Here is an Obama ad telling everyone to take the entire day off to vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UFzkO5OhKY
Wait, isn't this the campaign that has people rounding up the homeless and driving them to the voting booths? No pan-handling for you today!
But seriously, how long does it take to vote? Is there really a need to encourage Obama supporters to be LESS productive in today's economy? I guess the average Obama voter is going into the booth with $$$ in their eyes anyway. Why not take the day off? Pretty soon The Chosen One will be giving you checks filled with other people's money!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Must Read
As I said a couple of posts back, I honestly believe that if the mainstream media had even a shred of integrity, this election would be over for Barack Obama. In fact, we would currently be choosing between Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. Whatever their motives, the members of the media are absolutely determined to get Barack Obama elected. His credentials simply do not merit the admiration and support he has received from the left. I'll say it again: He's good at speaking and winning elections. But in my mind he has proven himself grossly under-qualified for the position he seeks.
For those of you who read Drudge, you've probably already seen this piece. If you haven't read it, please do. This is a fantastic piece, titled Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?, and it takes the media to task for its unabashed bias. It is very well written, and directly on point. On top of that, it is a quick read, so do it!
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
For those of you who read Drudge, you've probably already seen this piece. If you haven't read it, please do. This is a fantastic piece, titled Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?, and it takes the media to task for its unabashed bias. It is very well written, and directly on point. On top of that, it is a quick read, so do it!
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
Obama's Political Philosophies
Below is a link to an article written by one of the few people who is actually trying to find out what Obama's political core really is.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=&w=MA
Also, looks like academia is coming to the defense of Bill Ayers. They say that all that terrorism stuff is just in the past. Unfortunately, it was actually quite recently that Ayers said that he did not regret what he did, and wishes he would have done more. This is a man who helped found the Weather Underground, and bombed government buildings. Targets included the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and building used bythe NYPD. The Weather Underground also conducted armed robberies to finance their attacks, including bank robberies. Americans were killed.
If someone like that was "a guy in my neighborhood," I'd seriously consider moving. If I were on a board with someone like that, I'd resign. If someone like that offered me a job heading up one of his foundations, I'd turn it down. If someone like that hosted a political fundraiser for me, not only would I not attend, but I would publicly denounce any association with that person as strongly as possible and examine my own positions to figure out why in the world I was attracting the support of someone like that in the first place. None of this seems to trouble Barack Obama, except to the extent it is a political liability. Perhaps that is because to Obama, Ayers doesn't seem all that radical.
Here is a petition signed by over 3,000 academics supporting Ayers:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/
A couple of my favorite names on the list:
- Ward Churchill, the man who pretended to be native american, and who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns."
- Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian activist, and former Director of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's press agency in 1982, when the PLO was designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.
By the way, Khalidi is another one of Obama's old friends that the media doesn't seem to care about. Obama likes to defend his friendships by pointing out that they aren't involved in his campaign or advising him on policy. You don't need them to advise you if you already share their views. I'm not saying that's the case in all circumstances, I'm just saying that nobody has bothered to ask or find out.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=&w=MA
Also, looks like academia is coming to the defense of Bill Ayers. They say that all that terrorism stuff is just in the past. Unfortunately, it was actually quite recently that Ayers said that he did not regret what he did, and wishes he would have done more. This is a man who helped found the Weather Underground, and bombed government buildings. Targets included the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and building used bythe NYPD. The Weather Underground also conducted armed robberies to finance their attacks, including bank robberies. Americans were killed.
If someone like that was "a guy in my neighborhood," I'd seriously consider moving. If I were on a board with someone like that, I'd resign. If someone like that offered me a job heading up one of his foundations, I'd turn it down. If someone like that hosted a political fundraiser for me, not only would I not attend, but I would publicly denounce any association with that person as strongly as possible and examine my own positions to figure out why in the world I was attracting the support of someone like that in the first place. None of this seems to trouble Barack Obama, except to the extent it is a political liability. Perhaps that is because to Obama, Ayers doesn't seem all that radical.
Here is a petition signed by over 3,000 academics supporting Ayers:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/
A couple of my favorite names on the list:
- Ward Churchill, the man who pretended to be native american, and who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns."
- Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian activist, and former Director of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's press agency in 1982, when the PLO was designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.
By the way, Khalidi is another one of Obama's old friends that the media doesn't seem to care about. Obama likes to defend his friendships by pointing out that they aren't involved in his campaign or advising him on policy. You don't need them to advise you if you already share their views. I'm not saying that's the case in all circumstances, I'm just saying that nobody has bothered to ask or find out.
Absolutely Disgraceful
(Please excuse any typos not caught by the spell checker, as I am in a huge hurry to write this)
I have never seen anything like the bias the media has for Obama and Biden, and against McCain and Palin. In fact, "bias" doesn't even begin to describe what is happening in this election. I've now passed the point of "had it" and am flat-out furious.
When in American history has there been a candidate for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that the country knows so little about? It is not even conceivable to me that the media would have absolutely no interest in finding out who this man is, nor do they have any interest in reporting anything that could be considered negative about either man on the DNC ticket.
Take Biden, for example. Anyone remember his quote about a "three letter word" called J-O-B-S? You may not, because the media didn't seem interested. Certainly, it is not a big deal. But compare that to the treatment given to Palin. Think back to Dan Quayle, who failed to catch a misspelling on the card he was given and repeated it on camera.
What about Biden's grave warning that electing Obama will bring an international crisis within 6 months designed to test the young President? Obama is now trying to spin Biden's comment to mean that either president will face a crisis in the next 6 months. But that's not at all what Biden said. Go back and read the quote. Biden said, among other things: (1) the world will try to test him because he is young (and it is inferred lacks experience), (2) America will have to back Obama because it won't be immediately clear that he has done the right thing in response. I don't know what Biden knows, but that sounds a little strange to me. The world will test Obama because he appears inexperienced and weak, and you'll just have to trust us, because it will appear that we are screwing up the response. Um, OK.
There is so much more, but I only have so much time. Instead, we are talking about the fact that Palin needed new clothes. Of course she needed new clothes! She was suddenly running as the VP of the United States. You think a self-made woman from a small town in Alaska has a wardrobe set aside for that? Can we please find out how much Michelle Obama's clothes cost? How about Hillary? I heard Rush Limbaugh today make a good point as I was picking up some food. A famous designer (don't remember the name), who designed Hillary's pant-suits was shocked that the Palin has to pay for her clothes ... Hillary got them for free. Each pant-suit carries a price tag of well over $6,000, by the way.
One more thing. If anyone did not see the hit-piece (sorry, I mean article) in the NYT about Cindy McCain, you should take a look. Tell me if you aren't depressed and feeling sorry for that poor wretched woman when you're done. Now, go read some of the articles the NYT has written about Michelle Obama. I did a search and found a few. You'll note that the articles linked below (one for Cindy, one for Michelle) actually have a common author. From what I understand, Cindy McCain has spent a great deal of time and money doing good things. But apparently the NYT couldn't find anything nice to say about her. The piece on Cindy McCain was nothing more than an attempt to hurt McCain in the polls and in November (very well-timed, I might add), and it is absolutely despicable.
Cindy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?scp=3&sq=CINDY%20MCCAIN&st=cse
Michelle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/politics/18michelle.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&sq=michelle%20obama&st=cse&scp=4&oref=slogin
I challenge anyone to take a fair look at the election coverage and make a case (go ahead, in a comment) that it has even been anywhere close to the more moderate level of bias we have seen in the past. Even the media doesn't pretend any more. Palin got the CNN reporter who interviewed her the other night to admit it. Dan Rather, who knows quite a bit about media bias, is even admitting it.
The problem is, it will literally make a difference in who the people elect next month. It's one thing for the people to make a decision. It is quite another thing for the people to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, we not only have an uninformed public, but one that has been spoon-fed pure propoganda by a media that is abloultely intent on electing Barack Obama. All you former Hillary supporters should be with me on this. They did it to her too.
I have never seen anything like the bias the media has for Obama and Biden, and against McCain and Palin. In fact, "bias" doesn't even begin to describe what is happening in this election. I've now passed the point of "had it" and am flat-out furious.
When in American history has there been a candidate for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that the country knows so little about? It is not even conceivable to me that the media would have absolutely no interest in finding out who this man is, nor do they have any interest in reporting anything that could be considered negative about either man on the DNC ticket.
Take Biden, for example. Anyone remember his quote about a "three letter word" called J-O-B-S? You may not, because the media didn't seem interested. Certainly, it is not a big deal. But compare that to the treatment given to Palin. Think back to Dan Quayle, who failed to catch a misspelling on the card he was given and repeated it on camera.
What about Biden's grave warning that electing Obama will bring an international crisis within 6 months designed to test the young President? Obama is now trying to spin Biden's comment to mean that either president will face a crisis in the next 6 months. But that's not at all what Biden said. Go back and read the quote. Biden said, among other things: (1) the world will try to test him because he is young (and it is inferred lacks experience), (2) America will have to back Obama because it won't be immediately clear that he has done the right thing in response. I don't know what Biden knows, but that sounds a little strange to me. The world will test Obama because he appears inexperienced and weak, and you'll just have to trust us, because it will appear that we are screwing up the response. Um, OK.
There is so much more, but I only have so much time. Instead, we are talking about the fact that Palin needed new clothes. Of course she needed new clothes! She was suddenly running as the VP of the United States. You think a self-made woman from a small town in Alaska has a wardrobe set aside for that? Can we please find out how much Michelle Obama's clothes cost? How about Hillary? I heard Rush Limbaugh today make a good point as I was picking up some food. A famous designer (don't remember the name), who designed Hillary's pant-suits was shocked that the Palin has to pay for her clothes ... Hillary got them for free. Each pant-suit carries a price tag of well over $6,000, by the way.
One more thing. If anyone did not see the hit-piece (sorry, I mean article) in the NYT about Cindy McCain, you should take a look. Tell me if you aren't depressed and feeling sorry for that poor wretched woman when you're done. Now, go read some of the articles the NYT has written about Michelle Obama. I did a search and found a few. You'll note that the articles linked below (one for Cindy, one for Michelle) actually have a common author. From what I understand, Cindy McCain has spent a great deal of time and money doing good things. But apparently the NYT couldn't find anything nice to say about her. The piece on Cindy McCain was nothing more than an attempt to hurt McCain in the polls and in November (very well-timed, I might add), and it is absolutely despicable.
Cindy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?scp=3&sq=CINDY%20MCCAIN&st=cse
Michelle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/politics/18michelle.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&sq=michelle%20obama&st=cse&scp=4&oref=slogin
I challenge anyone to take a fair look at the election coverage and make a case (go ahead, in a comment) that it has even been anywhere close to the more moderate level of bias we have seen in the past. Even the media doesn't pretend any more. Palin got the CNN reporter who interviewed her the other night to admit it. Dan Rather, who knows quite a bit about media bias, is even admitting it.
The problem is, it will literally make a difference in who the people elect next month. It's one thing for the people to make a decision. It is quite another thing for the people to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, we not only have an uninformed public, but one that has been spoon-fed pure propoganda by a media that is abloultely intent on electing Barack Obama. All you former Hillary supporters should be with me on this. They did it to her too.
Monday, October 20, 2008
30 Ways to Leave Your Lover -- 30 Years if You Kill and Eat Him
Apparently if you live in the UK and you want to kill your gay lover and then eat him, you only get slapped with 30 years in prison. That just doesn't seem adequate punishment, in my book. The judge called it "one of the most gruesome murders" he'd ever seen. So you give the guy 30 years??? Hey, I've got an idea. How about if you decide to kill people and eat them you never see the light of day again?
Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441022,00.html
Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441022,00.html
Who's More Important: William Ayers or Joe the Plumber?
I've officially had it with the media. I believe that if all you watch is the mainstream media, you now know far more about Joe the Plumber than William Ayers, the original Timothy McVeigh. Honestly, it boggles the mind how the media can be so uninterested in digging into Obama's past associations. Yes, it matters, and yes, it is "fair game." With Barack Obama, we don't have the luxury of a political record to look at. He's been running for President for the majority of the time he's been in the U.S. Senate. As a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" 130 times. Way to take a stand on tough issues! We also don't have list of accomplishments on which we can base his qualifications. Apparently he is good at speaking and winning campaigns. The only executive experience he has comes from a job given to him by ... William Ayers. The character and moral compass of a candidate for President matters.
So, Mr. Obama:
If you decide to attend a church for decades in which the minister spews anti-American hatred, it matters. Don't pretend you didn't know. Disavowing the messages only after it became a political liability isn't taking a stand, and isn't a display of (good) moral character.
If your political career was launched in the home of a terrorist and Marxist, it matters. If you happen to also have many other dealings with that person, that matters too. Don't lie to the American people and tell us he's "just a guy in my neighborhood." If the media had any integrity, you'd be finished as a candidate.
If you got a sweetheart deal on the purchase of your home from a now-convicted felon, it matters. You called it a "bone-headed move." I call it corruption and lack of moral foundation.
But thanks, media, because what I REALLY want people to know about is whether Joe the Plumber has a current plumbing license. The fact is, it doesn't matter one bit who Joe the Plumber is. It doesn't matter if Joe the plumber is actually a millionaire who happened to be wearing his pants too low (and was thus mistaken for a plumber), or a homeless guy who doesn't make use of indoor plumbing. What matters is the question posed and the answer given. Joe asked a question directly relevant to what we call "the American Dream." Working hard to advance your station in life. What happens, Mr. Obama to those of us doing that? The answer? As soon as you reach a point, determined by Obama, and no doubt subject to change, where you are "rich," he's going to go ahead and start evening things out. Obama's going to take what you've earned, and pass it to someone else.
Long ago, Marx adopted a popular socialist slogan: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Sounds a little like Obama's idea to spread the wealth around. But hey, it probably doesn't matter much whether Obama's past associations hint at an affinity to Marxist philosophy, right? Tell me more about Joe the Plumber!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Do Or Die Time For McCain
Hope everyone tunes in for the debate tonight. This one is crucial for McCain, as he has steadily been losing ground since the Palin bubble burst and the economy took off South-bound.
The reality is, when the economy goes, the party in power will suffer at the polls. Doesn't matter whether Obama's economic plans will help of hurt more than McCain's. The majority of the voting public won't think about it deeply enough. Therefore, McCain needs to do his best to articulate why his economic policies are vital to strengthen the economy, and why Obama's policies will only cause further problems.
As for Obama, all he really needs to do it play it safe again tonight, like the last debate. Just keep giving the stump speech talking points, and don't go into specifics.
Personally, I am now doubtful that McCain can pull it off in this election. He really needs an all-star performance from here on out, starting with tonight. Even then, it will be an uphill climb.
Remember, a lot of people like Obama's philosophy of, "I don't want to punish your success, I just want to spread the wealth around." The down-side is that it isn't very American, but who's keeping track?
I have no problem with "wealth-spreading," I just think it should be more up to the people with the wealth to make that determination, not the government. Note, I'm not talking about taxing for legitimate services that government should be providing, I'm talking about massive wealth re-distribution and welfare disguised as "tax credits."
The reality is, when the economy goes, the party in power will suffer at the polls. Doesn't matter whether Obama's economic plans will help of hurt more than McCain's. The majority of the voting public won't think about it deeply enough. Therefore, McCain needs to do his best to articulate why his economic policies are vital to strengthen the economy, and why Obama's policies will only cause further problems.
As for Obama, all he really needs to do it play it safe again tonight, like the last debate. Just keep giving the stump speech talking points, and don't go into specifics.
Personally, I am now doubtful that McCain can pull it off in this election. He really needs an all-star performance from here on out, starting with tonight. Even then, it will be an uphill climb.
Remember, a lot of people like Obama's philosophy of, "I don't want to punish your success, I just want to spread the wealth around." The down-side is that it isn't very American, but who's keeping track?
I have no problem with "wealth-spreading," I just think it should be more up to the people with the wealth to make that determination, not the government. Note, I'm not talking about taxing for legitimate services that government should be providing, I'm talking about massive wealth re-distribution and welfare disguised as "tax credits."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Browns 35, Giants 14. Take That (Previously) Undefeated Returning Super Bowl Chumps!
Great night for football last night. My wife was kind enough to Tivo the game for me so I could watch when I got home. I was able to watch the game in a little over an hour and get to bed by 12:30! It's great to cut out all the commercials and time outs.
And what a game it was. Cleveland pounded New York into submission and sent Eli Manning home crying for his mother. Last night we finally saw the team Cleveland was expected to be this year. Let's hope they can build on a great win and have far fewer penalties next week!
Oh yeah. Go McCain, beat Obama.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
So Which VP Candidate Knows What Job He/She Is Applying For?
Here's an interesting article about who was closer in answering the question about the role of the Vice President. I should have discussed this after the VP debate, during which I was yelling at Biden for not having a clue on this one. The sad reality is, either noone caught it, or they just didn't care to report it. I especially like the comparison to Dan Quayle and his spelling. Let's face it, the media has quite a bit of influence in public perception of a candidate. As I said before, I was excited when Biden was picked because I know the guy is a gaffe-a-minute. But if nobody reports it, does it really matter? I guess when you are Obama, you can take that risk, and it is paying off. No way the media is going to challenge you on it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html
By the way, after yesterday's article about ACORN, I hope you are paying attention to all the news about voter fraud. Scary stuff. In Ohio, ACORN collected 100,000 registration cards. Judging by the reports of potential fraud, the number of fakes in there could easily be enough to win a closely contested state. Even more scary, many of the states in which the fraud has gotten so bad that investigations are underway are key battleground states. Here's an interesting story:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092008/news/politics/nuts__132771.htm
Hope and Change! No wonder Obama is so confident when he says, "Yes we can." Apparently it's already in the bag.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html
By the way, after yesterday's article about ACORN, I hope you are paying attention to all the news about voter fraud. Scary stuff. In Ohio, ACORN collected 100,000 registration cards. Judging by the reports of potential fraud, the number of fakes in there could easily be enough to win a closely contested state. Even more scary, many of the states in which the fraud has gotten so bad that investigations are underway are key battleground states. Here's an interesting story:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092008/news/politics/nuts__132771.htm
Hope and Change! No wonder Obama is so confident when he says, "Yes we can." Apparently it's already in the bag.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
O-Boring and McLame Snooze Fest
Still not sure how I feel about last night's debate? I thought it was a complete waste of time. I could have just gone back and re-watched the first one. Sure, there were a few new things brought up. For example, McCain wants the Treasury Secretary to buy everyone's mortgage and lower the amount of their loan. Wait, sorry, not everyone. Not you guys that have actually been paying your mortgages. We also learned that somewhere in the Constitution, according to Obama, everyone has the right to health care. Not the right to access to purchase care, to work hard to pay for care, or the right to seek jobs with employers who will provide that care for you, but the right to have your neighbor buy it for you. There is a strong trend toward defining new rights these days. Notice that back in the good old days, when the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written, "rights" were generally rights to act for your own benefit. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But you don't have a right to have someone else pay for your pursuit. The idea is that you shouldn't be prevented from seeking these things. The idea wasn't that you had a right to take someone else's property to further your "right to life," for example. I know that isn't a very popular message, which is why McCain didn't hammer Obama on it. People would much rather hear that someone else is going to be compelled to take care of them. I understand that there are those who need assistance, and I believe that there are programs in place to help them. If the programs aren't working fix them. Don't nationalize the health care industry. I don't want the government in charge of my health care decisions. Take a look at the countries who have tried it.
I also learned that even this close to the election, McCain is not willing to take the gloves off and tell people who Obama is. The problem is, there is noone else willing to do that job either. The media is somehow completely uninterested. Obama certainly isn't going to do it. So who will?
In general, I think the "debate" format in this country is deplorable. Ask a question about a problem, then give the politician 2 minutes to answer, at least 1 minute of which is spent telling everyone that the problem you've just enunciated is, in fact, a problem. The remaining 30-60 seconds is spent assuring the people that that candidate is going to do something about said problem. Want to know how? Sorry, time's up. I almost forgot, last night we had the benefit of an additional 1 minute for discussion between the candidates. ONE MINUTE. We have some serious problems in this country right now, and we are given the benefit of hearing the candidates talk for 3 minutes, none of which is substantive. We may as well just have the candidates pre-record their soundbites and then hit a button to play whichever one they intend to use to answer the question.
Here's an idea: pick a topic for the debate, and stick to it. Have as many debates as there are important topics. Then provide a format where the candidates actually have to set forth their ideas, plans, arguments for at least 20 minutes. Then allow the other candidate to pick the other's presentation apart and ask questions directly to the other candidate. Make them respond. Give us some substance. In other words ... make them debate. I don't want candidates to be able to just throw anything out there as "fact" and not allow the other guy to meaningfully challenge it. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I want these guys to have to back it up. That's what I have to do when I'm making an argument. Unfortunately, if debates were run my way, the American people would probably not watch. You'd have people switching over to catch up on "American Idol" or "The Hills" within the first 10 minutes. Yes, I'm ridiculing those of you who would choose either of those (or comparable) shows over by my proposed debate format.
A few things that McCain didn't have the guts to say:
1. Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Newsflash. Almost 50% of those people don't actually carry any federal income tax burden. So how will he cut taxes? Most likely in the form of "refundable tax credits," which means that regardless of whether you paid anything in the first place, you are going to "get money back." That's income re-distribution. Not exactly what the founders had in mind.
2. What is the total dollar amount it will cost for Obama to pay for all the programs he is promising? Does he really think he can do it through tax increases on rich people? Oh yeah, he's also going to close some yet to be disclosed loopholes. As Obama attacks the obscene rise in spending and national debt under Bush (accurate characterization, with which I completely agree), he has plans that will blow your mind ... and your wallet.
3. Don't worry, Obama doesn't want to raise your taxes, he just wants to raise your boss's taxes. Obama's rhetoric is pure class envy and class warfare. It will work, because people won't take the time to think it through. Do you really want the government to increase the amount of money it takes from your employer? What effect do you think that will have? Will you escape with no adverse consequences? What about those who are looking for a job? Do they really want all those prospective employers out there to suddenly have to send more money off to the federal government? Does that make you feel better about your job prospects? Is that really what is best for our economy right now?
In fact, it isn't. That is why Obama recently said that his tax plan may have to wait if the economy has not improved. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about his plan?
That's what I've got from the top of my head right now. I just ate a bunch of Chinese food for lunch, and it's sitting in my stomach like a rock ... sucking all the blood from my brain. I'm sure I'll think of more.
In the mean time, PLEASE read this article (all three pages) detailing an organization named ACORN's involvement in the current financial mess. Yes, the same ACORN whose Vegas offices were just raided by the FBI on suspicion of voter fraud. And you know their not signing extra people up for McCain! By the way, you'll also find that Obama has strong ties to this organization. Sorry, are we still not allowed to talk about Obama's associations?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=
I also learned that even this close to the election, McCain is not willing to take the gloves off and tell people who Obama is. The problem is, there is noone else willing to do that job either. The media is somehow completely uninterested. Obama certainly isn't going to do it. So who will?
In general, I think the "debate" format in this country is deplorable. Ask a question about a problem, then give the politician 2 minutes to answer, at least 1 minute of which is spent telling everyone that the problem you've just enunciated is, in fact, a problem. The remaining 30-60 seconds is spent assuring the people that that candidate is going to do something about said problem. Want to know how? Sorry, time's up. I almost forgot, last night we had the benefit of an additional 1 minute for discussion between the candidates. ONE MINUTE. We have some serious problems in this country right now, and we are given the benefit of hearing the candidates talk for 3 minutes, none of which is substantive. We may as well just have the candidates pre-record their soundbites and then hit a button to play whichever one they intend to use to answer the question.
Here's an idea: pick a topic for the debate, and stick to it. Have as many debates as there are important topics. Then provide a format where the candidates actually have to set forth their ideas, plans, arguments for at least 20 minutes. Then allow the other candidate to pick the other's presentation apart and ask questions directly to the other candidate. Make them respond. Give us some substance. In other words ... make them debate. I don't want candidates to be able to just throw anything out there as "fact" and not allow the other guy to meaningfully challenge it. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I want these guys to have to back it up. That's what I have to do when I'm making an argument. Unfortunately, if debates were run my way, the American people would probably not watch. You'd have people switching over to catch up on "American Idol" or "The Hills" within the first 10 minutes. Yes, I'm ridiculing those of you who would choose either of those (or comparable) shows over by my proposed debate format.
A few things that McCain didn't have the guts to say:
1. Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Newsflash. Almost 50% of those people don't actually carry any federal income tax burden. So how will he cut taxes? Most likely in the form of "refundable tax credits," which means that regardless of whether you paid anything in the first place, you are going to "get money back." That's income re-distribution. Not exactly what the founders had in mind.
2. What is the total dollar amount it will cost for Obama to pay for all the programs he is promising? Does he really think he can do it through tax increases on rich people? Oh yeah, he's also going to close some yet to be disclosed loopholes. As Obama attacks the obscene rise in spending and national debt under Bush (accurate characterization, with which I completely agree), he has plans that will blow your mind ... and your wallet.
3. Don't worry, Obama doesn't want to raise your taxes, he just wants to raise your boss's taxes. Obama's rhetoric is pure class envy and class warfare. It will work, because people won't take the time to think it through. Do you really want the government to increase the amount of money it takes from your employer? What effect do you think that will have? Will you escape with no adverse consequences? What about those who are looking for a job? Do they really want all those prospective employers out there to suddenly have to send more money off to the federal government? Does that make you feel better about your job prospects? Is that really what is best for our economy right now?
In fact, it isn't. That is why Obama recently said that his tax plan may have to wait if the economy has not improved. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about his plan?
That's what I've got from the top of my head right now. I just ate a bunch of Chinese food for lunch, and it's sitting in my stomach like a rock ... sucking all the blood from my brain. I'm sure I'll think of more.
In the mean time, PLEASE read this article (all three pages) detailing an organization named ACORN's involvement in the current financial mess. Yes, the same ACORN whose Vegas offices were just raided by the FBI on suspicion of voter fraud. And you know their not signing extra people up for McCain! By the way, you'll also find that Obama has strong ties to this organization. Sorry, are we still not allowed to talk about Obama's associations?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=
Monday, October 6, 2008
Comments
I found out that the comments were for some reason restricted. I have removed that restriction, so that anyone should be able to leave comments. In fact, I welcome them. I'm very interested in how other people think ... and whether anyone is actually reading this thing.
Post-Debate Analysis
I don't think I have every had that much anxiety while watching a debate. It was like when your child is up on stage at her dance recital, or delivering his/her first speaking part in the school play. YOu sit on the edge of your seat praying she doesn't trip or hang on every word hoping everything goes the way it is supposed to.
My quick analysis: Biden clearly won the debate, but he was supposed to. I actually think that may have been Biden's best debate performance ever. Palin held her own. Biden came across as having facts and experience (never mind that many of that weren't actually facts) and Palin came across as likable and "one of us." It was clear at times that she didn't have an answer to the question. Honestly, though, I'm getting a little tired of the word "Maverick."
One note: Lacey and I immediately burst out laughing when Biden said that people should come and "take a walk with me in my neighborhood." I know Greenville, Delaware well. I'm pretty sure that people in that town can afford to fill up their tank. Suffice it to say that Biden lives in what is referred to as "Chateau Country." I kid you not, as I drove in to work today, I spontaneously pulled into the Biden's Shell gas station of fame this morning and gassed up because I was surprised at how low gas was ($3.39 for regular). I didn't ask the guy inside if he really never filled up his car. Based on what I know of Biden's track record, I can venture a guess that the story probably isn't 100% accurate. Down on Union street (also mentioned by Biden) may be another story, but that is a far cry from Biden's neighborhood. In fact, I think we'd all rather enjoy taking a walk in Biden's neighborhood.
But I digress. The point is, I still think that McCain blew it with his VP pick. My initial fear was that once the shock value wore off, and Palin had to answer tough questions that she just wouldn't come across as being ready to be president. That may fly a little better when the top of the ticket isn't 98 years old, but McCain's no spring chicken. When you have people seriously checking the odds of survival based on the actuarial tables, you need a VP pick that looks like he/she is ready to step in and do the job. I don't think Palin gives that kind of confidence.
At this point, I feel the need to reiterate that I really like Palin. I think she's extremely capable and has done great things in Alaska. I just think the VP nod was premature. She would be great in a cabinet position. Perhaps Energy Secretary? I think she mentioned something about that during the debate .... Then she'd only be 15th in the line of succession for President.
My quick analysis: Biden clearly won the debate, but he was supposed to. I actually think that may have been Biden's best debate performance ever. Palin held her own. Biden came across as having facts and experience (never mind that many of that weren't actually facts) and Palin came across as likable and "one of us." It was clear at times that she didn't have an answer to the question. Honestly, though, I'm getting a little tired of the word "Maverick."
One note: Lacey and I immediately burst out laughing when Biden said that people should come and "take a walk with me in my neighborhood." I know Greenville, Delaware well. I'm pretty sure that people in that town can afford to fill up their tank. Suffice it to say that Biden lives in what is referred to as "Chateau Country." I kid you not, as I drove in to work today, I spontaneously pulled into the Biden's Shell gas station of fame this morning and gassed up because I was surprised at how low gas was ($3.39 for regular). I didn't ask the guy inside if he really never filled up his car. Based on what I know of Biden's track record, I can venture a guess that the story probably isn't 100% accurate. Down on Union street (also mentioned by Biden) may be another story, but that is a far cry from Biden's neighborhood. In fact, I think we'd all rather enjoy taking a walk in Biden's neighborhood.
But I digress. The point is, I still think that McCain blew it with his VP pick. My initial fear was that once the shock value wore off, and Palin had to answer tough questions that she just wouldn't come across as being ready to be president. That may fly a little better when the top of the ticket isn't 98 years old, but McCain's no spring chicken. When you have people seriously checking the odds of survival based on the actuarial tables, you need a VP pick that looks like he/she is ready to step in and do the job. I don't think Palin gives that kind of confidence.
At this point, I feel the need to reiterate that I really like Palin. I think she's extremely capable and has done great things in Alaska. I just think the VP nod was premature. She would be great in a cabinet position. Perhaps Energy Secretary? I think she mentioned something about that during the debate .... Then she'd only be 15th in the line of succession for President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
