, which leads to more jobs and more innovation.
Obama wants to convince voters that Republicans don't have a plan. But if the lack of specifics at a convention is evidence of such, Obama has even less of a plan. His convention was more about rehabbing his image and unifying the party then about appealing to undecided voters. The biggest problem is that Obama does have a plan - but if he lets Americans know too many specifics, they will reject it. It is far too liberal a plan to appeal to even most Democrats, let alone Republicans and Independents.
Obama et. al. must have a short memory - they seem to have forgotten their own convention. They spent the first evening attempting to rehabilitate Michelle Obama's image into that of someone who always has and always will love her country, and make Barack look like an average citizen, not the elitist that he is. The second night was dedicated to wooing Hillary supporters, with Hillary's strong, but neutered call to support Obama (more of a call to support the generic Democrat than anything else). The third night featured Bill Clinton doing more of the same to "unify" the party followed by Joe Biden doing whatever he could to convince voters that McCain is "more of the same." Finally, on the final night, the night of Obama's coronation, Obama talked generally about some problems in the country, talked more about the Bush-McCain connection, talked about change, and tried to convince voters that he could somehow cut taxes for 95% of the population while also increasing government spending exponentially by instituting universal heath care and recruiting an "army" of teachers. It was pretty light on specifics about how such a plan could be fiscally possible. Oh, and did anyone else notice Barack wearing a flag lapel pin?
The Republic Convention was somewhat light on specifics too. But Palin did talk about building a natural gas pipeline running through Canada (in addition to adding nuclear, solar, wind, bio fuel and offshore drilling). McCain mentioned cutting the corporate tax in half to increase jobs and research and development, doubling the child tax credit to put more money into family's pockets, allowing for school choice (presumably through a voucher system) to increase competition and ultimately results, increasing free trade, and he also discussed cutting our dependence on foreign oil. It might not have been a complete speech about specifics, but at least it offered more than Obama's.
At his speech in Pennsylvania Friday, Biden complained that not once during the Republican Convention did a speaker mention the words "middle class". This was probably a play in Palin noting that Obama gave an entire speech about the wars America is engaged in without mentioning the word "victory." But Biden misses the point. The Republican platform isn't just designed to appeal to the middle class. It is a platform that will improve the lives of all Americans. Fewer taxes, less government spending, lower corporate taxes to help businesses grow, which leads to more jobs and more innovation.
Obama wants to convince voters that Republicans don't have a plan. But if the lack of specifics at a convention is evidence of such, Obama has even less of a plan. His convention was more about rehabbing his image and unifying the party then about appealing to undecided voters. The biggest problem is that Obama does have a plan - but if he lets Americans know too many specifics, they will reject it. It is far too liberal a plan to appeal to even most Democrats, let alone Republicans and Independents.
The Sprint Begins, Obama Backs Off
There are 60 days until election day. The longest Presidential campaign in American history will soon be at an end. We basically have a tied game going into the ninth inning of the seventh game of the World Series.
And exactly because the game is tied, Barack Obama has backed off of his pledge to compete in all 50 states. At one point, Obama was either foolish enough, or egotistical enough, to think he could challenge McCain in traditional Republican states and win a huge majority of the electorate on November 4th.
But now, Obama realizes that such a scenario is not possible. And so, instead of campaigning in all 50 states, he has cut it down to a more manageable 14.
Most of the biggies are the same as the past two elections - Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Other competitive states include Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina and Missouri.
McCain has a real shot of turning blue states Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire red.
Obama is trying to do the opposite with Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado.
And the purple states - Ohio, Minnesota, Florida and Wisconsin remain as competitive as ever.
In the end, Obama probably won't win Florida, Indiana, Virginia or North Carolina.
And if the trends from the last two years continue, McCain won't convert Pennsylvania or New Hampshire or win Minnesota or Wisconsin
Which means that the election comes down to Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Five states to decide it all.
Amazingly, if McCain wins Ohio and Colorado and Obama wins the rest, we have a 269-269 tie. In the case of a tie, the House of Representatives chooses the President (with one vote per state) and the Senate chooses the Vice President (with one vote per Senator). I don't really know how the House might decide, but it could lead to a perverse McCain-Biden leadership, something which hasn't been seen since the early 19th century.
And if McCain loses Ohio, he has to win Michigan, Colorado, and one of the two others.
Likewise, Obama can lose the entire Midwest and win the nomination by sweeping the Rust Belt. But a loss in either Michigan or Ohio would result in a McCain presidency.
Ultimately, I think Obama will manage to hold on to Michigan, despite the impact his lack of campaigning during the primary season might have. He also looks poised to win New Mexico because he polls extremely well among the Latinos that make up a huge percentage of the voting population.
So McCain has to win Ohio, Colorado and Nevada. And he has 60 days to convince voters there that anything else will be unacceptable for the country as a whole.
And exactly because the game is tied, Barack Obama has backed off of his pledge to compete in all 50 states. At one point, Obama was either foolish enough, or egotistical enough, to think he could challenge McCain in traditional Republican states and win a huge majority of the electorate on November 4th.
But now, Obama realizes that such a scenario is not possible. And so, instead of campaigning in all 50 states, he has cut it down to a more manageable 14.
Most of the biggies are the same as the past two elections - Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Other competitive states include Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina and Missouri.
McCain has a real shot of turning blue states Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire red.
Obama is trying to do the opposite with Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado.
And the purple states - Ohio, Minnesota, Florida and Wisconsin remain as competitive as ever.
In the end, Obama probably won't win Florida, Indiana, Virginia or North Carolina.
And if the trends from the last two years continue, McCain won't convert Pennsylvania or New Hampshire or win Minnesota or Wisconsin
Which means that the election comes down to Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Five states to decide it all.
Amazingly, if McCain wins Ohio and Colorado and Obama wins the rest, we have a 269-269 tie. In the case of a tie, the House of Representatives chooses the President (with one vote per state) and the Senate chooses the Vice President (with one vote per Senator). I don't really know how the House might decide, but it could lead to a perverse McCain-Biden leadership, something which hasn't been seen since the early 19th century.
And if McCain loses Ohio, he has to win Michigan, Colorado, and one of the two others.
Likewise, Obama can lose the entire Midwest and win the nomination by sweeping the Rust Belt. But a loss in either Michigan or Ohio would result in a McCain presidency.
Ultimately, I think Obama will manage to hold on to Michigan, despite the impact his lack of campaigning during the primary season might have. He also looks poised to win New Mexico because he polls extremely well among the Latinos that make up a huge percentage of the voting population.
So McCain has to win Ohio, Colorado and Nevada. And he has 60 days to convince voters there that anything else will be unacceptable for the country as a whole.
Obama Feeling Nervous About the Abortion Vote
First there was the email from Obama's campaign manager, objecting to Republican "extremism" on the abortion debate. By putting a plank in the Republican platform that does not make exceptions for rape and incest, the Republican view on abortion is too extreme for Obama's taste.
Of course, if one assumes that life begins at conception, then having no exceptions in cases of rape and incest is actually consistent with that belief. Anyone who thinks abortion is killing a life would also agree that abortion in cases of rape and incest is also killing a life. It is consistent with the views of preservation of life to say "no abortion ever."
This is not meant to rebuke those pro-lifers who would allow abortions in cases of rape and incest. Because, as I see it, pro-lifers believe that a female does have a right to choose. A right to choose whether or not to have sex. Once you make that choice, you should live with the consequences if the outcome lasts longer than you were hoping for. And that is why abortion in cases of rape and incest make sense in that view - the female didn't get her right to choose.
Both view on the abortion debate make sense and neither seem extreme to me.
In contrast, abortion advocates want abortion in every case imaginable, and in every way, shape or form. They want morning after pills available to teenagers without a prescription. They want late-term abortions. They want partial-birth abortions (the methodology of which is so shocking as to question the sanity of anyone who supports it). They want teenagers to have access to abortions without parental notification. They think abortion clinic workers should not be allowed to inform females of the consequences of their decision, or what an abortion entails, or of any potential effect on the fetus, or the mental well-being of the mother. They certainly don't want to require a waiting period after such counseling is given.
But I digress - this post isn't supposed to be about abortion in general.
Barack Obama supports all of those things above. In addition, he supports killing babies that survive abortion attempts. If he believes, as pro-choicers do, that life begins at birth (does partial life begin at partial birth?), then he is in favor of killing living babies. That is extremism.
And Obama knows it. Which is why Obama has lied about his vote on the issue. And why his campaign manager put out the email. It's why Gloria Steinem, in her piece against Sarah Palin referred not to abortion rights, but to "reproductive rights". And now liberal journalists are taking up the fight, attempting to label the Republican platform as extreme. For example, Jacob Weisberg, writing for slate.com, calls it pro-life absolutism. More surprisingly, he claims that the Republican stance on abortion is directly opposite the Republican stance on the need for strong families. He either believes or at least wants us to that allowing teenage girls to get abortions leads to more stable families. He really said that. Apparently he doesn't realize that when girls get abortions, they offer feel guilt and regret. It might scar them for life. And I don't think anyone would argue that girls that get abortions are magically transformed into responsible women who will wait until marriage to have sex again. It just doesn't happen. Its hard to say what might lower the teen pregnancy rate. But expanding abortion options isn't going to do it.
More importantly, the Republican platform has one consistent message - protect life. Liberals also have one consistent message - end it whenever possible (unless the person in question murdered someone). Which sounds more extreme to you?
Of course, if one assumes that life begins at conception, then having no exceptions in cases of rape and incest is actually consistent with that belief. Anyone who thinks abortion is killing a life would also agree that abortion in cases of rape and incest is also killing a life. It is consistent with the views of preservation of life to say "no abortion ever."
This is not meant to rebuke those pro-lifers who would allow abortions in cases of rape and incest. Because, as I see it, pro-lifers believe that a female does have a right to choose. A right to choose whether or not to have sex. Once you make that choice, you should live with the consequences if the outcome lasts longer than you were hoping for. And that is why abortion in cases of rape and incest make sense in that view - the female didn't get her right to choose.
Both view on the abortion debate make sense and neither seem extreme to me.
In contrast, abortion advocates want abortion in every case imaginable, and in every way, shape or form. They want morning after pills available to teenagers without a prescription. They want late-term abortions. They want partial-birth abortions (the methodology of which is so shocking as to question the sanity of anyone who supports it). They want teenagers to have access to abortions without parental notification. They think abortion clinic workers should not be allowed to inform females of the consequences of their decision, or what an abortion entails, or of any potential effect on the fetus, or the mental well-being of the mother. They certainly don't want to require a waiting period after such counseling is given.
But I digress - this post isn't supposed to be about abortion in general.
Barack Obama supports all of those things above. In addition, he supports killing babies that survive abortion attempts. If he believes, as pro-choicers do, that life begins at birth (does partial life begin at partial birth?), then he is in favor of killing living babies. That is extremism.
And Obama knows it. Which is why Obama has lied about his vote on the issue. And why his campaign manager put out the email. It's why Gloria Steinem, in her piece against Sarah Palin referred not to abortion rights, but to "reproductive rights". And now liberal journalists are taking up the fight, attempting to label the Republican platform as extreme. For example, Jacob Weisberg, writing for slate.com, calls it pro-life absolutism. More surprisingly, he claims that the Republican stance on abortion is directly opposite the Republican stance on the need for strong families. He either believes or at least wants us to that allowing teenage girls to get abortions leads to more stable families. He really said that. Apparently he doesn't realize that when girls get abortions, they offer feel guilt and regret. It might scar them for life. And I don't think anyone would argue that girls that get abortions are magically transformed into responsible women who will wait until marriage to have sex again. It just doesn't happen. Its hard to say what might lower the teen pregnancy rate. But expanding abortion options isn't going to do it.
More importantly, the Republican platform has one consistent message - protect life. Liberals also have one consistent message - end it whenever possible (unless the person in question murdered someone). Which sounds more extreme to you?
Friday, September 5, 2008
Just want to share
Michelle Malkin wrote a great article for Real Clear Politics today about Obama's days as a community organizer. And she agrees with me that Palin and Guiliani were not mocking community organizers in general. She actually refers to me by name (OK, not really).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/why_obamas_community_organizer.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/why_obamas_community_organizer.html
McCain Hits an RBI Double
John McCain will never win a speech contest against Barack Obama. Luckily, he doesn't have to. McCain didn't pack 85,000 people into a football stadium, create a stage designed to invoke the White House Rose Garden, or deliver what has been called one of the greatest political speeches in history. That's just not John McCain's forte.
What he did do, however, may be more important.
What he did do, however, may be more important.
He rebuked the Republican Party for an era of corruption and lack of fiscal restraint that (allegedly) got them removed from power in Congress in 2006. In truth, the Republican Party lost far fewer seats in the sixth year of a President's term than average. Still, the rebuke was deserved and necessary.
He laid out some of his economic policies that will help revitalize the economy while drawing a distinction between himself and Barack Obama. He could have gone farther. However, cutting the corporate tax is an absolute necessity to keeping jobs in America, so at least he mentioned it.
He mentioned his energy plan, which basically amounts to doing everything possible to create more energy here in America. Also necessary, but also a little lacking in specifics.
He talked about education reform, which is important. Juan Williams of NPR was very supportive of him calling it the civil rights issue of the 21st Century. And McCain was right - what good is equal access to schools if the schools aren't any good. Don't get me wrong, I don't think schools or teachers are entirely to blame. But there are a lot of poor ones of each.
He talked a lot about foreign policy and keeping America safe. For a lot of Americans, this is still the number one issue. And is is also his biggest strength.
Finally, he spoke from the heart about his own past failings, and how his time in the Hanoi Hilton convinced him to care more about his country than himself. This explained his captivity in a much different light than all of the other speakers and I found it to be quite effective (maybe even a little moving).
The speech was probably as effective as John McCain could make it. It won't be the political flash point of the convention (I didn't get any angry emails from the Obama camp last night like I did after Gov. Palin's speech the night before). But again, that's not John McCain's forte. John McCain is no Barack Obama - and that's a really good thing.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
CBS poll shows McCain has obliterated Obama's convention bounce
In a new poll, released from CBS News today, John McCain and Barack Obama are tied at 42% each.
The poll was taken over three days, from Monday, September 1 to Wednesday, September 3. This means that the effects of Gov. Sarah Palin's widely applauded speech at the Republican National Convention are largely excluded.
Interestingly enough, CBS News conducted a poll from Thursday to Saturday, which included feedback from the Democratic National Convention and a bit of the Sarah Palin announcement - the results showed Obama up by 8 points.
But now, that lead is completely gone. The answer cannot be completely due to the Republican Convention, which was largely a fundraiser on Monday and which will not conclude until Thursday.
Perhaps the public is reacting to the media treatment of Sarah Palin. Perhaps they liked Republican efforts to reach out to the Gulf Coast instead of continuing with politics as usual. Perhaps they liked what Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman had to say at the convention Wednesday night. Some of it must have been reaction to Rudy Guiliani and Gov. Palin on Wednesday.
We'll see what happens after McCain's speech tonight and how people react in the next couple of days. In addition, polls released later this week will fully reflect reaction to Gov. Palin's speech.
Finally, in the interest of full disclosure - polls released yesterday by Rassmussen and Gallup show only that McCain has reduced Obama's lead by one point. We'll see what those polls show in the next few days before fulling knowing the impact of the Republican Convention and Palin's coming-out party.
The poll was taken over three days, from Monday, September 1 to Wednesday, September 3. This means that the effects of Gov. Sarah Palin's widely applauded speech at the Republican National Convention are largely excluded.
Interestingly enough, CBS News conducted a poll from Thursday to Saturday, which included feedback from the Democratic National Convention and a bit of the Sarah Palin announcement - the results showed Obama up by 8 points.
But now, that lead is completely gone. The answer cannot be completely due to the Republican Convention, which was largely a fundraiser on Monday and which will not conclude until Thursday.
Perhaps the public is reacting to the media treatment of Sarah Palin. Perhaps they liked Republican efforts to reach out to the Gulf Coast instead of continuing with politics as usual. Perhaps they liked what Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman had to say at the convention Wednesday night. Some of it must have been reaction to Rudy Guiliani and Gov. Palin on Wednesday.
We'll see what happens after McCain's speech tonight and how people react in the next couple of days. In addition, polls released later this week will fully reflect reaction to Gov. Palin's speech.
Finally, in the interest of full disclosure - polls released yesterday by Rassmussen and Gallup show only that McCain has reduced Obama's lead by one point. We'll see what those polls show in the next few days before fulling knowing the impact of the Republican Convention and Palin's coming-out party.
Obama Mischaracterizes (or Misunderstands) the Abortion Debate
In a new campaign ad (I will post an image when I can find one online), Barack Obama claimed that John McCain, if elected President, will abolish abortion.
Now, I know Obama went to a pretty good law school; and I know he taught "Constitutional Law" at a different pretty good law school. So either, he wasn't paying attention, or he thinks the general public is uninformed enough to not know that the President cannot abolish abortion. The Supreme Court has said that a woman has a fundamental, Constitutional right to have an abortion free from government interference. A President has no power to undo the decision in Roe v. Wade or subsequent Supreme Court rulings. So, either Obama doesn't know what he is talking about, or he thinks he can trick the American people into believing something that is simply not true.
At most, John McCain will appoint Supreme Court justices that would be inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade. I think he is more likely to appoint justices like O'Connor and Kennedy then Scalia and (Obama's main man) Thomas. We'll see. Regardless, if the Supreme Court does overturn Roe v. Wade, that does not mean abortion will be illegal. It only means that the government can make abortion illegal.
In all likelihood, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, states will once again be allowed to set their own abortion laws. Some states will outlaw abortion, some states will limit abortion, some states will continue to make abortion legal. Some states will make abortion illegal, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court of that state which will hold that, while the Federal Constitution does not include a fundamental right to an abortion, the state Constitution does (a la gay marriage in California).
The pro-choice argument is basically a straw man. Don't elect a pro-life President because they will make abortion illegal. It's not possible. It won't happen. There will always be abortion. Some states will allow it. It's not going away. However, states should have the right to make it illegal or limit it if they choose. That is the very essence of the federal system on which this country was founded.
It's really the liberals who want to take away the right to choose - they want to (and have successfully) take away the right of states to choose how to deal with the abortion issue. But contrary to Obama's statement, electing John McCain will not lead to the abolition of abortion in America. It's not possible.
Now, I know Obama went to a pretty good law school; and I know he taught "Constitutional Law" at a different pretty good law school. So either, he wasn't paying attention, or he thinks the general public is uninformed enough to not know that the President cannot abolish abortion. The Supreme Court has said that a woman has a fundamental, Constitutional right to have an abortion free from government interference. A President has no power to undo the decision in Roe v. Wade or subsequent Supreme Court rulings. So, either Obama doesn't know what he is talking about, or he thinks he can trick the American people into believing something that is simply not true.
At most, John McCain will appoint Supreme Court justices that would be inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade. I think he is more likely to appoint justices like O'Connor and Kennedy then Scalia and (Obama's main man) Thomas. We'll see. Regardless, if the Supreme Court does overturn Roe v. Wade, that does not mean abortion will be illegal. It only means that the government can make abortion illegal.
In all likelihood, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, states will once again be allowed to set their own abortion laws. Some states will outlaw abortion, some states will limit abortion, some states will continue to make abortion legal. Some states will make abortion illegal, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court of that state which will hold that, while the Federal Constitution does not include a fundamental right to an abortion, the state Constitution does (a la gay marriage in California).
The pro-choice argument is basically a straw man. Don't elect a pro-life President because they will make abortion illegal. It's not possible. It won't happen. There will always be abortion. Some states will allow it. It's not going away. However, states should have the right to make it illegal or limit it if they choose. That is the very essence of the federal system on which this country was founded.
It's really the liberals who want to take away the right to choose - they want to (and have successfully) take away the right of states to choose how to deal with the abortion issue. But contrary to Obama's statement, electing John McCain will not lead to the abolition of abortion in America. It's not possible.
Sarah's Smackdown
Gov. Sarah Palin went off on Barack Obama at the Republican National Convention last night.
She openly mocked several ridiculous statements he and his wife have made. The question is whether the average voter was aware of his initial statements and therefore whether her contrast to them will be fully understood.
So far, liberals question whether she was too sarcastic. She was pretty harsh in some of her statements. But this kind of honest and direct rebuff of Obama might be welcome to a lot of voters who just want their politicians to say what they think. Palin certainly showed how she felt about Obama and his view of the country. Remember, he is the one who said people in small towns bitterly cling to guns, religion and mistrust for people who are different. He is the one who indicated he could make the ocean stop rising and heal the environment (megalomaniac?). Michelle is the one who said she has not been proud of her country before. Palin merely showed how little she agrees with statements like that. By showing in sharp contrast her view of the country, and how she believes the typical American views this country, it makes one wonder how anyone could ever have supported a candidate who says and believes such rediculous things about the average American and this country.
Liberals also claim, falsely, that Palin and Rudy Guiliana were mocking community organizers. This is simply not true. They might have mocked being a community organizer as sufficient experience for being President - and this is probably a deserved criticism. Moreover, the Obama campaign specifically mocked Gov. Palin for being "the former mayor of a town of 6,900 people." It was these remarks that Palin and Guiliana were referring to. If the former mayor of a small town is not fit to be President, then a former "community organizer" is even less fit to be so.
One other criticism I have seen comes from Eve Fairbanks at The New Republic, who finds fault with Palin identifying herself even more closely with small-town people. Her position is that the criticism of Palin comes from the fact that she was the mayor of a small town and Governor of state with a small population. However, the liberal elitists continue to miss the point that America is made up of small towns and voters in those areas might be very happy to see that someone just like them is running for the second highest job in the country. Remarkably, Chris Matthews on MSNBC hit it right on the head when he noted that the speech was not aimed at women or Hillary supporters, but instead of blue collar voters that Obama has had a hard time appealing to. Ms. Fairbanks missed this point and in fact, Palin speech might just have been a home run (or maybe hat trick is more appropriate) with that key demographic.
Edit: Both Obama's campaign manager (in an email to supporters) and Gloria Steinem (in a piece for the LA Times) have claimed Palin's speech included deception and lies. However, neither pointed to anything deceptive or untrue. Maybe they didn't like it because it hit a little too close to the truth?
She openly mocked several ridiculous statements he and his wife have made. The question is whether the average voter was aware of his initial statements and therefore whether her contrast to them will be fully understood.
So far, liberals question whether she was too sarcastic. She was pretty harsh in some of her statements. But this kind of honest and direct rebuff of Obama might be welcome to a lot of voters who just want their politicians to say what they think. Palin certainly showed how she felt about Obama and his view of the country. Remember, he is the one who said people in small towns bitterly cling to guns, religion and mistrust for people who are different. He is the one who indicated he could make the ocean stop rising and heal the environment (megalomaniac?). Michelle is the one who said she has not been proud of her country before. Palin merely showed how little she agrees with statements like that. By showing in sharp contrast her view of the country, and how she believes the typical American views this country, it makes one wonder how anyone could ever have supported a candidate who says and believes such rediculous things about the average American and this country.
Liberals also claim, falsely, that Palin and Rudy Guiliana were mocking community organizers. This is simply not true. They might have mocked being a community organizer as sufficient experience for being President - and this is probably a deserved criticism. Moreover, the Obama campaign specifically mocked Gov. Palin for being "the former mayor of a town of 6,900 people." It was these remarks that Palin and Guiliana were referring to. If the former mayor of a small town is not fit to be President, then a former "community organizer" is even less fit to be so.
One other criticism I have seen comes from Eve Fairbanks at The New Republic, who finds fault with Palin identifying herself even more closely with small-town people. Her position is that the criticism of Palin comes from the fact that she was the mayor of a small town and Governor of state with a small population. However, the liberal elitists continue to miss the point that America is made up of small towns and voters in those areas might be very happy to see that someone just like them is running for the second highest job in the country. Remarkably, Chris Matthews on MSNBC hit it right on the head when he noted that the speech was not aimed at women or Hillary supporters, but instead of blue collar voters that Obama has had a hard time appealing to. Ms. Fairbanks missed this point and in fact, Palin speech might just have been a home run (or maybe hat trick is more appropriate) with that key demographic.
Edit: Both Obama's campaign manager (in an email to supporters) and Gloria Steinem (in a piece for the LA Times) have claimed Palin's speech included deception and lies. However, neither pointed to anything deceptive or untrue. Maybe they didn't like it because it hit a little too close to the truth?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Obama Campaign Objects to "Extremism"
Here is some of the text of an email Obama's campaign manager just sent to supporters:
Friend -- In the next 36 hours, the McCain campaign will be pouring millions of dollars -- if not tens of millions -- into negative attack ads against Barack Obama. Just yesterday, they aired a new negative ad in 14 swing states. He doesn't want Americans to notice that the Republican platform is the most extreme we've ever seen -- opposing stem cell research, denying a woman's right to choose no matter what the circumstance, and continuing to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq. With so much at stake, we can't allow another election to be determined by petty and divisive political tactics. Make a donation of $5 or more to fight back against an
unprecedented week of negativity from John McCain.The McCain campaign is trying to distract voters from the real issues -- so we're going to focus on what they're trying to hide. They've come out against the life-saving possibilities of stem cell research. They don't even mention protecting equal
pay for equal work. They support huge tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. They've almost completely ignored the $10 billion we're spending every month in Iraq. And they make zero exceptions for a woman's right to choose -- even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. If that all sounds like more of the same, that's because it is. John McCain is offering a third term of the disastrous Bush agenda, so it's no wonder his campaign would choose to focus on attacks instead of issues.Thank you for all you do,
David David PlouffeCampaign ManagerObama for America
First, Obama complains about "attacks" from the McCain campain while the mainstream media, liberal bloggers and Obama surrogates rake Sarh Palin over the coals for something her daughter did.
More importantly, Obama has the gall to object to the Republican platform as too extreme.
He points to lack of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, forgetting this has been the stance of the federal government for years and ignoring the groundbreaking research into adult stem cells, skin cells and cell reprogramming.
Astonishingly, Obama then objects to the Republican stand against abortion in all cases, suggesting that if the Republican plank in the platform allowed for exceptions in the cases of rape and incest, he would have no problem with it. This from the man who voted against a bill that would require protection for babies born during failed abortion attempts.
What could possible be more extreme than that?
Lieberman Reaction Exposes Liberal Hypocracy
Here's a picture of Senator Joe Lieberman I found on a liberal website today. Message board posters on all sorts of websites are calling him 'Lie'berman, calling him a traitor, calling him a neo-con, calling him "Benedict Joseph." Liberal journalists have widely disparaged him for speaking at the Republican National Convention last night. Strangely enough, John Nichols at The Nation seemed to mock Republicans for applauding him when he only agrees with them on one issue - Iraq.
The amazing thing to me is that Democrats spew vitriolic hate against him when he only disagrees with them on one issue. He is a pretty standard liberal on most issues - abortion, health care, taxes, welfare, education, gun control, environmental protection, gay rights and social security. He only breaks with the party on the single issue of protecting our country from Islamic jihad. And for that, he is a pariah.
There is a petition going around to remove him from his committee positions in the Senate. Supposedly it has 52,000 signatures. Liberals are telling him to get lost - they don't want him, they don't need him (they must forget that for the time being, they need him to keep a razor-thin majority in the Senate).
Incredibly, Democrats were so incensed that he supported the war in Iraq, the party nominated someone else for his Senate seat in 2006. But then Sen. Lieberman ran as an Independent and beat Ned Lamont in the general election. He remained committed to the Democratic Party, caucusing with them and enabling them keep a 51-49 majority. Even after the party turned its back on him, he remained committed to the liberal cause and stuck by the Democratic Party.
But liberals don't care about that. Their reaction to him shows just how irrational they are. The Democratic party is the party of progressiveness and inclusiveness - but only if you agree with them. And I don't mean agree with them for the most part, or on a majority of things. You had better agree with them on every single issue. If you don't, if you deviate in any way, they want nothing to do with you. Democrats are only inclusive if you are already one of them. If not, they will slit your throat.
Joe Lieberman is a good and principled man. Do I agree with most of his principals? Not at all. Would I vote for him for President? Probably not. Would I support him for Vice President? Probably not. But, do I applaud him for standing up for what he believes to be right, and voicing unwavering support for our national security in the face of his own party's betrayal? Absolutely. If the Democratic Party had more Joe Liebermans, Washington D.C. would be a heck of a lot less partisan and the entire country would benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
