Picking A President

Election Night - Part 5 - 11:00 hour

2008-11-04T20:01:00.001-08:00

- 11:00PM: Well, ABC just said they are projecting Barack Obama to be the winner and will be the next President of the United States. YEAH! YAHOO!!!! Great job, America! I'm so proud of this country right now!

- 11: 03PM: ABC is projecting California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii to Obama and that's how they can project Obama's win. He would have 284 with all of those wins. YEAH!

- 11:05PM: ABC also added Virginia to Obama's column. He has 297 now.

- 11:14PM: Colorado has also gone to Obama. He's over 300 at 306.

- 11:16PM: Obama has also won Florida. That's 27 more votes. He's up to 336. It's officially a rout. Maybe the Republicans will get that the rest of the country thinks that they don't get it? Thank GOD Sarah Palin can just go back to Alaska now...

- 11:18PM: John McCain is giving his concession speech right now. Thank GOD this is over... but he's being very gracious right now, as you would expect. Kudos to you John... although your crowd is being rather rude, booing him whenever he mentions Obama and Biden. I think he's been prepared for this for a while as he made this long speech rather soon after the race was decided.

- 11:36PM: Nevada has joined the parade. The total is now 341.

- 11:38PM: The only states not called so far are North Carolina, Alaska, Indiana, Missouri, and Montana. It doesn't matter. It's over. Obama won. I'm happy. :D

----------------

So there you have it everyone. Our next President will be Barack Obama. I know there are McCain supporters out there who won't be happy about this but I truly believe this was the right decision for America. So if you are scared, angry, confused, or depressed, don't be. Things are going to be good now. And if they're not, we'll vote the bum out in 4 years. ;)

CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA!

Election Night - Part 4 - 10:00 hour

2008-11-04T18:59:00.000-08:00

- 10:01PM: ABC is projecting Obama to win Iowa and McCain for Utah (no surprise). It's 207 to 135. If you add California's 55 votes, Obama would have 262. He's very close...

- 10:15PM: Obama is now leading in close races in Indiana and Virginia. Woo hoo!

- 10:28PM: Not much happening right now...

- 10:40PM: McCain gets South Dakota. That's 3 votes. He also picked up 5 votes somewhere at it's now 207 to 141. I'm guessing he got Nebraska as well. Or maybe that was adding West Virginia...

- 10:44PM: No specifics were given, but it's being reported that the Democrats will maintain control in the House of Representatives. With the expected majority to be on the Dems side in the Senate as well, this bodes very well for Obama and the Democrats. They're going to have full control for a while.

- 10:59PM: This hour is ending with not much happening...

Election Night - Part 3 - 9:00 hour

2008-11-04T18:00:00.000-08:00

- 9:00PM: Obama wins New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island. McCain gets Kansas, North Dakota, Georgia, and Wyoming. The tally is now 174 to 76 in Obama's favor. Less than 100 electoral votes to go...

- 9:13PM: Maine divides up it's Congressional votes based on who wins each precinct. Obama won all four.

- 9:14PM: Wow. Virginia is a battle. Only 30,000 votes are currently separating McCain and Obama with McCain currently leading. But there are a lot of important districts who have not reported yet that could swing things Obama's way. Stay tuned!...

- 9:18PM: Obama is still leading in Florida. That's a huge one. Lots of electoral votes to be won there.

- 9:24PM: Looking at things, ... if things keep going the way they look now and Obama wins California (almost a given), Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio ... that's 117 electoral votes. Say hello President Obama!

- 9:25PM: MSNBC just projected Obama to win Ohio. That's pretty much a given sign that he's going to win. I'm getting giddy!

- 9:26PM: It's now 195 to 76 in Obama's favor. This is turning into a runaway...

- 9:34PM: So let's look at things... right now Obama has 195 electoral votes. He's definitely going to win California, which is 55 votes, which would give him 250. That means he would only need 20 more to win the election. He's leading in Florida (28) and North Carolina (15). He's expected to do well in Oregon (7), Washington (11), Nevada (5), and Colorado (9). He has many different paths to victory... which seems almost certain now.

- 9:37PM: Obama is projected to win New Mexico, adding 10 more votes and taking him to 200, making it 200 to 90.

- 9:39PM: McCain just added a bunch of states: Texas and West Virginia. It's 200 to 124, Obama.

- 9:52PM: McCain gets Mississippi. That's 6 votes.

- 9:54PM: McCain also picked up Louisiana. 200 to 139...

- 9:59PM: Moving to the 10:00 hour...

Election Night - Part 2 - 8:00 hour

2008-11-04T17:00:00.000-08:00

- 8:00PM: OK, a bunch of projections are just coming in. Obama has won Pennsylvania (way to go!), New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Washington DC, and Illinois. McCain has won Oklahoma, Tennessee, and South Carolina. The count on ABC has changed to Obama's advantage, 102 to 34. Woo hoo! We're on our way...

- 8:03PM: Obama is currently leading in Florida, which is HUGE! He's also leading large in North Carolina. Yes!

- 8:06PM: ABC is talking about how the PA win is so big for Obama and a big disappointment for McCain. How wonderful. Thank you, Pennsylvania! I knew you wouldn't let me down!

- 8:09PM: On CNN.com, they currently have Obama up HUGE in Ohio. That's ENORMOUS. Yes!

- 8:31PM: McCain is picking up Alabama and Arkansas. Score is now 102 to 49, advantage Obama.

- 8:33PM: Elizabeth Dole has lost her Senate seat in North Carolina. Serves her right for calling her opponent "Godless".

- 8:53PM: Not much has been happening this hour... zzzzzzzzzzz....

- 8:54PM: A lot of states are closing coming up at 9:00. We should have a lot of results soon...

Election Night - Part 1 - 7:00 hour

2008-11-04T16:13:00.000-08:00

- 7:14PM: ABC is projecting Vermont for Obama and Kentucky for McCain. So far it's 8 Electoral Votes for McCain, 3 for Obama. Not a great start, but those results were expected. Hopefully things stay as they were expected.

- 7:18PM: The Democrats picked up a seat in Virginia. They are in the +1 column for Senate seats so far tonight.

- 7:22PM: Obama is down in Virginia right now, 47% to 53%. I hope it doesn't stay that way...

- 7:36PM: Obama is currently leading in the popular vote by about 100,000. Keep it going!...

- 7:54PM: McCain is projected to win South Carolina. He's up 16 to 3 right now on Obama. That's another state that's not a suprise. But come on...

Election Night Coverage

2008-11-04T16:08:00.000-08:00

I just got home from a dinner out. I'm watching Election Coverage on ABC tonight and I'll be switching around occasionally to see what's going on the on the other channels. So stay tuned! I'll try to post every hour to update things.

My final arguments... a summary of my thoughts...

2008-11-03T17:06:00.000-08:00

Here we are. One day away from selecting the 44th President of the United States of America. We've come a LOOOOOOONG way.

I started this blog two months ago. My reason: I was hearing and seeing a lot of things that concerned me that I was seeing happening in the election with regards to false statements and flat out lies. I wanted to try to do something to point out what was going on and make sure people were aware.

My intention was to point out the bad form of both sides, but the more I watched and read and researched, the more it became clear to me that the majority of the offenses were from the Republican side. I had been pretty sure I was voting for Barack Obama but seeing and hearing all of this just cemented my position and put me in the mind set that I had to try to do something to get Obama elected. I'm hoping this blog has helped somehow.

So it comes down to this. Tomorrow is Election Day. This is my last shot to try to write something compelling to convince any final undecideds that Obama is the right person for the job of President this election cycle. So that's what I'm going to try to do.

Here's my arguments:

Obama wants to lower middle-class taxes for almost everyone in the country. McCain wants to lower taxes for the most wealthy Americans. So Obama is looking out for the majority of Americans, McCain is only looking out for the wealthy minority.

Unless you are making more than $250,000 a year, and just about everyone who is reading this post does not make that much, you should want to vote for Obama. It will save you a lot of money in taxes every year.
Obama wants to setup a health care system that will help almost all Americans get coverage. He mandates coverage for children and wants to prevent health insurance companies from being able to reject applicants because of past illnesses.

McCain wants to tax employee based health care for the first time in American history. Then he wants to give a $5000 tax credit to families to buy health insurance but the average health plan costs $12000 a year. Which means if you try to buy family health insurance, you'll be responsible for covering almost $600 a month to pay for it. Can you afford that? I know I can't.

In other words, while Obama wants to lower costs and help everyone get coverage, McCain wants to make it more difficult and complicated and far more expensive.
McCain calls Obama a socialist for offering tax cuts to people, which makes no sense to me. How is providing a tax cut to working Americans socialism? Another example of how McCain just doesn't get it. This can only help the economy because it put money back in the pockets of consumers to help them spend it and help struggling businesses. Why do you think so many businesses are struggling these days? Because no one has money to spend.

McCain also says we shouldn't be raising any taxes right now, referring to Obama's plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire and allow the tax rates for the wealthiest 2% of Americans to go back to where they were before the cuts were implemented. (Although the Republicans would have you believe that Obama plans to raise everyone's taxes, which is just not true.) But then McCain's going to tax all of our health benefits for the first time in American history. Anyone see a contradiction here?
Obama wants to responsibly end the Iraq War for two reasons: 1. to focus on Afghanistan where the terrorists really are and 2. to stop spending BILLIONS of American tax dollars in Iraq and start spending them here in America! Even the Iraqis want us to plan to leave and Bush and Rice are working with them to establish a plan.

McCain has no plans to leave Iraq and has said he'd be happy to stay there for 100 years.

The war in Iraq needs to end. There is so much that we could be doing with the money being spent there to create jobs, rebuild our infrastructure, and help the people in THIS country. I do not believe Obama will just abandon the Iraqis at the end of some pre-determined date. He will do it responsibly (he has said so) and will let conditions dictate how we leave. But McCain would just have us stay there forever. Want to know why our economy sucks? Spending billions in Iraq is a major reason.
Sarah Palin.

What can I say about this woman that I haven't already?

You can read my posts about here by clicking the links below:
- http://pickingapresident.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-backstabber.html
- http://pickingapresident.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-want-to-get-back-to-original-point-of.html
- http://pickingapresident.blogspot.com/2008/10/palin-is-bad-mom.html

Those are a few of the things I've written about her. You can search through my posts if you'd like to see more details of what I think about Sarah Palin.

But what it comes down to is that Palin is not ready to be President if called upon to do so. People say they like her because she's one of us. Would you want your neighbor to be President? Do you think they'd be ready to deal with the problems our country faces and deal with international issues? Do you trust this woman to do what's best for everyone or just what she thinks based on her own super-religious views? (And that's not a knock on religion. But I believe politicians' decisions should not be based solely on religion as not everyone is religious. And too many of her views and statements are based in her religion. Ever hear of separation of church and state?)

This is a woman who could not tell you what newspapers she reads, name a Supreme Court verdict, back her running mate up by giving one example of when McCain fought for more regulation, and thinks Alaska's proximity to Russia makes her experienced in foreign affairs. She does a great job of bashing Obama but really can't tell you anything positive she and McCain would do for the country (this is all she's been doing for weeks). She also says some of the most ridiculous things you could imagine (Obama's a socialist, hangs with terrorists, etc.)

At the VP debate, she avoided half of the questions by spewing rhetoric and bringing up topics unrelated to the questions. Is this how she would deal with foreign dignitaries? What would she do when she has to deal with real problems and can't just give some talking points some campaign staffer wrote for her? She couldn't handle Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. And they wouldn't let her talk to Brian Williams for more than 10 minutes alone. For most of the campaign she avoided reporters and still has not given a press conference on the eve of Election Day. If she can't deal with reporters, how can you possibly believe she can deal with real issues, real problems?

The possibility of this woman being President (not too unrealistic given McCain's age and health history) scares me to death. She cannot be put into this position.

This is the type of person McCain picked as his first decision for a major cabinet position. Who else would he put into important cabinet positions? This shows extreme bad judgement.
For all of the talk of Obama's supposed illicit relationships, none of them have been proven to be of any substance. It's all pretty much speculation, nothing proven and nothing to show that any of these relationships have had any negative impact or influence on Obama and his mindset.

On the other hand, McCain and Palin have had many more troubling and direct connections to shady characters.
- Charles Keating was a close friend of McCain's and was convicted of defrauding investors of millions. McCain even went to bat for him to try to ward off investigators.
- Phil Gramm is McCain's close friend and economic advisor. He was directly responsible for our current economic crisis by pushing through legislation that deregulated the financial and banking industries.
- Todd Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party, an organization that wanted to secede from the United States. Sarah addressed and attended meetings for this organization on several occasions.

You can read more about both of their troubling associations here http://pickingapresident.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-lets-talk-about-mccains-staff.html and here http://pickingapresident.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-character.html.

So while Obama's supposed controversial associations are not proven to be anything more than speculation, McCain's and Palin's are proven to be much more troubling and real.
John McCain has proven himself to be erratic, indecisive, and to have poor judgement. He "suspended" his campaign to deal with the financial crisis, did nothing to help it, attended the first debate after he said he wouldn't if the financial package was not approved (which it wasn't at the time), and then never said that he was restarting his campaign. He's changed his positions several times. He's always been a de-regulator but has now been pushing for regulation of the financial industries. He's always believed in allowing businesses to fend for themselves but now wants to push through a plan to buy bad mortgages to help banks and lenders at the taxpayers expense.

(Let me talk about that last sentence for a minute. Do you understand what he wants to do here? Buy up bad mortgages, allow homeowners to refinance at current home values, and have taxpayers pay for the difference. Do you want to pay for someone else's mortgage while you are stuck paying your own mortgage at full price because you did the right thing? Read more about this here: http://pickingapresident.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccains-housing-plan-urgh.html. If you are someone who has a fixed interest rate loan and bought a house within your means as opposed to some big status symbol with a sub-prime loan, you should be outraged by this plan.)

In the meantime, Obama has been cool, calm, and collected. He's shown a steadiness and level-headedness we need right now. He's contemplative, thoughtful, and has shown a composed temperament. He's not quick to react without thinking about a problem and considering alternatives, unlike McCain, who has stated himself that he usually reacts to a problem without thinking about it. Is that the type of leadership we need? Isn't that what we've had for the past eight years?
Just look at the country right now. A sinking economy, millions losing their homes and jobs, a never ending war in Iraq where we are spending billions of dollars, unemployment rising, businesses closing or doing poorly, health care costs rising for those lucky enough to have it, poor perception of our country internationally, ... never has this country been in such doldrums. And do people really want more of this? Because the Bush Administration has governed over this mess and John McCain has voted for many of Bush's poor policies (90%, by his own words) and wants to continue them. Don't we need a change in direction instead of more of the same? Obama will give this to us the change we need.
John McCain has run an increasingly negative, vicious campaign that has incited hatred at Republican rallies and has caused more divisiveness in this country. He and Palin have spent MUCH more time bashing Obama than talking about how they are going to help people.

In the meantime, Barack Obama has been talking of nothing but how he's going to help people and bring everyone together. Don't we deserve a President who is focused on helping our country as opposed to someone who's more focused on causing dissension and issues that are not important right now?
Finally, let's talk about the candidates themselves.

John McCain is quick to anger, makes bad, rash, uninformed decisions (suspending his campaign, first he's a de-regulator, now he's a regulator, Sarah Palin), and is not focused on the issues. I look at the Republican ticket and fear for our country's and my family's future if McCain were to win the election. He'd just be more of the same of what we have now and look where we are now. And heaven forbid anything ever happen to him and we have President Palin! That boggles my mind!

Barack Obama gives me hope for this future. He's inspiring to me. He's a true leader, a uniter. He's shown great poise and eloquence throughout this whole election process. He's shown he's ready to lead our country to new heights, to new, refound respect in the world, and I look forward to our country's future if he's elected President.

So there you have it. I truly believe Barack Obama is the right candidate for our country at this time. We need someone with the vision, temperament, thoughtfulness, and care that he has at this time. He is down to earth, truly understands what the middle class is going through, and wants to help them.

I hope you'll join me in voting for Barack Obama on Tuesday and allow him to lead our country into a bright new future. He IS the change we need.

------------------------------------------

Thanks for reading this. If you've been reading the whole time, thanks again. I hope my writings have been helpful to you in making your decision for who to vote for as President. I'd love to know who's been reading and you can do so just by leaving a quick comment using the link at the bottom of this post.

Tomorrow is Election Day. I'll be doing my best to follow along with the election tomorrow night and keeping a running blog as the night unfolds. But I have a complication: Tomorrow is my wedding anniversary and I'm not sure right now how much focus on the election I'm going to be able to get away with. But I'll do my best.

In any case, I'll post SOMETHING tomorrow night with some final comments on Wednesday. I hope you'll all check in with me one final time (or two final times). I'll either be celebrating or wondering how it all went wrong and drowning in my sorrows.

Thanks.

I've been busy... again...

2008-11-02T20:02:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone.

Man, I've had ZERO time for this blog in the past few days. Between the Phillies winning the World Series, their parade, Halloween, then a wedding this past weekend, I just have not been able to post anything. And again tonight I've had no time.

BUT! Coming tomorrow night, my final thoughts and reasons to vote for Barack Obama. My personal final arguments. So look for it!

Good night...

This is where it falls apart...

2008-10-29T17:55:00.000-07:00

... for the Republicans! :D

- OK, I'm a little nervous now. Polls are showing a tightening in the race. That apparently happens as you get closer to Election Day. But I can't say that doesn't make me a little nervous.

Of course, from things I've been reading, historically, whoever has been leading in the polls at this point usually wins. God, I hope so.

I can't wait until this over.

- The blame game is starting for the Republicans.

New England's lone House Republican, Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays, is losing in his race for re-election and is saying John McCain is basically going to lose because of the campaign he has run: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/shays-takes-swipe-at-mccain/

- It looks like the Republicans are trying another meaningless association to paint Obama in a negative light with questionable associates.

Now they are bringing up someone named Rashid Khalidi. He is a scholar at Columbia University in New York, where he is director of the Middle East Institute. He's been accused in the past, 30 years ago, of working for the PLO, which he has denied and has never been proven. He apparently does have pro-Palestinian views, but Obama has said he does not share those views and denounced them.

But that doesn't stop the Republicans from trying to bring it up!

At a rally, Palin said Barack Obama "spent a lot of time with" Rashid Khalidi. "Rashid Khalidi, he, in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama, he's a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization."

Does this never end?

From CNN, here's the fact check about this, saying it was misleading as there is no evidence that they have a continuing political relationship: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/is-columbia-professor-khalidi-a-political-ally-of-barack-obama/

Amazing how they can't focus on real issues, huh?

- I thought this was interesting, from factcheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_welfare.html

I've been saying this the whole time: Why are Obama's tax cuts considered by the Republicans to be welfare and their own are considered reform?

And why do they keep talking about Obama raising taxes? I don't understand how they are able to continually lie about that. MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT SEE THEIR TAXES RAISED UNDER OBAMA!!!!! Do you hear that, people?

- Here's an analysis that says Obama's going to win: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081029/ap_on_el_pr/road_to270;_ylt=AuYbMHPIgDbLQJtKEhjMRT9snwcF

- Here are two stories analyzing how Obama's and McCain's health plans would work using real, in-use examples:

Obama's plan: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27428669

McCain's plan: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27428664/

The results? Up in Massachusetts, a program very similar to what Obama is proposing is working pretty well.

Meanwhile, in Minnesota, it's not working quite so well at all.

Does that surprise anyone? If McCain wins, get ready for real financial pain from his health plan.

- Finally, here's an article regarding Palin's religious beliefs. This is pretty scary: http://www.newsweek.com/id/166215?GT1=43002

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want someone making decisions for our country based on what God tells him or her. I want them made based on what the people are saying to him or her. I don't what this extreme religious whack-a-do anywhere NEAR the White House. I seriously do not understand how anyone can look at this woman and want her in such a severe position of power. It would be the worst thing for this country. Her decisions would be based on HER views, not the views of the people. That's scary.

------------------------------------
OK, that's enough for tonight. The Phillies just won the World Series, the first championship for Philadelphia in 25 years and I need to celebrate.

I don't know how much I'll get to post in the next couple of days as I have a lot going on with Halloween and a wedding this weekend. However, I'm going to start working on my final arguments/statements. I'll have that up by Monday at the latest.

Good night all and CONGRATULATIONS PHILLIES!

One week to go!

2008-10-28T18:15:00.001-07:00

Thank goodness this election is almost over. Then maybe I can get back to a normal life.

Just a few stories and thoughts to share tonight.

- All is well!

John McCain says there's no friction in the GOP ticket as has been reported: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/28/mccain-don%e2%80%99t-buy-reports-of-gop-ticket-friction/

McCain says: “By the way, when two mavericks get together, you don’t agree on everything – but that’s fun!”

Yeah, that will be fun IF they win and the two of them have to deal with each other in the White House on a constant basis.

- Sarah the Wealth Spreading Hypocrite?

For all of Palin's talk calling Obama a socialist, it seems that Sarah doesn't have any problem spreading the wealth to Alaskans: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/palin-shares-wealth/

- That's all I have tonight. I need to keep it short because I've been very busy lately and need to spend some time with the wife.

Go Phillies and go Obama!

The cable news shows

2008-10-27T17:00:00.001-07:00

We are down to single digits! Yesterday was nine days to go until the election next Tuesday. Yea!

- The Cable News Channels

So where do I get all of my wonderful information? Primarily from the Internet but I also have been watching the cable news shows on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. I think they are fairly valuable resources for information so I thought I would give you a review of the shows and encourage you to watch them if you can over the last week of the election to try to inform yourself of what's going on in the final week.

- The first show I want to talk about is Countdown with Keith Olbermann. This program is on weeknights at 8:00 (repeated at 10:00 and 1:00) on MSNBC.

I have to say it: I think I have a man-crush on Keith Olbermann. OK, I'm kidding, but I do love his show.

I've been a fan of Olbermann's back from his ESPN Sportscenter days. I always loved him and Dan Patrick. I was disappointed when he left ESPN and I had not seen any of his work since he left until a little over a month ago when I found a clip of him on Youtube.com. Since then his show has become almost religious viewing for me.

Olbermann is unapologetically anti-McCain... and Palin. His show is basically a nightly recap of all the dumb things the Republicans have said and done over the previous 24 hours. OK, maybe I'm being a little unfair there saying they do "dumb" things. But Olbermann sure makes it seem that way!

Here's what I really like about this show.

First, I agree with most of what Olbermann says. What can I say? I'm pro-Obama here so if Olbermann is going to point out all of the idiocy of the McCain campaign and the Republicans, I'm sure to agree with it. And make no mistake about it... Olbermann is doing all he can to make the Republicans look foolish. And not just foolish but at times mean, insensitive, boorish, and down-right ignorant.

But here's what I really like about this show: While Olbermann's tone is unmistakably snarky and at times arrogant, if he's saying something negative about the Republicans, he usually has a quote, record, or video to back up what he saying. He's not just spouting off at the mouth (like Sean Hannity, who I'll get to) ... he's backing up what he's saying with facts. And that's what I like about it. There are times when he gives opinions and makes snide remarks (which are usually funny) but the most important thing about this show is that it is both entertaining and informative. I highly suggest it to anyone who is interested in finding what's happening with the election... and maybe have a few laughs at he expense of the Republicans. :D

Here's a great clip of Olbermann giving a "Special Comment" on the McCain campaign using divisive tactics and dangerously inciting crowds while doing nothing about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL0XgB8vYiw

- Following Countdown is The Rachel Maddow Show. Rachel's new to the channel. She's definitely more low key than Olbermann but is most certainly on the Liberal side of things. She does a lot of the same things Olbermann does... pointing out what's going on with those silly Republicans. But I think she's a LITTLE more respectful. Pat Buchanan is a regular guest on her show to give the Conservative point of view. An interesting, informative show, but no where near as entertaining at Olbermann.

Maddow's show is on at 9:00 (with repeats at 11:00 and 2:00) weeknights on MSNBC following Countdown.

- Before Countdown is Hardball with Chris Matthews. This show is on at 7:00 weeknights on MSNBC (with a repeat at 12:00).

Matthews is more serious about things than Olbermann and does not suffer a fool. Last week he had on Nancy Pfotenhauer, an advisor for John McCain, to talk about Palin's comments about the role of the Vice President. The woman could not convincingly defend Palin's remarks and would not stick to that topic and Matthews kept calling her on it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI6WRYFesTw) He's definitely a smart guy. I recommend his show for a more even handed look at things than you'll get from Olbermann or Maddow on MSNBC.

- Moving over to Fox News (I just had a chill...) first will talk about their star attraction, Hannity & Colmes.

I have watched this show a few times but I have a hard time stomaching it. Sean Hannity is so pompous and unapologetically conservative it's not even funny. This guy just takes anything the Republicans say as fact and spits it out over and over again. His unremorseful pro-Republican position make him almost impossible for me to watch. There's not a thing the Republicans can say that he would question while he questions everything about the Democrats.

But the one thing that this show has over the other's I've mentioned so far is Alan Colmes. At least on this show you do get both sides of the argument, although Hannity's personality is so overwhelming it tends to drown Colmes out. But Colmes will question the things from the Liberal side. If Hannity has on a guest, Colmes will question him hard from the opposite perspective when he gets his chance. And that's generally how they work it. They usually get equal time with their guests, although Hannity has no problem interjecting when Colmes is trying to conduct his interview. Sometimes when I watch this I kind of wish Colmes was a little more of a blowhard and more forceful like Hannity but he does get his points in. Like recently when Joe the Plumber visited. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_txkO5eOIc)

If you can stomach Hannity, I would recommend this show. I tend to ignore or roll my eyes when Hannity talks but do watch it to try to get a better understanding of the Republican perspective. And, man, is it messed up.

Hannity & Colmes is on Fox News, 9:00 weeknights.

(PS. If you have a chance, here's a CLASSIC clip of Obama staffer Robert Gibbs on the show following the second debate calling Hannity on the carpet after he had an anti-Semite on his show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF858s-JPEY)

- I haven't watched the O'Reilly Factor much (8:00 weeknights on Fox News). I personally find Bill O'Reilly a bully, a blowhard, and pretty insufferable. Plus he's on the same time as Olbermann and I'd rather watch him. I've only seen clips of him and guys is just obnoxious. If he has a Republican on, he's respectful, accommodating, and is willing to have a polite conversation with the person. If he has on a Democrat, he's rude, boorish, and interrupts frequently, not allowing the person to speak freely. He also has no problems with blaming others for his problems. Like recently when it was shown that MSNBC's ratings have been improving recently, O'Reilly said that couldn't possibly be true and blamed the media and the ratings systems.

Here's a perfect O'Reilly example when he recently had on Democrat Barney Frank (thankfully Frank wouldn't just sit there and take O'Reilly's crap): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bijtBkKQwY8

I can't highly recommend this show because I personally can't stand O'Reilly. But if you can, have at it.

- The other show on Fox News is On The Record with Gretta Van Susteren at 10:00. I have to admit I've never watched it so I cannot say one way or the other what this show is like. I'll try to see if I can fit it in in the next week or so. But don't count on it.

- Finally, let's move over to CNN.

First there's Election Center with Campbell Brown at 8:00.

I generally find CNN to be more even than MSNBC or Fox News. I tend to see CNN as more the moderate ground, somewhere in the middle. This show is somewhere around there.

I have only watched a few times but Brown is quite capable. She doesn't get into the one-sided histrionics of Olbermann and Hannity. The whole tone, to me, is more subdued and more informative. Of course, normally they are talking about McCain because that's where most of the news and controversy seems to be these days.

I like Brown. I think she does a good job on this show and if you want a more moderate POV, you can't go wrong here.

- Next on CNN would be Larry King. I've seen King's show a few times but must admit I haven't watched it much recently. I've been watching the other shows. But I'm sure most of you know about Larry King and don't need me to tell you about him.

- Finally at 10:00 is AC360 with Anderson Cooper.

I think Cooper is a very smart guy and quite fair. He doesn't seem to have an agenda for either side and calls things as he sees them. I quite like this show. He usually gets a variety of experts on his show to get opinions from both sides and non-partisan experts. This is probably the most even-keel information possible. Much to recommend here.

------------------------------------

So there you go. A look at the cable news shows. I generally try to watch Olbermann nightly at some time (although I'm not always successful). I watch the other shows when I can, but that's been hard lately when I'm trying to catch up on my Tivo and watch the World Series, too. (Go Phils!) If I had to set the ideal lineup, I'd advise watching Countdown at 8:00, Hannity & Colmes at 9:00, and Anderson Cooper at 10:00. That way you can get the opinions from both sides and then see it all more or less filtered out afterwards.

Just a few things tonight

2008-10-25T20:12:00.000-07:00

Hey there.

Not a whole lot to say tonight... I think. I'm watching the World Series right now (go Phillies!) and just wanted to make sure I got something up here tonight as I didn't last night. We'll see where this goes as I start typing and see what pops into my head and out to my keyboard.

- I Lost My Way

First, I have to get something off my chest.

I kind of have lost my way on this blog.

Obviously if you read my first post or the initial email I sent out to a lot of people, I've been pro-Obama from the beginning. However, my intention was not just to point out the faults of the McCain campaign. I really wanted to be as even keel as possible and make sure people got the arguments from both sides.

However, something happened along the way: I just couldn't do it any more. The more I dug into things, the more I read the plans, the more I listened to what was being said, the more I heard the hypocrisy and down-right lies coming from the Republican campaign, ... well, I just couldn't do it. I couldn't do something that would give any credence to what the Republicans have been doing. I had to do what I could to show why the McCain ticket would be wrong for this country and why Obama would be right. So that's what has happened.

I will also say this: At the beginning of this blog I challenged anyone to give me information from the Republican side of things that would show me I was wrong. To show my why McCain would be better, to show me proof that what Obama's been saying is not true, to give me anything that would seriously make me have to reconsider my stance. It hasn't been done. I don't think it CAN be done. I just can't see it.

So, anyway, if you came here looking for unbiased commentary and a bi-partisan look at things, I'm sorry. I tried. I really did. But the more I looked I just have not been able to agree with almost anything the McCain campaign has done. Maybe we'll try that again in 4 years.

- Cracks In The Armor

So as things have started to go down hill for the Republicans, the infighting has started.

- First there's McCain taking a bunch of shots at President Bush from CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/23/mccain-lashes-out-at-bushs-record/

I love this. McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time, basically saying he supports almost all of Bush's policies, but then wants to act like he was against them all along.

Of course, Obama had a lot of fun with those comments. He said:

"He denounced the President for letting things get completely out of hand–that's what he said," Obama told a crowd in Reno. "In fact, John McCain is so opposed to George Bush's policies, that he voted with him 90 percent of the time for the first eight years. That's right, he decided to really stick it to George Bush - 10 percent of the time."

"So, let's be clear. John McCain attacking George Bush for his out-of-hand economic policy is like Dick Cheney attacking George Bush for his go-it-alone foreign policy. What Joe Biden says - it's like Tonto getting mad at the Lone Ranger." (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/25/obama-again-mocks-mccain-over-ties-to-bush/)

Hee hee!

- Then there's also talk of infighting now in the McCain campaign as staffers feel that Sarah Palin is only starting to look out for her best interests. McCain aids suggest Palin is "going rogue": http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html

Here's another story about how she's doing things her own way now: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081025/pl_politico/14929;_ylt=Ak21P0PnHrYJoTTcR2EONP5snwcF

Why should this surprise anyone? Palin has a history of turning against people in her own party and the people who work for her for any reason she wants (or no reason) if it will help further her agenda or career.

Here's an article from when she first became mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and she asked all of the city's top managers to resign: http://www.mceades.com/graphics/palin_article1.jpg
Here's an article about how she fired Wasilla's librarian and police chief, although the librarian later got her job back: http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510219.html
She turned against the fellow members of her own party in Alaska: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8337406p-8233470c.html

(These three references come from her Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin)

Here's an article from the New York Times that talks all about "Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

You get what you ask for. You ask someone like Sarah Palin to join your ticket, you get someone who is only out for herself and her interests, as her history has shown. Is this someone we want in a position to run our country? I think not.

- Here's another article about how things are going, people are infighting, and starting to try to jump ship and place blame: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081024/pl_politico/14891;_ylt=Ard93VR93veUd1I21AUetTJsnwcF

- In trying to research Palin's history as a turncoat, I found this article on the Huffington Post (admitted: very pro-Liberal) about how anti-women's issues Sarah Palin is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/manisha-sinha/sarah-palin-and-the-betra_b_126213.html

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It baffles me that women who were pro-Hillary Clinton would now be pro-Palin. They couldn't be more opposites.

- Well, well, well! Here's an interesting article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_el_pr/palin_pipeline;_ylt=AiUKBgS6UuCUmoF6nOvXMRpsnwcF

So the big natural gas pipeline that Sarah Palin has been touting as one of her major accomplishments? Yeah... The Associated Press did some investigating into that and it turns out that the company that won the bid, TransCanada Corp., was given a lot of special incentives and that the bidding process was maneuvered in such a way to allow them to win over bigger, more well know companies. AND the leader of Palin's team had been a partner at a lobbying firm that worked for TransCanada Corp. Plus, a former TransCanada executive served as an outside consultant to Palin's pipeline team.

So how about that? Miss Reformer, Miss Maverick working the system to get things done how she wanted them. Nice!

- Things are looking good...

So let's talk about McCain's staff...

2008-10-23T18:48:00.000-07:00

So after I posted last night, my plan for tonight was to get back into the issues some more. But NOT NOW!

Today I received an email (from someone who will remain nameless) about three people associated with Fannie Mae that are now supposedly working as advisors to Barack Obama. (Imagine it is written in large text and in multiple colors, which is how I got it):

Here is a quick look into THREE former Fannie Mae executives
who have helped bring down Wall Street, AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING
TODAY.

Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie
Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing
discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the
time of his departure (Wednesday, Dec.22, 2004) The Wall Street Journal noted, '
Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence
that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday (Dec. 21, 2004) conceding
that 'mistakes were made' and saying he would assume responsibility as he
had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing
pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings
that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting
principles for four years.' Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9
billion.

Raines left with a 'golden parachute' valued at $240 Million.

The government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the
accounting scandal became clear.
See: http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/
The government noted, 'The 101 charges reveal how the individuals
improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly
neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty
accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The notice
explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting
statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie
Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner.' These charges were made in 2006. The
Court ordered Raines to return $50 million dollars he received in bonuses
based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.

Tim Howard was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard 'was a
strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a
'stable pattern of earnings' at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the
books. The government investigation determined that, 'Chief Financial Officer,
Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting
functions within Fannie Mae,'

On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice
Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives
lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the
mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses..
Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since
concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses.
Raines and Howard left Fannie Mae under pressure in December 2004. Raines's
departure was structured as an early retirement. Howard resigned.

Howard's 'Golden Parachute' was estimated at $20 Million!

Jim Johnson is a former executive at Lehman Brothers who was
later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and
corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about
Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial
amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was
between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million. Johnson
is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide
while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.

Johnson's 'Golden Parachute' was estimated at $28 Million.

WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

FRANKLIN RAINES?

Raines works for the Obama Campaign as a Chief Economic
Advisor
TIM HOWARD?

Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama

JIM JOHNSON?

Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor
and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search
Committee

IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP
THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE
THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE
THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Would you trust the men who tore the 'old'
Wall Street down to build the New Wall
Street?

POSTSCRIPT:
And please pay attention to FOX NEWS in the next few days
and find out WHO the Senators were, in the Democratic Party,
that these three guys were working with.
You will love this.... It just gets better and better... IS THIS
CHANGE???

Obviously the point of this email is to show that Obama has some relations with people who were involved in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapse.

Guess what? I was easily able to debunk this by going to snopes.com. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp

Here's what it says:

Origins: When one of the hottest issues of a presidential campaign is the meltdown of the mortgage lending industry and the collapse of the economy, a candidate's having economic advisors on his staff who are
strongly associated with the system and practices that helped create the current
mess likely wouldn't sit well with the public. That's the premise of this
above-quoted e-mail, which claims that three men formerly associated with the
Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as "Fannie Mae") are now
serving as "chief economic advisors" with the presidential campaign of Barack
Obama. However, although at least some of these men have had connections to the
Obama campaign at one time or another, none of them has ongoing roles with that
campaign as chief economic advisors.

Franklin Raines, who formerly headed the budget office for the Clinton administration, became the first black CEO of a Fortune 500 company when he took over at Fannie Mae" in 1999. Raines, who had earned $20 million in salary and bonuses from Fannie Mae in 2003, resigned from his CEO position in 2004 after regulators determined that the company had violated accounting rules and created an illusory $9 billion in past profit.

Raines has had some dealings with the Obama campaign, but he never held any actual position within the campaign, and his involvement with it was not nearly as substantial as implied here. As the Washington Post reported when a McCain campaign commercial attempted to link Raines with the
Democratic candidate, the whole substance of the connection between the two men
was that Raines "had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign" in which
they talked about "general housing and economy issues."

Franklin Raines' predecessor, James A. Johnson, (former chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale), was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998. After Johnson left the company, regulators later discovered that Fannie Mae had engaged in fraudulent
accounting practices in 1998 which manipulated its earnings so that executives
could earn performance bonuses (up to $1.9 million in Johnson's
case) they would not otherwise have been entitled to.

In May 2008, Senator Obama tapped James Johnson to be one member of a three-person panel tasked with vetting potential vice-presidential running mates. Johnson (who was
not serving as an economic advisor to the Obama campaign) resigned from that
position a month later after news accounts surfaced that he had received more
than $2 million in home loans at below average market rates from
Countrywide Financial (a partner of Fannie Mae).

Tim Howard, the former CFO (chief financial officer) of Fannie Mae, was caught up in the same accounting scandal that undid Franklin Raines, and (like Raines) resigned from the company in 2004. We haven't yet found any substantive connection between Tim
Howard and the Obama campaign, however, much less any information supporting the
claim that Howard is (or was) a "Chief Economic Advisor to Obama."

I also found this on About.com: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/wall_street.htm

Here's what is says:

Comments: While the above litany of charges against former Fannie Mae executives Franklin Raines, Tim Howard, and Jim Johnson matches up pretty closely with what has been reported in legitimate news sources, it is not true that any of these gentlemen went on to serve as "chief economic adviser" or "senior financial adviser" to the Barack Obama campaign.

Franklin Raines - The Washington Post reported in July 2008 that Franklin Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." Though the unsourced statement was not questioned at the time, the Obama campaign later denied that Franklin Raines had advised the candidate in any capacity, and Raines himself issued a statement saying, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters."

Whatever the case, "taking calls" on mortgage and housing questions from a presidential campaign does not constitute acting as a "chief economic adviser."

Tim Howard, former Fannie Mae Chief Financial Officer, has no evident connection to the Barack Obama campaign at all, let alone as a "chief economic adviser."

Jim Johnson, who was CEO of Fannie Mae between 1991 and 1998, is the only one of these three men to have a documented connection to the Obama campaign. He served briefly as a member of Obama's vice-presidential vetting committee before stepping down amid allegations that he received below-market-rate mortgage loans from Countrywide Bank, one of the institutions involved in the subprime mortgage crisis. So far as can be determined from published sources, at no time has Johnson acted as a "senior financial adviser"
to the campaign.

So this email was obviously sent to me to try to get me to go, "OH MY GOD! Look at Obama's associations! He's a terrible person! I can't vote for him!" But with the email being debunked by Snopes, I don't think I have to worry about that.

In any case, since we're talking about the candidates associates, let's take a look at who is working with John McCain, who his advisors are, and his campaign staff...

Let's start with Phil Gramm!

Phil Gramm - The crux of that email was that Obama is working with people who were at the heart of the economic collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That has been shown to not be true.

However, what IS true is that Phil Gramm is very close friends with John McCain and an economic advisor of his. He was the Senior Economic Advisor to McCain until July when he resigned after saying that America is not in a recession and that Americans are a bunch of whiners. Here's the quotes:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession." He
added, "We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant
whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in
decline." (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/09/mccain-adviser-addresses-mental-recession/)

These comments became a political issue for McCain and Gramm was forced to resign.

BUT!... regardless of this, ... why is the fact that Phil Gramm was McCain's Senior Economic Advisor and is still a very close friend of his? Because Phil Gramm is the GODFATHER OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS WE ARE NOW IN!

Here's an article all about him and his Senatorial financial career: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

Gramm was the king of deregulation. In 1999 he helped get passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which deregulated the financial industry and put us in the situation we are into today with the economy. He was very proud of this legislation.

And even though he's not officially a part of McCain's campaign, there's evidence that he's still involved.

He called Ron Paul to try to get him to support McCain (Paul rejected him): http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/paul-rejects-gr.html
He's attending campaign briefings: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/14/phil-gramm-attends-mccain-campaign-briefing/
There's even talk that he might be considered to be McCain's Treasury Secretary: http://crooksandliars.com/2008/09/22/mccain-spokesman-refuses-to-say-gramm-wont-be-treasury-secretary/

Do we want the Godfather of our economic collapse to be our Treasury Secretary?!?!?!

So as opposed to the made up association between Obama and three Fannie Mae execs, here's a REAL association between McCain and someone directly responsible for our economic crisis.

Now that I've hit the worst person in McCain's brain trust, I'm going to keep the others a little shorter for time sake...

Rick Davis: He is McCain's campaign manager. From the New York Times:

"Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin)

Here's another article about it WITH VIDEO!: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/24/on-davis-s-ties-to-freddie-mac-mccain-gets-boomeranged.aspx

This article says Davis's lobbying firm was paid by Freddie Mac until August of this year: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/24davis.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222284238-V7i00WGuim4UgPJpSsdLDg

Wouldn't you say, if he was part of a group that lobbied for deregulation for Fannie and Freddie, that maybe he's part of the problem? A direct link for McCain to the financial crisis? Not exactly the type of person you want as part of your campaign, let alone your campaign manager?

But that's not all! No, no, no! That's not all!

According to the Washington Post, in 2006 Davis also setup a meeting between McCain and a Russian billionaire. Davis was working for a lobbying firm that Here's the first two paragraphs of that article:

"A top political adviser in Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign helped arrange an introduction in 2006 between McCain and a Russian billionaire whose suspected links to anti-democratic and organized-crime figures are so controversial that the U.S. government revoked his visa.

Rick Davis, who is now McCain's campaign manager, helped set up the encounter between McCain and Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska in Switzerland during an international economic conference. At the time, Davis was working for a lobbying firm and seeking to do business with the billionaire. " (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/25/ST2008012500226.html)

Those two key people in McCain's organization with rather shady pasts. PROVEN pasts, not made up.

Here's some more! These are not all about Freddie and Fannie, but are some guys that have lobbied for some bad things:

Charlie Black: McCain's campaign chairman, Moveon.org says "he once ran a lobbying firm that represented brutal dictators like Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire." (This is from a email from Moveon.org: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/13/moveon_targets_mccain_aides_lo.html... but I also found this link that gives you 10 things to know about Charlie Black: http://www.alternet.org/election08/89835/)

Thomas Loeffler: Loeffler had to resign from McCain's campaign in May due to his role as a Lobbyist. His clients included Saudi Arabia.

Peter Madigan: a leading McCain fundraiser, lobbies on behalf of the king of Dubai.

(Here's a fact sheet about Black, Loeffler, and Madigan: http://www.firethelobbyists.com/images/fire_the_lobbyists.pdf)

Here's an article from February all about the lobbyists that have worked for McCain: http://mediamatters.org/items/200802280001

Here's a WHOLE LIST of 133 lobbyists who have worked or are working for McCain: http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0006 (I wanted to paste the whole list here, but thought that was too much. You can click the link to see the whole list.)

Here's a list of 22 McCain staffers who have lobbied for Big Oil companies: http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0014

As you can see, there's plenty of evidence to show that the people who are working for and with and advising McCain are people to worry about more than those who are working and advising Obama. Especially when McCain says he's running against corruption, lobbying, and wants reform. How can you believe that stuff when you look at who his advisers are and who is running and working for his campaign? Can you imagine Phil Gramm, the architect of our financial collapes, being Treasury Secretary?

So while a lying email sends out fake information regarding Obama's ties that don't exist, I've just given you loads of true information that shows real connections for John McCain to lobbyists, corruption, and some people responsible for our current financial crisis.

How do you like that boomerrang? :D

Republicans vs Democrats

2008-10-23T09:26:00.000-07:00

I found this one the web today. I thought it was rather amusing... and somewhat true...

The Double-Standard of American Politics

If a black Democratic presidential candidate was an affirmative action selection (akin to the legacy selection for McCain) at the Naval Academy and graduated 894 out of 899, Fox News and the conservative right would push this story as the basis for his disqualification for the nation's highest office. The rest of the media would then be forced to report on it, giving the story wide exposure.
If a white Republican presidential candidate graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, he would be celebrated as an intellectual giant ready to lead the country in bold new directions. But since we are talking Obama here, his education fits into the "uppity" and presumptuous narrative.
If you're a Harvard and Princeton-educated black woman married for years before having your first child, Fox labels you a "Baby Mama."
If you are a white woman who eloped and had a baby eight months later, you are Sarah Palin
If you have studied international affairs for several decades, you're inexperienced at foreign affairs
If you live in a state that is geographically near a foreign country, you have foreign policy expertise
If you both write and present your own words, you just give good speeches. If you read someone else's words from the teleprompter a superstar is born.
If you are Obama, your greatness must be measured by what you've done and its NEVER enough, NOT by any of the profound speeches you wrote yourself, or the repeated grillings you've taken in the press.
If you are Palin, your greatness is measured by just one speech, written by Bush IIs speechwriter, and you will not take any questions from the press.
If you attend two of the top ivy leagues schools in the country, you are surprisingly articulate. If it takes you several colleges to graduate and you deliver a speech with the phonetic new-clear on the teleprompter, you're a poised and eloquent speaker.
If your staff is so dumb they mix up Walter Reed Middle School for Walter Reed Medical Center in your conventions big night, it’s because you wanted to focus on education & it would have been political to use the soldiers in that format.
If Obama had done that, he would be eviscerated for not knowing the difference between the two, hating the troops/America & would be dangerously unqualified to be CinC.
If you’re a liberal mayor and you ask for government financing, you’re a fan of big, tax and spend, corrupt government.
If you're a conservative mayor and wind up on John McCain's worst pork list in 2001, you are disgusted that small towns like yours are dependent on earmarks, even if your town had no earmarks before you became mayor.
A white woman talkin' tough is an advocate of women's rights, a black woman is angry and bitter. A white man talkin' tough is a straight shooter and a conservative, a black man is a angry gangsta rapper.
If you're a GOPer you naturally wouldn't see what the problem with any of this was, even if you slept for 20 years on a dictionary opened to the word hypocrisy.
If you're a Republican and you talk to America’s enemies, its diplomacy.
If you're a Democrat and you talk to America’s enemies, its appeasement.
If you're a Republican, you swear Jesus is a registered member of your party.
If you're a Democrat, you appreciate that Jesus was a community organizer.
If you're a Republican and you wind up on the cover of People magazine, it's because you're a regular American.
If you're a Democrat and you wind up on the cover of People magazine, it’s because you're a celebrity.
If you're a black Democratic man who can fill a stadium with 18,000 people (or worse, a German atrium with 200,000), you're a vapid celebrity. If you're a white Republican woman who can get a room full of fire breathing evangelical right wingers to holler, you're a star
If you are a Democrat, the days are counted down since the last time you have been to Iraq .
If you are a Republican, you have all the foreign policy experience you need because your state is close to Russia.
If you're a black woman, with advanced academic degrees, and you have children while married, you're a baby mama
If you're a white woman who barely graduated from college, and you get knocked up and then get married after you're pregnant, you're a "Super Mom"
If you are black and your daughter is pregnant, unmarried and has an uninvolved baby daddy, you are a statistic, but if you're a white and your daughters baby's daddy has an explicit MY Space page where, in between four-letter words, he exclaims "he don't want no kids," you get to run for Veep.
If you're a black presidential candidate that has wide appeal and the ability to motivate over two million Americans to re-engage in the political process you're an egomaniac with a messiah complex seeking the spotlight.
However, if you're a right wing conservative - you're applauded for your likeability and called a unifier for the Republican base
If you're white, win a beauty contest, attended 5-6 colleges before finally graduating, join the PTA, are voted to be mayor by 1000 people, govern a sparsely populated state for a almost two years now, and randomly get chosen at the last minute to be VP, you've lived the American dream, she's every American.
But if you're black, raised by a single mother, lived on food stamps, help the community, get into Harvard, become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, build a great campaign organization from scratch, and are voted to be the presidential nominee by millions of people, you are just uppity.
If you are a democratic candidate and people around you complain about the MSM vitriol toward you, you're a whiner.
If you are a republican candidate and you won’t answer the questions the MSM attempts to ask about your qualifications for the second highest office in the land, you're being victimized.
If you are a white republican mom with a special-needs baby, you are suddenly the advocate of all special needs families in the US.
If you are an Alaskan democrat mom with a special-needs baby, you just saw state funding cut for programs like special-ed. You're "on your own."
If you are a black democrat homeowner that was preyed upon by mortgage companies and your house is in foreclosure, you made bad choices and don't deserve a house.
If you an older white republican who can't keep track of how many houses he has, then he deserves another one.

Just one more thing...

2008-10-22T21:28:00.000-07:00

Keith Olbermann ran Obama's meeting with Joe the plumber tonight. It shows most of it with a few short edits, but watching the whole meeting with Joe puts a different light to it.

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yeTnOrUvB0

Obama does a fantastic job of explaining his plan to Joe and making it make total sense... even pointing out to Joe that he might even do BETTER under his plan.

How anyone can look at Obama's plan versus McCain's and think you'd do better under McCain's is beyond me. You just won't.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/altss/printstory/opinion/88118

http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/080612/68/4h34w.html

I'm Andy the Engineer

2008-10-22T18:44:00.000-07:00

I don't know where to start tonight. So I'll just start. I have a number of things to comment on...

- The first thing I want to talk about is Joe the Plumber.

McCain, Palin, and anyone else associated with their campaign love to keep bringing up Joe the plumber. They keep talking about him and Obama's comments about "spread the wealth". They keep talking about how they want to help people keep their wealth.

Well here's my problem: For all the talk about how they want to help the middle class by helping them keep their wealth, NOTHING in their economic plans does anything to help the middle class. It only helps the wealthy! It gives rich people and big corporation major tax cuts to save them thousands apon thousands, if not millions, of dollars. In the mean time, the middle class get a pittance in tax cuts while the poor get almost nothing.

There's a calculator on Obama's website that will show you how much you will save in taxes with Obama's tax plan versus McCain's tax plan. You can find it and figure out what you would save yourself under both plans here: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Now, granted, this is from Barack Obama's website, but from what I've seen on other sites, I believe the calculation I got to be pretty accurate. Anyway, the results are that I would save TEN TIMES as much in taxes with Obama's plan than I would with McCain's tax plan. And I have almost no doubt that is pretty close to being true.

McCain is for the rich. He may say otherwise but the proof is in his plans. He's not doing anything to help the middle class or poor. He says he is by helping providing companies the chance to provide more jobs but the truth is companies have had the chance to do that all through the Bush era and what did they do? They got greedy. They did what they could to keep the money for themselves. They did what they could with the help of deregulation to make as much money as they could for themselves and left everyone else out to dry. Oil companies, the financial industry, the lending and housing industries, numerous companies who paid their executives millions of dollars and handed out multi-million dollar golden parachutes and bonuses like they were going out of style while their companies failed and people's retirement accounts dwindled... and McCain wants to keep that plan going. He wants to make it worse by giving these companies even BIGGER tax cuts.

The truth is it's the middle class that needs the help. Why? Well, we're the ones who support all of these companies. They need us. And it's showing right now.

The middle class is taking a financial hit right now, they don't have the money to spend, and companies are suffering for it. If your average American doesn't have the money to spend on products and goods, the companies are not making money. By giving money back to the people, by giving them a tax cuts, as Obama wants to do, they'll have more available to spend to help these companies bottom lines. And then they'll make money and have money available to create jobs. Because the truth is if the people of this country, you and me, don't support these companies by buying what they are selling, they can't survive. Look at the auto industry right now. Look at how many people are losing their jobs right now. It's because people are not buying!

McCain and Palin keep talking about how Obama's plan is socialism. Since when is a tax cut socialism? That's a ridiculous claim and desperate. It again shows how they don't care about the middle-class.

This whole situation shows how out of touch McCain really is. Obama is trying to help the middle class and poor and the Republicans call it socialism. It's the average American who is suffering in this country right now, not the rich, but McCain is talking about huge tax cuts for the wealthy while doing almost nothing for the middle-class. Then he also wants to tax your health benefits or take them away on top of that. And also make taxpayer pay to bailout banks and people who took on bad house loans. I don't want to pay for someone else's mortgage problems. I have my own mortgage to take care of. Jeesh!

But going back to Joe the plumber... the average plumber salary in Ohio is $20 an hour. If he worked 60 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, he's make $60000 a year before taxes. And this is a high estimate by me, not really what he earns, which is probably less. Now, unless he's saved a TON of money over the years, can someone tell me how he could afford to buy a company that would give him a salary of $250,000 a year? Are you kidding me? How much would that cost to buy? And even if you taxed him at 40% on that $250,000, are you going to tell me that he wouldn't be better off bringing home $150,000 after taxes than $60,000 before taxes? Plus with tax loopholes and deductions, you know he could bring home a lot more than that $150,000. The guy's a farce. The arguments for this guys are a farce. The guy is a registered Republican and brought a scenario to Obama just to get the reaction he got and help John McCain. And everyone is buying it.

Here's an article about how Obama's, NOT McCain's, tax plan would actually be BETTER for Joe: http://www.mainstreet.com/article/lifestyle/entertainment/joe-plumber-numbers

So the summary of all of this is that, regardless of what McCain and Joe the plumber think and say, Obama's tax plan is actually the plan that would do more for Joe and the majority of small business owners in this country, not McCain's.

And unless you are making more than $250,000 a year, Obama's plan is better for you, too.

And if Joe ever did actually get himself into a position where he's making more that quarter of a million dollars a year, I'm not going to feel too sorry for him about his tax situation because he'll be bringing home a LOT more money than he makes now and the tax increase Obama is proposing is only 3%... not much more than what Joe would have to pay now making that much money.

- Next there's the cockiness of John McCain to say that US foes wouldn't dare challenge him in his first six months in office, as Joe Biden said would happen if Obama is elected.

Here's what McCain said on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/mccain.blitzer/index.html):

"And the thing that probably may encourage them a little is that Sen. Obama has been wrong," McCain said in an interview to be aired on CNN's "The Situation Room" at 6 p.m. ET Wednesday.

"He was wrong about the surge in Iraq. He still fails to acknowledge that he was wrong. I mean, remarkable," the Republican presidential nominee continued.

"He was wrong when he said Georgia should show restraint. He was wrong when he said he would sit down across the table from Ahmadinejad, Chavez and the Castro brothers. He was wrong about those. So I can understand why the American people might be concerned."

Enemies would not similarly challenge McCain, he said, because he's already been tried.

"They know I've been tested," he said. "They know I've been tested. I've been tested many times."

First of all, why he thinks he's so untouchable that it wouldn't dare happen to him is beyond me. Biden's point was that either candidate is likely to be tested. It's just as likely to happen to him.

Next, McCain's still stating that Obama has not said the surge worked. He has! Here it is: http://mediamatters.org/items/200809060004

Then McCain is saying that Obama said Georgia should show restraint when they were fighting with Russia a few months ago. This is SO wrong. He said both countries should show restraint. Here's what he said (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSWBT00953020080808):

"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said in a statement. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected."

And finally, McCain's talking about meeting with foreign leaders again and no pre-conditions. Again, I agree with Obama on this. You need to take steps and extend an olive branch if you are ever going to cease strained relationships with these countries.

So more false, misleading statements and out of date opinions from McCain.

- Next there are reports about the Republicans and Sarah Palin wasting taxpayers money.

First there's a report that the RNC has spent $150,000... ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS... on clothes and accessories for Sarah Palin and her family during shopping sprees at stores like Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale's, and Saks Fifth Avenue. And this is in only a little over one and half months! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html

..........................

That's stunned silence.

$150,000!!!! Are you kidding me? That's more than double what I make in salary every year and Palin and her family spent that on clothes, hair, and makeup in a month. This is the woman who came into this race bragging about being a soccer mom. And now she's spending more than what most families make in a year to make themselves look pretty.

They couldn't have spent half that money? Maybe get something nice from Sears or JCPenney instead? I'm sure there are stores she could have gone to that weren't designer labels and still looked nice. I'm sure $4,716.49 on hair and makeup were not completely necessary.

To me this shows a real lack of understanding about the value of money and how important it is to keep expenses down in a time of need. It would have been possible to make Palin and her family (although I don't understand why her family gets into this as well) for a lot less than this. This was extravagant.

And so was this...

Apparently Palin has been charging Alaskan taxpayer thousands of dollars in expenses for her kids to fly around the country with her. Supposedly on official state business.

What possible official state business could Palin's children have? If you or I were to travel on business, do we get to take our kids with us and then charge our companies for it? I don't think so.

Here's a story about it: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.travel.ap/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

And this is the woman who is the supposed fiscal reformer. Uh huh.

- One other question: Why aren't Palin's kids in school? They're travelling all over the country with her all the time. Don't these kids have school? What kind of parenting is that?

- Further proof that John McCain just doesn't get it: He's saying he's "amazed" by the treatment Palin has been receiving: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081022/pl_politico/14820

Does he not realize what's going on within his own campaign? Does he not realize how what they have been doing could come across to people? Can he not see how her inability or refusal to answer standard questions my make her less than prepared to be VP in the view of many people's eyes?

There's so many negative things that I could say about Palin and have said (only just yesterday: http://pickingapresident.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-to-talk-about-tonight.html) that I find it hard to believe that McCain can't see any of it himself. I just further goes to show that he's out of touch with what's going on in our country, what we need, and why he should not be elected President in less than two weeks.

- For all of Cindy McCain's proclamations that Obama's running a negative campaign, there's this story that says it's McCain running the negative campaign: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081022/pl_politico/14829;_ylt=AlXK.FyVzAny3ltvWKBxXOJsnwcF

- I just wanted to post this right up here. This is McCain's views on the economy. Here's the link where you can find the original article: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_economy.cfm

ON THE ECONOMY

John McCain said it in his own words: He just doesn’t understand the economy. His economic plan would give big tax breaks to corporations and tax workers’ health care benefits. We call on McCain to help turn around America, not choose corporations over working families.

McCAIN ATTACKED MEDICARE

McCain: I Never Really Understood Economics. McCain said, “The issue of economics is something that I’ve really never understood as well as I should.” (Boston Globe, 12/18/07)

McCain: Americans Have Seen Great Economic Progress Since Bush Took Office. Since President Bush took office, “I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created… you can make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time,” McCain said. (“Money & Politics,” Bloomberg, 4/17/08)

HERE’S WHAT WORKING FAMILIES UNDERSTAND

Median family income has been falling for seven years now, when adjusted for inflation. (“A Feeble Recovery,” Economic Policy Institute, 5/1/08)

The number of unemployed workers rose by 11.7 percent over the past year, an increase of 797,000 people. We’ve lost more than 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs since 2001, and millions more are vulnerable. Between December 2007 and March 2008, the U.S. lost a net 240,000 jobs. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5/2/08; Robert Scott, Economic Policy Institute, 3/29/08)

Premium costs for employer-based health care are rising 10 times faster than incomes. (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 4/29/08)

McCain Says We’re NOT Headed Into a Recession. McCain said, “I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong.” (GOP Debate, Myrtle Beach, FNC, 1/10/08)

81 Percent of the Public Says We’re Already There. (NBC/WSJ Survey, 4/24-28/08)

McCain Dismissed Concerns on Mortgage Crisis and Economy. While campaigning in Florida, McCain dismissed concerns about the economy. “Even if the economy is the, quote, No. 1 issue, the real issue will remain America’s security,” McCain said. “And if they choose to say, ‘Look, I do not need this guy because he’s not as good on home loan mortgages or whatever it is, I understand about that, I will accept that verdict. I am running because of the transcendental challenge of the 21st century, which is radical Islamic extremism.” (The New York Times, 1/28/08)

But Economic Issues Top Working Family Concerns. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey, the price of gasoline is the number one concern for the public. In second and third place are finding a good job and paying for health care and insurance. (Associated Press, 4/29/08)

Home foreclosure filings have increased by 112 percent over the past year, to 649,917 properties in the first quarter of 2008, representing one of every 194 households. (RealtyTrac Staff, 4/29/08)

The price of a gallon of gas has increased by 156 percent since January 2001 and is approaching $4. (U.S. Department of Energy, Retail Gasoline Historical Prices)

Over the past year, the cost of milk increased by 13.3 percent, the cost of bread increased by 14.7 percent and the cost of eggs rose by 29.9 percent. (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3/08)

McCAIN’S ECONOMIC PROPOSALS: HELP CORPORATIONS, NOT WORKING FAMILIES
McCain’s Economic Plan Helps Corporations, not Working Families. “McCain offered sweeping rhetoric about the economic plight of working-class Americans…even as he spelled out a tax and spending agenda whose benefits are aimed squarely at spurring corporate growth.” (The Washington Post, 4/16/08)

McCain Offers Massive Tax Cuts for Corporations and the Wealthy. McCain’s plan offers two massive tax cuts for corporations, slashing tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent, with 58 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. This is an even larger tax rate cut for the wealthiest taxpayers than Bush gave them. (Reuters, 3/10/08; “Five Easy Pieces and Two Trillion Dollars,” Center for American Progress Action Fund, 3/21/08)

But He Wants to Tax Our Health Benefits. McCain would make employer-paid health premiums part of taxable income, creating a new tax on working families. He would drive insurance costs up further by promoting high-deductible health savings account plans. (Health08.org Forum, 10/31/07; Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits 2007 Annual Survey; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/20/06, 4/5/06)

McCain’s Tax Cuts Would Cut Social Programs Working Families Need. “McCain cannot pay for his tax cuts without massive reductions in Social Security, Medicare or other key programs that benefit the vast majority of Americans.” (“Five Easy Pieces and Two Trillion Dollars,” Center for American Progress Action Fund, 3/21/08)

McCain Skipped Vote on Economic Stimulus Package Despite Being in Washington. McCain missed a key vote on economic stimulus legislation to provide rebates to taxpayers—even though he was in Washington, D.C., at the time. “McCain returned to Washington but made an eleventh-hour decision to skip the vote, aides to his campaign said.” (H.R. 5140, Vote #8, 2/6/08; Associated Press, 2/6/08)

McCain Says He Wants Tough Lender Standards—But Votes Against Them. McCain has called for strict standards and greater transparency for lenders and for cracking down on predatory lenders. But he voted against a measure to discourage predatory lending practices and failed to vote on a bill that would overhaul the mortgage lending practices of the Federal Housing Administration. (McCain’s Remarks on Economic Woes, 3/25/08; St. Petersburg Times, 1/24/08; S. 256, Vote #22, 3/3/05; S. 2338, Vote #432, 12/14/07)

Is that enough?

- Did you know that 70 other countries prefer Obama to McCain?: http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/21/why-do-citizens-in-70-countries-prefer-obama-to-mccain/

- Finally, I have a video to share with you tonight.

Chris Matthews had on one of McCain's senior advisors to discuss Palin's comments about the role of the VP. (I posted about that last night.) The woman could not give Matthews an effective answer about Palin's comments and Matthews ripped her for it. This is great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjG8i4lTSpA

------------------

That's all for tonight. Lot's for you all to read.

What to talk about tonight?

2008-10-21T17:42:00.000-07:00

What to talk about tonight? Maybe I'll just spew...

- Sarah Palin....

What else can I say?

I don't know how anyone can look at this woman, listen to her gibberish, and possibly think that this woman could potentially be President of the United States.

The woman cannot even speak coherent sentences. Here's an example:

"Oil and coal? Of course, it's a fungible commodity and they don't flag, you know, the molecules, where it's going and where it's not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it's Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It's got to flow into our domestic markets first." --Sarah Palin, billed by John McCain as the nation's foremost expert on energy, clumsily answering a question while speaking off the cuff at a town hall meeting, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sept. 17, 2008

She's either a liar or clueless because she thinks that she was cleared in the Troopergate scandal:

"I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing ... any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that." --Sarah Palin, after an Alaska legislative report found she had broken the state's ethics law and abused her power in the Troopergate scandal, conference call with Alaska reporters, Oct. 12, 2008

She's running for VP but cannot name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade:

Katie Couric: "What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"

Sarah Palin: "Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--"

Couric: "Can you think of any?"

Palin: "Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today." --unable to name any Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade, CBS News interview, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

She can't even tell you a newspaper she reads!

Katie Couric: "And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious: what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?"

Sarah Palin: "I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media."

Couric: "But, like, what ones specifically? I'm curious."

Palin: "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years."

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: "I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too." --CBS News interview, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

Her running mate was trying to push himself as a proponent of regulation (after spending a career fighting regulation) and Palin could not name a SINGLE instance in which McCain fought for stronger regulation:

"I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you." --Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric to cite specific examples of how John McCain has pushed for more regulation in his 26 years in the Senate, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008 (Watch video clip)

She has no foreign policy experience:

"Well, it certainly does because our -- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia ... We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state." --Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric how Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008 (Watch video clip)

She has abused her power in her various offices (other than Troopergate):

"I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't.'" --Sarah Palin, as quoted by former City Council Member Nick Carney, after he raised objections about the $50,000 she spent renovating the mayor's office without approval of the city council

SHE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE JOB OF THE VICE PRESIDENT IS AFTER RUNNING FOR THE OFFICE FOR SEVEN WEEKS!:

"That's something that Piper would ask me! ... [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008

AAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.......................................

Speaking of Palin not knowing what the VP's job is, here's more about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JFiSORtP4M

If she doesn't know what the job is and CONTINUES to get it wrong, HOW CAN SHE POSSIBLY BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE JOB!!!!

.......................................

What else?

Well, she's anti-people's individual rights as she's against abortion and gay rights.
She still has not done ONE press conference since becoming the Republican VP candidate.
She rarely does an interview and, when she does, has nothing insightful or meaningful to say, continuing to stammer through her senseless sentences and using standard Republican template. Can you say "that", "also", "reform", and "maverick"?
She's taken to the lowest common denominator, becoming the Republican attack dog, accusing Obama of palling around with terrorists, pushing socialism, and continuing to ignore the hateful comments being made at her rallies without any comments or condemnations about them.
She can't handle questions from the media. If she gets a question she's not prepared for, she either gives a meaningless answer, avoids the question completely and talks about something else (like she did at the VP debate), or doesn't give an answer at all. Then she blames the media for it!

Let me ask you this... she's sitting at a table with other world leaders and someone asks her a question about something she's not prepared for or doesn't know about. How does it reflect on our country if she stammers her way through an answer like she has with the press? Will she start spouting boilerplate about mavericks, reform, terrorists, hockey moms, and all the other junk that her and McCain say? That's not going to work with world leaders. It's not going to work when we have a crisis and she doesn't know how to react. That's not going t work when real decisions need to be made. And I don't think she's capable of that thinking.
She claimed there were "pro-American" parts of the country and that certain areas are "real". Inferring there that there are parts of the country that are anti-American... presumably people who aren't voting Republican this fall. Is this the kind of divisive thought process we want in the White House? Shouldn't our leaders be uniting us, not picking who is for them and who is against?
She's been against her running mate on several issues including:
- She favors oil drilling in ANWR, McCain is against
- She said she disagrees with robocalls
- She wanted to keep going after Michigan after McCain bailed there
- They disagree on an gay marriage ban amendment (McCain's against, Palin is for)
- Palin is COMPLETELY anti-abortion while McCain makes exceptions
- She thinks the campaign should talk about Rev. Wright, against McCain's wishes
- She thinks North Korea should be removed from the terrorist list while McCain does not
- She said she thinks we should go into Pakistan if needed (like Obama says) against McCain's position

And those are just the samples I can think of off the top of my head!

Congratulations, John! You managed to pick a running mate who doesn't agree with you! Good luck getting her to push your agenda!

Considering her poor performance so far in interviews, the debate, and anywhere she cannot read a prepared statement or speech provided to her, it's obvious that she is not prepared to take on the position of Vice President of this country.

Her comments about what the role of the Vice President is, where she seems to think she'll be involved with the Senate defining laws and legislation, shows that she, first, doesn't know what the VP role is, and, second, is VERY power hungry and is a dangerous person to put into a position of establishing national policy. She seems to think that if she gets this position that people are just going to bend to her will and that she's going to define how our country is going to work. How scary is that?

The selection of Sarah Palin was ill-conceived. It was done to pander to women, Hillary Clinton supporters, to try to win their votes. It was decided off the cuff and was not thoroughly though through. McCain barely knew here! And it's been awful decision. If the Republicans wanted to pick a woman, there were infinitely more qualified people they could have picked. Condeleeza Rice and Christie Todd-Whitman come to mind and at least could have given some heft to McCain's campaign.

But let me ask you this: What does Sarah Palin add to John McCain's ticket? What weaknesses does she cover? What, energy? I've seen and heard nothing from her to make me believe that she has any real expertise in this area.

You can't say that Joe Biden doesn't have plenty of pertinent experience in a plethora of different areas that cannot do anything but add to the Democratic ticket. He shores up some of Obama's weaknesses, particularly the glaring one with foreign policy, which was one of the biggest concerns about him. It can't be now!

So Biden will cover for and advise Obama in some areas where he's not so strong. I have no faith that Palin can advise McCain on anything. And I also believe that for any areas where Obama has a weakness, he'll learn about them, as opposed to McCain who's been in Congress for decades but also admitted he doesn't understand the economy, which is the NUMBER ONE issue in this election:

“The issue of economics is something that I’ve really never understood as well as I should.” (John McCain in the Boston Globe, 12/18/07)

So after all those years as a Congressman, he didn't have the curiosity or think it was necessary to learn about the economy?

In any case, I've gotten off track...

Sarah Palin is a disaster. She can't speak. She can't think. She can't give a coherent thought, unless it's an attack on Obama provided to her by her campaign handlers. She offers NOTHING to this country if she becomes VP except for the possibility of her becoming President if McCain were to become incapacitated in some form (a realistic possibility) and putting this country in the scary position of having her rule over the United States of America. Can you imagine that? Say goodbye to your rights! It's the Palin way from now on!

Please don't let that happen. Don't even let the POSSIBILITY of that happen. We cannot afford it.

Vote Obama.

............................................

Well, I had no idea where I'd go tonight. It appears I went off on a Palin rant. But it needed to be said. The woman is an AWFUL VP choice. She has NO idea what she's doing and would be a nightmare as VP of this country. Let alone President, if that were to ever happen.

Please vote Obama so this does not happen. Don't let Sarah Palin get that power or even close to it. It would be a disaster for this country Thank you.

Some political humor for you... starring me!

2008-10-21T06:01:00.001-07:00

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Tell your friends! If you don't, you might be un-American! (Rolling my eyes...)

2008-10-20T20:05:00.001-07:00

Hey everyone.

Sorry, but I didn't have time tonight to do a long post. I just wanted to write something very quickly to ask anyone reading this again to please forward the URL for this blog to everyone you know. I really feel very strongly that people need to know what's going on in this election and how the McCain plans would affect them. We need Barack Obama in the White House and only by getting out the word can we assure this happens.

I just have one link for you tonight. This comes from Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight.

Now, obviously Olbermann is very biased on Obama's side. But I personally feel justifiably so at most times. I have to admit I only started watching Olbermann about a month ago so I don't know what he was like before the election started (if he's always just been a flaming liberal or just someone who points out the truth of things when one side is doing bad) but when I watch him I only see the truth. Maybe I'm blinded, but I don't think so. He's always pointing out facts, things that have been proven, and pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy of the McCain campaign with examples to back him up. He's not just making unproven speculations like a Sean Hannity is want to do.

In any case, in the past week McCain, Palin, and their surrogates have been saying things about being in the "real Virginia" and "pro-American" parts of the country, essentially accusing people who don't share their views or parts of the country where they are not leading in the polls of being un-American.

Now, what do you think of that? Are you un-American if you don't vote for John McCain? I don't think so. I think we're all Americans, we all care about our country, and just because we don't agree with one party, whether that is Republican or Democrat, that doesn't make anyone anti-America or un-Patriotic. I think it's downright disgusting and offensive that the Republicans would suggest that you are un-American for not voting for them. I'm offended and you should be too. This is not a battle of the pro-Americans and the anti-Americans. We all are Americans and care about our country. Which is why we should vote against these divisive rablerousers on November 4th and put the true uniter, Barack Obama, into office.

Anyway, here's the link of Keith Olbermann calling out McCain and his people out for their behavior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWtv1YBqt28

I just hope the undecideds in this country see this and truly start to understand the tactics being used by McCain. This is the man who is supposed to unite our country and lead us together into better days? I don't think so.

Odd bits, News and Notes, Odds and Ends...

2008-10-19T15:49:00.000-07:00

I have a BUNCH of things to share with you today. Things I've read over the past few days but did not have time to post about. So I'm getting to it all right now. Here we go!

I always liked Colin Powell. I actually had hoped for quite some time that he would run for President some day. That seems unlikely now considering his advanced age. He always came across to me as a real statesman, someone very intelligent. He's a real leader, someone I'd be willing to follow. He's the one person who worked in the Bush Administration who had some real gumption and respect.

So I was very happy today to see that Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President today. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369

Hopefully that will carry some weight for some people.

This article is from Wednesday, but even John McCain's brother doesn't like the way his campaign has been handled: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-mccainwest1014,0,2337775.story

Also from Wednesday is a commentary from CNN's Roland Martin saying it's time for Sarah Palin to back up all of her tough talk: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/14/martin.campaign/index.html

Here's an article that says ACORN may have been sloppy, but there's no fraud: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081015/pl_mcclatchy/3073705;_ylt=At8ZTKRAjxh91WEt.JbJeRRsnwcF

Honestly, I don't get the big deal here. Does anyone think Mickey Mouse is going to show up to vote on November 4th?

The bigger deal is if invalid or fake votes show up on election day. Registration fraud is not really going to hurt anything unless people show up and cast votes when they shouldn't. But what this appears to be is a case of poor people wanting to get paid to have registration forms filled out without having to do the work. But that's not as big a deal that a federal investigation needs to be launched.

By the way, here's video of John McCain delivering a keynote speech for ACORN in 2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9wy2MI1NI

This one is extremely biased and pretty rough on Sarah Palin, but I thought it was pretty funny and actually does make some legitimate points. It's basically about how bad Sarah Palin is (WARNING: some bad language): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23318320/mad_dog_palin

There's a guy named Bill Press who has a radio show on Sirius Radio's liberal station. He's started a list of 101 Reason's not to vote for John McCain. He gives one or two reasons every day so the list is a work in progress, but here's what he has so far: http://www.billpress.com/McCain101/

I especially like the picture of Bush's face on McCain's head.

Here's an article from Slate that says John McCain has his own links to terrorists: http://www.slate.com/id/2202183

This is pretty unbelievable... An MSNBC reporter tried to get the text of some Alaska state emails. The quoted cost? $15 million. No joke!: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27228287

And for that price they couldn't even get the emails until well after election day.
In a reprint from the New York Times, here's an article which shows how forward thinking Obama is with regards to technological innovation and how behind the times McCain is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27233896
Here's an article from Time that talks about the important of temperament and each candidate's traits but never really gives an opinion of who would have a better temperament for being President. I have my opinion...: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1850921,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

That's all for tonight.

The endorsements begin!

2008-10-19T06:29:00.000-07:00

The newspapers have begun endorsing candidates. So far they are overwhelmingly favoring Obama. I found this list of the endorsements so far at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

What does this say?

McCain has endorsements from 24 newspapers. Of those, in 2004 eighteen endorsed for George Bush and 6 were unknown or did not make an endorsement.

Obama has endorsements from 100 periodicals (94 newspapers, 6 magazines). Of those, in 2004 seventy endorsed John Kerry , 17 endorsed Bush but have now changed to Democrat, and 13 were unknown or did not make an endorsement.

What does this mean? Probably not much. Endorsements were more in Kerry's favor in 2004 and he didn't win. But the margin was not quite as high. He had about 2-1 favor in endorsements from newspapers. But Obama now has a 4-1 margin in endorsements. Surely that means something. Yes?

In any case, below I've put links to some of the endorsements and some quotes. If you want to see more, you can follow this link above to Wikipedia to find more. I've put more for Obama because... well... there ARE more for Obama.

Here are some of the endorsements for Obama:

The Philadephia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081017_For_President__Obama_will_lead.html

Both major candidates are trying to avoid association with Bush's failed policies. But only one does so successfully. On every issue important to America, Barack Obama offers a plan that would pull this nation from the precipice built by bad Bush decisions. The Inquirer endorses BARACK OBAMA for president.

The Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10741576

If Americans were only worried about foreign affairs, McCain's stalwart service in the military and experience on the national stage would make him the more credible commander in chief. But our eyes have turned homeward and, in this hour, Obama has the eloquence and vision to bring us back together.

The Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/730751.html

Sen. Obama represents the best chance for America to make a clean break with the culture wars and failed policies of the past, and begin to restore the hope and promise of America as the world's greatest democracy.

The Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-endorse19-2008oct19,0,5966124.story

We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.

The Chicago Tribune (which has never endorsed a Democratic nominee for president): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story

On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.

The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

The Rockford (Illinois) Register Star: http://www.rrstar.com/opinions/x1776799965/Our-pick-for-president-Obama

With nothing on a firm footing — not the economy, not the war, not health care — the leader of the free world should be just that: a leader.In endorsing Obama over Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain, we’re choosing a man who we’ve come to know as an earnest, smart and, yes, charismatic politician...

The Chicago Sun Times: http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1228111,sun-times-endorses-barack-obama-101908.article

If America had preferred a master of policy for its next president, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have won the Democratic nomination. If America valued experience in public life above all else, Sen. John McCain would be trouncing Sen. Obama in the polls.
But it is Sen. Obama who won his party's nomination, and it is he who leads in the polls. Americans across the land want to pull together, and in Sen. Obama they see a man of exceptional gifts who just might show them how.
Our endorsement for president of the United States goes to Sen. Barack Obama, Chicago's adopted son. He has the unique background, superior intellect, sound judgment and first-rate temperament to lead our nation in difficult times.

The Kansas City Star: http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/845717.html

...Sen. Barack Obama is the right person to lead the country forward. He is a man of strength, empathy, energy and intelligence.
The Illinois Democrat understands the challenges that await George Bush’s successor. A gifted public servant whose roots extend to his mother’s birthplace in Kansas, Obama has a rare ability to encourage hope among the dispirited and to inspire young people.

Amazingly, the Salt Lake (Utah) Tribute endorsed Obama: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10750163

On tax policy, Obama would sensibly increase taxes for individuals making more than $250,000 a year, while cutting taxes for everyone else. He also would send money to the states for public works improvements that would generate jobs. His intent to increase the capital gains tax, however, is foolhardy while businesses struggle to weather the economic meltdown. McCain would cut taxes for people in all income brackets, as well as mandate big reductions in corporate income taxes. It is a trickle-down plan that would do little to reduce the deficit. McCain's foreign policy objectives virtually replicate Bush's disastrous course. His disdain for diplomacy is troubling, and his faith in eventual U.S. "victory" in Iraq is ill-defined. We simply cannot afford perpetual war. Obama knows this. And his nuanced approach would help America recover it's global prestige. Indeed, we see too many of Bush's failed policies in McCain's recipe for recovery. The country desperately needs a new and well-defined road map for the 21st century and leadership that can unite the country behind it. We believe that Barack Obama can give us both.

The (Portland) Oregonian: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/obama_for_president.html

Obama has the best chance, and the best abilities, to rebuild an American economy that has grown dangerously unstable, with government, consumers and the nation itself spiraling deeply into debt and selling off the national future to pay for daily expenses. He is the best choice to rebuild the American position in the world, to restore our ties with traditional allies, to re-make the American argument to the rest of the world.

The San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/16/BALP13H6V9.DTL&type=politics

Throughout a campaign that has been intense - and at some points ugly - Obama has kept his composure and maintained a vision of optimism that has drawn an unparalleled wave of young people into the political process. His policies and his persona have offered hope to a nation that is deeply polarized, swimming in debt, mired in war and ridden with anxiety. He taps into that treasured American reservoir - patriotism - with his calls for sacrifice and national service.
Barack Obama is the right president for these troubled times.

The Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/10/14/obama_for_president/

With great enthusiasm, the Globe endorses Senator Barack Obama for president. The charismatic Democrat from Illinois has the ability to channel Americans' hopes and rally the public together, at a time when the winds are picking up and the clouds keep on darkening.

The St Louis Post-Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/campaign-2008/2008/10/sunday-editorial-barack-obama-for-president/

In making political endorsements, this editorial page is guided first by the principles espoused by Joseph Pulitzer in The Post-Dispatch Platform printed daily at the top of this page. Then we consider questions of character, life experience and intellect, as well as specific policy and issue positions. Each member of the editorial board weighs in.
On all counts, the consensus was clear: Barack Obama of Illinois should be the next president of the United States.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08286/919151-35.stm

...this election is not just about the shortcomings of Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin and the failed legacy of a philosophy that they seek to perpetuate under the hastily erected banner of maverick.
It is about the strengths of Barack Obama, whose rise to prominence is not a fluke or national infatuation but the consequence of his remarkable skills -- a keen intellect, noble intentions and the wit and grace to express them in ways that have inspired millions across the country. He has a rare gift exactly suited to the fearful times -- he knows the language of reassurance and hope.
If his were just empty words, this would be just another cheap political gift. But what he says is carefully considered. In the debates and on the hustings, Mr. Obama has been the voice of moderation, combining common sense and compassion on issue after issue. When the subject turns to foreign policy, supposedly Mr. McCain's strong suit, Mr. Obama gives no indication that he will have to learn on the job.

The Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008190671_obamaed21.html

Obama should be the next president of the United States because he is the most qualified change agent. Obama is a little young, but also brilliant. If he sometimes seems brainy and professorial, that's OK. We need the leader of the free world to think things through, carefully. We have seen the sorry results of shooting from the hip.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/382005_obamaed.html

If the country ever needed new direction under a fresh, steady, calm president, this is the time. Sen. Barack Obama is the country's hope, the kind of promising, intelligent leader who comes along perhaps once in a generation.
Obama is the best candidate for president. He has the vision, patience and fortitude to put America on a track to recovery after an eight-year run of financial irresponsibility, aggressive adventurism abroad and mismanagement, secrecy and dissembling on numerous fronts.

The Nashville Tennessean: http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081013/OPINION01/810120372/1007/OPINION

This newspaper believes Obama would be an inspiring choice at an extraordinary time for the nation. The country needs a fresh, energetic face in the White House. Every race for president is important, but the current confluence of events, including the war on terror, mountainous challenges in the economy and a growing strain upon the nation's health-care system make the current race a call for vigorous new approaches and enthusiasm.
Obama has managed to put a tone of optimism in his campaign at a time it would be very easy to be downhearted, worried and pessimistic. That characteristic alone goes a long way in demonstrating the kind of leadership the nation needs.

Here are some of the endorsements for McCain:

The Tampa Tribune: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/17/uncertain-times-require-mccains-tested-vigilance/

The direction of the nation is at stake in this election.
Hard economic times, a disappointing Republican administration and the seductive promises of a master orator are pushing America toward a European-style social democracy.
If you don't want that to happen, vote for Republican Sen. John McCain.

Also, while the Philadelphia Inquirer officially endorses Obama, they did offer a dissenting opinion and endorsement for McCain (The one thing I will say about this piece: at no point does it say where McCain is superior to Obama on the issues.): http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081017_For_President__Obama_will_lead.html#mccain

No one is better prepared than John McCain to serve as commander in chief and lead the country as it seeks successful outcomes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and to work with Pakistan to help kill or capture the perpetrators of 9/11. McCain's actions as a POW in Vietnam were heroic. In Congress, he has become intimately familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the Pentagon.

The Dallas Morning News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_endorsements_11

In better times, America could afford to consider entrusting the White House to an appealing newcomer like Mr. Obama and giving control of the presidency and Congress to the same party.
But in this time of great anxiety, the American people need a leader of experience guiding the ship of state. Mr. McCain offers the continuity, stability and sense of authority people want, as well as a decisive break from the Bush years.

The Union Leader in New Hampshire: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=McCain+for+President%3a+A+real+leader+for+America&articleId=fef1a585-b873-4fb1-8896-11cb27546ab0

The troubles that will face the next President of the United States are numerous and perilous. They will test the character, the resolve and the mettle of the man we choose to deal with them. Of the two men who stand on the precipice of that great office, only John McCain has proved that he has what it takes to make the tough decisions in a time of crisis.

The Boston Herald: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/2008_09_30_McCain_for_President:_A_certain_leader_for_uncertain_times/

Another sobering start to an exceedingly sobering week - but one which points to the need for a political leader who is steady in the face of crisis, mature in judgment and able to reach across the aisle to break the gridlock that has for too long gripped Washington.
That man is Sen. John McCain and at this critical moment in history, this paper is pleased to endorse his candidacy for president of the United States....Being president is about policy and about getting that policy right.
But being president is also about character. During his decades of service to his country John McCain has given us all ample evidence of his courage, his character and his leadership. And never more has this nation needed a president with all that John McCain has to offer.

The New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09082008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_john_mccain_128044.htm

McCain's lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin résumé of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barack Obama.

Thoughts on the final debate

2008-10-16T18:49:00.001-07:00

I wanted to take a few minutes to offer some final thoughts on last night's debate.

I'm actually glad I took my time to think about it before I did this because it gave me time for some new perspective.

My first reaction to last night's debate was: Dang! McCain did kick some you-know-what! I thought he was on his game, pointed out the flaws in Obama's plans, and really put forth his best effort of the debates so far. I thought he won.

For Obama, I thought he sat back and just took it. I didn't think he did much to make himself look strong. When he had a chance to really blast Palin and explain Ayers and ACORN that he really didn't do as much as he could, ... especially when he had a chance to take down Palin.

I was surprised to see that so many of the experts and voters thought Obama had won. Last night I really didn't think so.

But now I've had 24 hours to think about it... and I don't feel the same way.

I think what happened was two different strategies ... that might work for both candidates and not change things at all.

McCain's strategy, as he said, was to go in and kick some rear. He took it to Obama. He was rough on him. He took every opportunity to make Obama look bad, point out his flaws, the flaws in his plans, and just generally came out tough. But he also showed himself to be confrontational, impatient (by constantly interrupting), and generally angry. I'm not sure those are attractive qualities someone wants to represent our country.

On the other hand, Obama had every opportunity and reason to go right back at him. Every time McCain fired an accusation at him, he could have fired back. When McCain attacked him and Biden, he could have attacked back. He had easy opportunities to do so. But he didn't. Why? To show that he's unflappable, and he was. He never took the bait. Instead, he let McCain keep throwing punches and took the blows. He didn't waste energy in punching back. He went on the defensive. And in doing so, he made McCain look like the attacker, the person who is focusing on things other than the issues, coming across as the person less than genuine.

I didn't see this last night. I didn't get it. But now I do. Obama came off as smart, knowledgeable, someone with a plan, and someone who will not be flummoxed by situatoins. I think it worked well and other people obviously saw it last night as exit polls showed that people thought Obama won the debate.

In any case, it doesn't matter to me. As long as Obama wins in 3 weeks, that's all I'm concerned about. And unless something extraordinary happens in that time, it looks like that's what is going to happen.

Debate #3 Comments

2008-10-15T21:08:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching the debate. I have a lot to say about it but I'm too tired to do it now. I'll post my summary comments tomorrow.

Below are the notes I took during the debate. This was a much more interesting one. As always, my notes are not exactly verbatim... they're the best I could do.

------------------------------------------------

- Here we go with the final debate of this election. Let's go!

- Interesting setup with the face-to-face. Let's see if they can talk face to face...

- First up! Economic plans...

McCain brings up Nancy Reagan's injury to address the first question. Huh? Nice shoutout, but,... huh?

He's talking about his lousy housing plan first. He says that his plan will help the people who make their payments on time by helping house prices.

OK... I'm pausing right here. I mean literally, I paused the debate to type this answer.

I don't believe that it will. If anything, for the time being, it will keep house prices down because you are resetting home values to a lower price. So for anyone, it's going to be a long time before house prices make a significant improvement. Whether he did this move or not, house prices are not changing. It's going to take time for them to go up. There is no quick fix for this and helping bailout banks and allowing people to refinance at a discount is not the answer.

Let's see what Obama says...

He has a 4 point plan about economics:
1. Focus on Jobs. Get rid of tax cuts for companies sending jobs overseas.
2. Give middle class tax cut. And access IRA accounts without penalty.
3. Allow for renegotiating of mortgages, but not how McCain wants to.
4. Fix health care, energy policy, invest in education.

McCain's now talking about Joe the plumber. He says that this man would pay higher taxes through Obama's plan. He couldn't afford to buy a business. McCain says he'll help Joe by keeping taxes low.

Obama says tax policy is a major difference between them. McCain wants to provide tax breaks for the rich. He wants to provide tax cuts for everyone else. Says he wants to give tax breaks to 98% of small businesses.

McCain accuses Obama of telling Joe that they need to spread the wealth around. We shouldn't raise anyone's taxes right now.

Obama talking about super-rich people having to pay additional taxes. McCain says we're talking about Joe the plumber. McCain's hitting him hard here.

McCain says businesses pay the 2nd highest tax rate of anywhere in the world. Says we'll lose jobs when they go to other countries. Says it's not time to spread the wealth around.

- I have to say... McCain is off to a hot start. Truthfully, I don't feel to bad about someone making more than $250,000 to have to pay their fair share of taxes, but McCain made a more compelling argument on this topic.

On to the next one...

- Talking about the deficit and how both of their plans will add to it...

Obama says the rescue package will give money back to the deficit. He says we've been living beyond our means and cuts will have to be made. Says he's matching increases with cuts in spending. Says he'll go through the federal budget and make cuts on programs that don't work. Need to invest in health care to prevent diseases, energy policy, in education. Need to adopt a culture of responsibility.

McCain says he wants to get back to home ownership. Talking about a Depression Era program. Says Hillary proposed something similar. Schieffer is trying to get him back on topic about the deficit and spending cuts. So McCain launched into energy independence. Says doing that will create millions of jobs. OH! Now he suddenly changes course and starts abruptly talking about the spending freeze he previous mentioned. Says he'll get out the hatchet first then the scalpel. Says he'll save billions in defense spendings and eliminate programs... even though he's said in a previous debate that he would not cut defense spending. He's giving examples now... says he knows how to save billions. Talking again how he saved $6.8 billion on a defense contract (I previously mentioned this and all that did was allow the contract to be picked up by a supporter of his and it's still not finalized years later). Talking about earmarks again and cutting out the pork.

Obama opposes the spending freeze. Says it is a hatchet job when a scalpel is needed. Says some programs need to be cut while others need more support. Now he's going into earmarks... says earmarks are 0.5% of the federal budget. Says using the same policies of the last 8 years is not going to work.

Schieffer asks if budget can be balanced in 4 years. McCain says yes... then the fireworks start!

McCain says he's not Bush and if Obama wanted to run against Bush, he should have run four years ago. He says he's going to give the country a new direction. Dang! McCain's owning this right now.

Says the budget is out of control. Talking about New York doing a spending freeze and says it can work. Says Obama voted for current budgets that put up the deficit and earmarks that he opposed. Says he's fought against special interests, spending, for reform. Challenges Obama to say when he's stood up against his party one time. Whoo! McCain is on fire! Obama better grab the reigns here or McCain's going to win this thing. Go back at him, Barack!

Obama says as far a standing up to his party his first major bill he voted on was support on tort laws. Supporting charter schools. Clean coal technologies. There you go, McCain!

Says the claim that he's supported a tax on people making less than $42,000 a year has been disputed, even by Fox News. Says if he's mistaken McCain's plans with Bush's because he's supported Bush's policies on key issues. Particularly economic policies. Says people know it hasn't worked and we need a new direction.

McCain says he's disagreed with people (Bush, his own party). He's listing a bunch of things... says he has a long record of reform. Says Obama's argument for standing up to leaders of his party is not convincing.

Then they move on.

- Next topic: Leadership shown during the campaign.

OK, I'm LOVING Bob Schieffer right now. He's bringing up the nasty tactics that have been used during this campaign after they both pledged to take the high road. He's asking them to say the same things to each other's faces. OH! Nice! I'm curious to see this discussion.

McCain first.

Says it's been a tough campaign. Says if Obama had responded to his "urgent" requests to do town hall meetings they could have done 10 of them. Says Obama at first said any place, any time. Says tone could have been different (if they had done them). Says he thinks the campaign has taken many turns which are unacceptable.

He's talking about John Lewis. Says Lewis associated him and Palin with segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace... then accuses Obama of not repudiating those remarks. THEN he claims that if Republicans have been making out of bounds remarks, he's done that. Asks Obama to do that against Lewis. Says he'll run a truthful campaign. And says Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any campaign in history... and he can prove it! Then talks about Obama saying he would take public financing if McCain did but then didn't. He didn't keep his word. Says we now have the highest spending on any campaign since Watergate.

HOLD ON!

OK, so Obama agrees NOT to spend public taxpayers money to run a campaign and McCain's going to say there's a problem with that? Obama didn't take the money because he knew he would be saving the taxpayers money and he's only been spending so much because he's been getting more in donations. Obama knew he could get more money that way. I say.. Smart move, Barack!

Obama's response now...

Says we expect Presidential campaigns to be tough. Says CBS ran a poll showing 2/3rds of the people think McCain is running a negative campaign. Says 100% of McCain's adds are negative. McCain denies that. (I don't think it's been 100% the whole time, but it has been recently and I've seen that noted elsewhere.) Says the people care more about the issues than their hurt feelings. Says the notion that because they didn't do town hall meetings that it justifies some of the ads that have been going on, both from McCain's campaign and others, .. well, he doesn't mind being attacked, but we can't put up with 4 more years of economic crisis.

OK.. dang! I didn't like that response. Obama had a chance there to really nail McCain but pulled it back. Instead changed to this issues. Rats.

Now he's going back to McCain's campaign stating they can't win by talking about the issues... says he'd love to have the next three weeks to be talking about the issues. Says politics as usual will not solve the problems.

McCain says while watching Arizona beat Dallas on Sunday (Obama interjects "congratulations"... McCain giggled... hee hee!) every other ad was an attack on his health care plan.

Eeerk! Hit the breaks!

OK, there's a difference between attacking someone's policies and attacking their character. There's no comparison. I have no problems with ads that knock someone's plans, but when you are putting out ads accusing someone of being a terrorist (which he is NOT), THAT I have a problem with.

Back to the program...

Says Obama is running ads saying McCain's opposed funding for stem cell research. He says he does not. Says there's an add that mis-portrays his immigration position. Again mentions Obama's record spending on ads. Says he's going to let Joe the plumber keep his wealth instead of spreading it around. Says his campaign is all about the economy, jobs. Again mentions that we did not hear a repudiation of Lewis from Obama.

Obama says if we're going to talk about Lewis... he says Lewis unprompted by his campaign made some statements of concern about what was being said at Palin's rallies. Talks about how at those rallies things like "terrorist" and "kill him" have been said. And that Palin did nothing about it. He says Lewis point.. McCain interrupts him saying "you gotta read what he said"....

Break again.

I did read what he said. Here it is, from CNN:

Lewis had said earlier that he was "deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign" and that the Republican running mates are "playing with fire."

"What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse," Lewis said in a statement.

"During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama," wrote the Democrat.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/12/mccain.lewis/index.html

Lewis's point was not to say that McCain and Palin are those people. But they are doing things that are creating similar circumstances. And they are! Their firing up their crowds and some incredibly hateful things are being said as a result of what they are doing. It needs to stop.

Back to where we were...

So McCain tried to interrupt Obama and Obama said to let him finish. (It was his turn.)

Obama says they immediately put out a statement saying that he didn't think that comparison was appropriate. Lewis then said he probably did go over the line.

Obama says he's been trying to focus on the issues because that's what the people want to hear about. People have become cynical about out politics because all they see is a tit for tat... back and forth.

McCain tries to interject again but Obama keeps talking and McCain stops. He keeps trying to break in while Obama's talking. Obama talks about how they have a difference in policies. But when people are talking about how he pals around with terrorists, we're not talking about issues... and then I couldn't hear the rest because McCain started talking over him.

I have to tell you... I though McCain was winning this thing but now he's starting to annoy me by being rude and interrupting Obama. He had me (as far as this debate is concerned) but he's losing me now...

Let's see what was so important for McCain to get out...

McCain says he's proud of the people who have come to his rallies. Says that your going to get fringe people in that large of a crowd. He's talking about different people coming to his rallies ... and saying that Obama is saying that THOSE people are saying negative things about him. (I don't think anyone said that.) Says things have been said at Obama's rallies that he hasn't like and again claims to have repudiated things that have been said every time. (LIE!) He says he has not stood for the things like that happening.

Obama says what's most important is to solve the key problems that we're having, everyone needs to work together, all parties. He says that we can have tough debates about issues but we cannot characterize each other as bad people.

AGAIN McCain interrupts Obama before he's done and does allow him to finish. He's losing points with me here...

Uh oh. McCain brought up Ayers and says that we should know what this relationship with Obama is all about. I was HOPING he'd bring this up. He also brought up ACORN. Obama better put this to rest.

Let's watch!

Obama says Ayers has become the centerpiece of McCain's campaign and he's going to set the record straight. FINALLY!

He says Ayers is a professor and he did terrorist acts when he was eight. He says he's condemned those acts. They both served on a board for Richard Annenburg. There were lots of other significant people on that board. Ayers is not involved with his campaign. He will not advise him. Says ACORN is a union organization and people filled out registration forms improperly. It didn't involve him. Says he represented them to get a motor voter law in Illinois. He says it's important to get this out because somehow they think his association are trouble. He names people he does associate with. He says the fact that these issues have become such an important part of McCain's campaign says more about his campaign than it does about him.

DANG! Now SHUT UP, McCain!

OK, McCain's response...

McCain just said something about the board sending money to Acorn while both McCain and Obama were on that board. Talking about launching his career in Ayers living room (Obama denies this). McCain says facts are facts and Obama says those are not the facts. McCain says all of the details need to be known about those relationships. (What else does he think there is?) He says his campaign is about getting the economy back on track, creating jobs, a brighter future for America. Says he won't raise taxes like Obama.

Schieffer goes to change the subject now.

DANG! I wanted Obama to really nail McCain to the wall on this. Why couldn't he just say, "What else do you think there is, John?" News organizations have said there's nothing there. Urgh!

Next topic...

- Talking about VP choices... OH!!!!! I love this! I tell you what, Schieffer's the one guys in these debates so far that has actually asked some good, confrontational questions. The question is: why would the country be better of with your running mate than your opponents running mate?

OK, if Obama doesn't take the chance to slam Palin now... I don't know what to tell you...

Obama first...

Says Biden is one of the finest public servants in the country. People on both sides acknowledge his expertise. Says he fights for the little guy. Naming bill and acts Biden worked on. He's talking about things they are going to do to help people... ok... he's not hitting up Palin... says on the key issues, Biden's been on the right side.

McCain says American's have gotten to know Sarah Palin. She's a role model to women (ugh!). She's a reformer. Took on the Governor of her own party. She fought corruption. Gave money back to the tax payers. Negotiated with oil companies. Need that breath of fresh air. (that's not what I smell!) She understands special needs families. She understands that. (Her baby is... what? 6 months old? How much could she know already?) He's proud of her.

Schiffer specifically asks Obama if Palin is qualified to be President. C'mon, Barack!

Obama says that's up to the American people. Says she's a capable politician. She's excited the Republican base. Wants to point out that special needs will require special funding. He's talking about McCain's spending freeze now and how that could affect special needs programs.

Time out.

Why, OH WHY, didn't he say "no" and give some reasons? What hurts in doing that? I don't get it. Why is she being so specially protected. I would have slammed her to the ground. She can't answer simple questions. She was unethical as governer. She avoids the press. She's married to a secessionist. So many things. Why didn't he in some way say "no"? URGH!

Now Schiffer asks McCain about Biden...

He better not say much else but, "heck yes!"

See! Now McCain is doing it right. Says that Biden's qualified in many ways, but he's been wrong on many National security issues. He's taking a shot. Obama, you better get some shots in! Says Biden voted against the Gulf War. Says Biden had an idea about dividing Iraq. Says there are issues that he disagrees with Biden on.

Now he comes back to how Obama says he wants to spend more.

OK, that section REALLY frustrated me. Obama should have slammed Palin in SOME way, but he didn't. But McCain took his shots at Biden. That was bad, Barack. You had a chance to set Palin up in a negative light for people and you really did not.

Moving on to the next topic.

- Energy and climate change. Talking about the dependance on foreign oil.

McCain says we can reduce dependence on Middle Eastern and Venezuelen oil. Takes a shot at Obama about the Free Trade agreement. Talking about nuclear power and says to Obama that we can take care of spent fuel. Talking about green energy sources. Says in 10 years we can eliminate our dependence on foreign energy from countries that threaten our security.

Schiffer changes the question a little for Obama and ask how much it can be done in 4 years.

Obama says in 10 years says we can reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela. Says nothing is more imporant that borrowing from China and sending it to Saudi Arabia. Says we need to expand domestic production. Says that for areas not currently being drilled, use them or lose them. Says we can't drill our way out of the problem. Talks about green energy sources are priorities.

Wants to talk about McCain's comments on NAFTA. Says for far too long the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good agreement. NAFTA does not have labor or environmental agreements. Says foreign cars are coming into the US but not going out as many to other countries.

McCain says he loves Obama's eloquence but you have to listen to the words. OOF!

He says Obama said "we'll look at off-shore drilling". McCain says we can do it now. We'll reduce price by showing that we can do it now.

OK... he's losing me here. He's talking about NAFTA and how he's in favor of it. Mentions that Obama's never been South of the border. Says it will be a job creator because we won't have to pay to ship products out. Says if Obama travelled down there and visited, he'd understand better.

I tell you what... right now McCain's mopping the floor with Obama. Obama better start getting his own shots in...

Obama says he understands things pretty well. Says labor leaders have been assassinated but not prosecuted. Says we need to stand for human rights. Stood for the Peruvian agreement. Says we have to have a President who understands the benefits of free trade but will stand up to other countries. Says automakers are getting hammered right now. Says we need to make them make more fuel efficient cars. Says that's a priority for him. It'll create lots of jobs.

McCain says we don't want free trade with our best allies in the region but wants to sit with our enemies without preconditions. Says Obama wants to restrict trade and raise taxes. Says Hoover did that and it caused a greater depression.

Why is McCain always getting the last word? This SUCKS!

- Next topic: health care. Because of the economy, would either of them favor controlling health care costs over expanding coverage?

Obama first.

Says we need to do both. Says if you have insurance through work, you keep it. Says he wants to lower costs. Says he thinks he can cut costs by $2500 a year. If you don't have it, the option to buy into the pool that he and McCain are a part of. Says preconditions would not prevent people from getting coverage. Says his plan will cost money on the front end, but in the long run will save money.

McCain cost is inflicting pain. Says we need to put health care records online. Talking about physical fitness programs in schools. Rewards for people who join health clubs. Wants to give $5000 credit. He's talking to Joe the plumber again saying that he'll be fined if he doesn't provide health benefits to his employees. He'd like to know what the fine would be. He says Obama's plan is a single payer system.

Obama says it's not. He says Joe's fine will be zero. He says the requirement is for large businesses and he exempts small businesses. He's talking about how everyone has to pay for the uninsured. Says he'll give a 50% credit to companies that provide insurance. If people don't get it, they can buy into the plan he described. (Sorry I don't have that verbatim (his plan). I'm doing my best here to keep up...)

Obama now talking about McCain's $5000 tax credit. Says employer's will lose employee insurance because young, healthy people will be able to afford to buy health insurance, but others will not be able to because they cannot afford it (like families). So they'll be the only ones left on their company's health plans. And the company will not be able to afford it. And all you'll have is this credit. He also mentions that McCain wants to tax employer health benefits. Also, the average health insurance policy is $12,000 (OK, Obama, you got it going here...). That's a loss for people. Also, with McCain wanting to strip away state restrictions, companies will be able to cherry-pick who they want to provide coverage to.

McCain's talking to Joe again. Says he's rich. He'll have to pay a fine for not providing health insurance. He'll have to pay a fine for not doing it. Says Obama will mandate who he can have for health insurance. (THAT'S NOT TRUE!) McCain says the average cost of a health insurance plan is $5800. (Where did he get that number?) He's talking more about this... Obama's plan is big government. Wants people to be able to decide what's best for their families.

Obama's rebutting. McCain's plan will cause people to lose their health plans from work. Says the US Chamber of Commerce says McCain's plan could unravel employer based health care.

- Next topic: Abortion. Could either of them ever nominate a Supreme Court justice who did not share their views on this?

McCain says abortion should be in the hands of the states. Nominees should be based on their qualifications. Says he voted for two justices based on their qualifications. Says Obama didn't vote for two because they didn't meeting his idiology.

Schiffer tries to get to the point of the question which was about whether he would nominate someone who didn't share his views on abortion. McCain goes back to the qualifications point.

Obama says the most important thing is being able to provide justice and fairness. Says it's a very good chance one of them will be appointing at least one judge and Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance. He says he thinks it was rightly decided. He gives a bunch of reasons why that I didn't all catch. Says he'll look for judges with the right intellect.

Obama's talking about an equal pay case that he tried to support while McCain opposed it. I lost how he got here.

OK, now McCain's bringing some partial abortion law that Obama supposedly voted against in Illinois. It was a law that would have provided immediate medical attention to a baby who survived an abortion attempt. He says Obama voted against it. In another he says Obama voted against a late term abortion law. He says Obama voted against the views of main stream America. I'm not so sure about that...

Obama's response...

He says if it sounds incredible that he would withhold life-saving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true! He says it would have undermined Roe v. Wade. He says there was already a law for this in place and that both pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it. He supports late term abortions except in the case of threats to the mother's health and life, which the law did not include. He says the issue of abortion divides us. Says there is common ground. Says we should prevent unintended pregnancies. Provide adoption options. Says abortion is a tragic situation.

OK, McCain talks about Obama's eloquence again and is addressing the "health of the mother". Says he'll help with the adoptive services.

Then Schiffer ends it. McCain didn't really get to make his point.

Next...

- Last topic: We spend more money on education than other countries, but we trail other countries on achievement (basically). What to do?

Obama first (again)...

This has more to do with our economic future than anything. And it has a national security implications. Says we have to get our education system right. Do we need more money or reform? He says both. Says we need to recruit new teachers with higher pay. Need to make college affordable. Students are going into debt to go to school. Wants to give a $4000 tuition credit for community service. Says parents need to show more responsibility.

McCain says it's a civil rights issue of the 21st Century. Says we have equal access to schools now. Says choice of school, charter schools is part of the answer. Get rid of bad teachers. Charter schools provide competition. (Oh, great! More deregulation! ... kidding...) Throwing money at the problem is not the answer. Need to reward good teachers. Need to improve education. As far as college, need to provide affordable loans.

Schieffer asks if the federal government should provide more money.

Obama says it is important to help local school districts. Talking about No Child Left Behind. Says the money was left behind. Says he and McCain agree on charter schools and the need to remove bad teachers. Says they disagree that vouchers can be given to solve the problems. And also college accessibility/affordability. Says McCain's economic advisor was asked why he didn't have a plan to help kids go to college and he said that we can't give money to every special interest group.

McCain talking about vouchers in the DC school system. Says parents there wanted it. On No Child Left Behind, says it was a great first beginning. But it had flaws that need to be fixed. Says spending more money isn't the answer. (Did Obama say it was?) Says programs need to be reformed.

Uhhhhh.... I'm losing it... I'm tired...

Obama says the centerpiece of McCain's plan is to increase vouchers in DC but no where else.

Schieffer plugs mydebate.org where you can watch this debate and the previous ones.... and that's where you can go to see the Senators' closing statements... because I'm stopping here.

Palin is a bad mom

2008-10-13T18:07:00.001-07:00

OK, I'm sure Sarah Palin is not a bad mom... at least pretty sure. At least I'm going to give her that much credit. But what she did to her kids the other night I thought was pretty appalling.

Saturday night Palin dropped the first puck at the Philadelphia Flyers season opener. Now, I live in the Philadelphia area. I grew up around here. If there's one thing I know about this town, it's a Democratic town. I think the last five mayors in Philadelphia going back something like 30 years have been Democrats. In the last mayoral election the Republicans on put up a token candidate to run against eventual landslide winner Michael Nutter because they knew they had no chance to win. So why she thought going to a sporting event where she wouldn't be surrounded by her Republican fans was a good idea, I don't know... especially with her children in tow.

I can't imagine she planned to walk onto that ice thinking that she would get a warm and fuzzy reception. She had to know better. Her handlers had to know better. And if they didn't, then they really don't know what they are doing and it's another reason not to vote for the Republican ticket.

Anyway, she walked onto the ice Saturday night in the Democratic city of Philadelphia with two of her daughters following her. And the boos rained down.

My question is: why would Palin expose her children to that? I'm sure for them, at first, it seemed neat to go to a hockey game and get to go on the ice. But then they had to stand there and listen as their mother was booed. Badly. What can that do to a child? And why, as their mother, wouldn't Palin think ahead and not put her children in that position? To have to hear their mother being booed?

I just don't get that. I would never put my children in a position like that. Never. Taking them to a Republican rally, where you're very likely to be cheered is one thing. But taking them into a potentially hostile environment to me is just wrong. And not very good parenting.

Here's some links...

- Here's a story from CNN about what the two candidates economic plans mean to you. I think this is a very important read for everyone: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/13/news/economy/voting_for.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2008101307

From reading that, unless you are really rich, there's no reason you should be voting for John McCain. And since the majority of Americans are not... well... you know...

- Who is Barack Obama? Read this story and you'll see the type of person he is: http://thebruceblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/who-is-barack-obama-his-past-finally-exposed/

- Here's a fact checker who says Palin's being untruthful when she says she was cleared of any wrongdoing in Troopergate: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/four_pinocchios_for_palin.html

- Here are two countering point of views about who each of the writers think should be President.

Here's the first, in which the writer makes his decision based on the movies the candidates like. Huh? http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20081013/cm_weeklystandard/vivamccain

Here's one that I can't say is glowing for Obama, but it's definitely tough on McCain and Palin: http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

- Here's Christopher Buckley, son of prominent conservative William F. Buckley, saying he's voting for Obama and gives a compelling argument why: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/

- This article calls out McCain for his campaign tactics and supposes what might have been if he had taken a different path... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/12/AR2008101201632.html

That's all for tonight.

Kudos to John McCain

2008-10-11T19:42:00.001-07:00

When this whole election process started, with things the way they are in our country, I was pretty sure I was going to be voting Democrat However, I said to my wife that the one person who I'd have to take a serious look at on the Republican side if he won the nomination was John McCain. I had always considered him to be a pretty honorable man, someone I thought could be a good leader, and someone I could see as President.

But the past few months have seriously sullied me on McCain. This has more to do with his policies, which I don't agree with, decisions (Sarah Palin, "suspending" his campaign, flip-flopping on his own beliefs) and his unrelenting attacks on Barack Obama, many of which have been exaggerations, misleading statements, flat out lies, or meaningless, down right mean attacks. It cast the man in a new light for me as someone I don't want to vote for. And in the past week or so things have gotten downright appalling with the attacks on Obama about William Ayers that have turned McCain's rallies into something just short of a lynch mob.

Then something happened last night.

At a rally in Minnesota, McCain actually defended Obama when the comments by a couple of the attendees got out of hand.

One person said he was scared of Obama becoming President. McCain said, "I want to be president of the United States, and I don't want Obama to be. But I have to tell you, I have to tell you, he is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.”

After a woman accused Obama of being an Arab (after she said she's been reading something about him... I'd like to know what she was reading since she's so misinformed...), McCain shook his head 'no' and said, "No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

Here's video of the exchanges: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLlIigHg1v0

It actually gave me chills to hear McCain say this. I thought it was outstanding of him to say those things. I'm actually proud of him for having done that. After all the furor that he and Sarah Palin have been driving for the past two weeks, it's nice to see him actually try to simmer it down a little and try to keep things civil. I hope it makes a difference and we'll see what happens for the next few weeks. But for one night, at least, he has a little of my respect. It doesn't change my vote as I still don't agree with his policies, but it shows me that maybe, just maybe, John McCain actually does have a heart and didn't sell his soul. ;)

So kudos to you, John McCain, for doing the right thing. I salute you for this. If this had been the man and the campaign I had seen for the past four months, maybe I'd have a more difficult choice about who to choose. Well, I guess then again there are your policy plans.... and Sarah Palin. Nah. ;)

By the way, the woman who said Obama was an Arab actually did an interview after the rally and sounds like a lunatic. Here's video of it. The sound is hard to hear but there are subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOU9xZ4zcss&NR=1

I'd sure like to see what she's got!

A portrayal of John McCain

2008-10-10T13:53:00.000-07:00

Rolling Stone Magazine has published an absolutely fascinating article about the history of John McCain. If you are thinking about voting for John McCain, you must do yourself a service and read this article so that you understand the man you would be voting for. It's the portrait of a bullying man who will do and say anything to be President and promote himself ... even after saying he wouldn't do that. (See the last paragraphs of this blog.)

You can find the article here: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/

I will warn you in advance that some of the language in the article is salty. Also, the article is very long.

Highlights of the article:

After ending his time as a POW, he studied at the National War College. As part of that, students get to do academic travels. Instead of choosing something where he might learn something, like the Middle East, he chose Rio de Janeiro. Why? Well, according to him, "I got a better chance of getting laid." Remember that he was married at the time.
I like this quote from the article:

We have now watched McCain run twice for president. The first time he positioned himself as a principled centrist and decried the politics of Karl Rove and the influence of the religious right, imploring voters to judge candidates "by the example we set, by the way we conduct our campaigns, by the way we personally practice politics."

So what do his current campaign practices say about him?
McCain originally voted against Bush's tax cuts. Of course now he wants to extend them.
There are tales of how he used his privileged status as the son of a 4-star general to bully people at school and get himself privileges he did earn or deserve.
He had an incredible temper and drinking problems. He had no problem cursing out women.
From the article:

McCain's self-described "four-year course of insubordination" ended with him graduating fifth from the bottom — 894th out of a class of 899. It was a record of mediocrity he would continue as a pilot.

Yes, we want someone who was insubordinate and did not apply himself to be President.
After crashing a plane during a training flight, McCain took some painkillers and a nap, and then went out carousing that night.
How about this example of recklessness:

Flying over the south of Spain one day, he decided to deviate from his flight plan. Rocketing along mere feet above the ground, his plane sliced through a power line. His self-described "daredevil clowning" plunged much of the area into a blackout.
There's one section of this article that talks about the accident on the USS Forrestal, where 134 of his crewmates were killed after a missile inexplicably fired and hit his plane as he was sitting in it. It wasn't McCain's fault the accident happened by far and he was lucky to escape with his life. But the article gets on him for not doing more to help fight the fire and preventing the ship from sinking. While I guess it's possible that he could have done more, the guy did just escape with his life. He could have been suffering from post-stress disorder or something. He was somewhat wounded. I mean, if he was the only person sitting around while things were happening that was one thing, but the article never says that.

However, what I will get on him for is the fact that he used the accident as a PR opportunity, doing interviews with the New York Times and leaving the ship for what he said was "some welcome R&R" while the rest of his crewmates mourned their dead. That doesn't show much caring or leadership.
The article mentions this about McCain's incarceration as a POW during the Vietnam War:

The Code of Conduct that governed POWs was incredibly rigid; few soldiers lived up to its dictate that they "give no information . . . which might be harmful to my comrades." Under the code, POWs are bound to give only their name, rank, date of birth and service number — and to make no "statements disloyal to my country."

The article talks about that while McCain was a POW he freely gave military information to the Vietnamese. Not while being tortured or under duress. To save his own skin.

He told them he was an Admiral's son because he knew that he would then be more valuable to his captors alive than dead. He also provided the name of his ship, the number of raids he had flown, his squadron number and the target of his final raid. That's courage, alright.

Also, his brave stance not to go home when offered the chance? Apparently if he had accepted it, he would have been court martialed and he knew that. He didn't want to give up his military career and the potential to meet the lofty status of his father.
He cheated on his first wife and met his current wife, having an affair with her, while still married. OH, and also after his poor wife had been disfigured by a car accident while he was a POW.
McCain managed to get a pork-barrel spending project passed to build an aircraft carrier that the Secretary of the Navy and the Carter administration both had deemed unnecessary. He did this by lobbying as the Navy's liaison to the Senate. So he lobbied for a pork-barrel project. There's our maverick!
His close involvement with Charles Keating, the disgraced businessman who was jailed for defrauding investors.

McCain still attributes the attention to nothing more than Keating's "great respect for military people" and the duo's "political and personal affinity." But Keating, for his part, made no bones about the purpose of his giving. When asked by reporters if the investments he made in politicians bought their loyalty and influence on his behalf, Keating replied, "I want to say in the most forceful way I can, I certainly hope so."
He voted against Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
How about this:

In 1983, McCain broke with (Ronald) Reagan to vote against the deployment of Marine peacekeepers to Lebanon. The unorthodox stance caught the attention of the media — including this very magazine, which praised McCain's "enormous courage." It was the beginning of a beautiful friendship. McCain recognized early on how the game was played: The Washington press corps "tend to notice acts of political independence from unexpected quarters," he later noted. "Now I was debating Lebanon on programs like MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour and in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. I was gratified by the attention and eager for more."

What does that say about a person that he may make decisions about policy and important national matters based the press attention he may receive?
McCain's role in the deregulation of insurance companies and brokerage houses and banks, which has led to the current financial crisis the country is currently in.
McCain's involvement with several companies to get them favors and in return receiving donations from those companies.
Tales of McCain's incredible temper and confrontations, including one with the wheelchair bound elderly mother of an MIA soldier who he almost punched in the face and pushed her wheelchair away.
From the article:

At least three of McCain's GOP colleagues have gone on record to say that they consider him temperamentally unsuited to be commander in chief. (GOP Sen. Bob ) Smith, the former senator from New Hampshire, has said that McCain's "temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him." Sen. (Pete) Domenici of New Mexico has said he doesn't "want this guy anywhere near a trigger." And Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi weighed in that "the thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded."
From the article:

"He's going to be Bush on steroids," says (John) Johns, the retired brigadier general who has known McCain since their days at the National War College. "His hawkish views now are very dangerous. He puts military at the top of foreign policy rather than diplomacy, just like George Bush does. He and other neoconservatives are dedicated to converting the world to democracy and free markets, and they want to do it through the barrel of a gun."
He was very active in promoting and pushing the Iraq War... even before Dick Cheney! He declared after we started fighting in Afghanistan that Baghdad was next. (Gee, isn't that telegraphing your military intentions, similar as to what he's been accusing Obama of doing with Pakistan?)
McCain's proclaimed that the Iraq War would be easy and we would be greeted as liberators, only to claim later that "...many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking." He was wrong about military decisions and then denied it.
McCain's history of flip-flopping on issues:

- Regulation: He's always had a history of being in the favor of deregulation, but now that the economy has tanked, he's been in support of more regulation of the banking and housing industries. Way to stand behind your convictions!

- Bush's Tax Cuts: McCain was against the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001. Now he's saying he wants to extend and increase them if elected. He's doing this to gather support from the anti-tax conservatives.

- Oil Drilling: He was always against off-shore oil drilling. Now he's supporting it. How long until he changes his mind and says OK to ANWR?

- Lobbying: Even though he was a lobbyist for the Navy at one time in his career, he tried to ban "registered lobbyists from working on political campaigns, now deploys 170 lobbyists in key positions as fundraisers and advisers."

- Torture: In 2005 fought to stop the torture of enemy combatants. The article says:

...barely a year later, as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign, McCain cut a deal with the White House that allows the Bush administration to imprison detainees indefinitely and to flout the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions against torture.

- Campaigning: From the article:

But perhaps the most revealing of McCain's flip-flops was his promise, made at the beginning of the year, that he would "raise the level of political dialogue in America." McCain pledged he would "treat my opponents with respect and demand that they treat me with respect." Instead, with Rove protégé Steve Schmidt at the helm, McCain has turned the campaign into a torrent of debasing negativity, misrepresenting Barack Obama's positions on everything from sex education for kindergarteners to middle-class taxes. In September, in one of his most blatant embraces of Rove-like tactics, McCain hired Tucker Eskew — one of Rove's campaign operatives who smeared the senator and his family during the 2000 campaign in South Carolina.

Throughout the campaign this year, McCain has tried to make the contest about honor and character. His own writing gives us the standard by which he should be judged. "Always telling the truth in a political campaign," he writes in Worth the Fighting For, "is a great test of character." He adds: "Patriotism that only serves and never risks one's self-interest isn't patriotism at all. It's selfishness. That's a lesson worth relearning from time to time." It's a lesson, it would appear, that the candidate himself could stand to relearn.

So there you have it. That's the type of man John McCain is. An angry, controlling, bullying, cheating, self-interested flip-flopper who will do anything to help himself. As much as he claims to have more military experience, he hasn't shown much judgement when it comes to military action. He doesn't stand up for his own priciples, having been a lobbyist and done his own work to get earmarks through.

Is this who people really want to be President? Wow.

McCain's health plan is even worse!

2008-10-09T20:34:00.001-07:00

Even worse that his housing plan is McCain's health insurance plan. This is an absolute travesty.

John McCain wants to do away with the employee provided health insurance programs. How does he want to do this? By taxing people's health benefits.

For the first time in American history, John McCain is proposing deregulating the health insurance industry and TAXING you employee provided health insurance benefits. Everyone's. EVERYONE.

If you get health insurance through your employer, under McCain's plan, you'll have to start paying taxes on them based on what the values of the benefits are. So you'll have to pay hundreds more very month than what you contribute now to your health benefits.

Of course, you could always do what McCain wants everyone to do and go out and get your own health insurance privately. He'll even give you a $5000 tax credit to do so if you have a family, $2500 for individuals. Of course what he doesn't tell you is that the average private health care plan for a family costs more that $12,000 a year. So while he'll give you $5000, you're on your own for the rest of the more than $7000 a year. Can you afford an additional $600 every month? I know I can't. Nor should I have to. Under Obama's plan, I wouldn't. More on that below.

According to experts, as many as 20 million people could lose their employee provided health insurance under McCain's plan. They'll be forced to buy insurance themselves or not have any. So what's going to wind up happening is you'll have to get cheaper insurance than what you have now, which is going to offer you less service, worse coverage, and most likely higher premiums and costs while you pay more for it. Isn't this a wonderful idea?

McCain's plan is basically to deregulate the health insurance industry. Health insurance providers will be able to set their own rules. Just like the housing and banking industries. And didn't that work out so well?

Here's an analysis of Obama's and McCain's health plans: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/pm126

What this analysis says is that while Obama's plan may cost a little more money (in relative terms) over 10 years, it will cover a LOT more people McCain's plan will. Also, under McCain's plan, a lot of people that presently do get their insurance through their employers will lose it, leaving people with no choice but to try to buy their own insurance or not have it at all. And it's not going to be affordable to most people.

Here's an article that tells you how terrible an idea this is and explains why: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=4&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

So then we have Obama's plan.

He basically wants to keep things as they are while adding a requirement that all children be covered. He also is going to make sure that all big companies and few small business that make more than a certain amount either provide worthwhile health benefits or if they don't they'll have to pay into a fund that will provide affordable insurance to people not covered by work. He also wants to make sure that people that are not as healthy can still get insurance without being prejudiced against. So you won't be stuck with the insurance you have if you get sick or if you lose your job and have to switch insurance, you'll be able to be covered by new insurance. Right now existing conditions wouldn't be covered.

Just so you know I'm not the only one criticizing this plan, here's some more:

The Anchorage Daily News: http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/393578.html

The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rose-ann-demoro/john-mccains-health-plan_b_91034.html

AFL-CIO: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_healthcare.cfm

ourfuture.org: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mccain-health-plan-millions-lose-coverage-health-costs-worsen-and-insurance-and-drug-indu

realclearpolitics.com: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/mccains_healthcare_plan_falls.html

urban.org: http://www.urban.org/publications/411755.html

The Atlanta Constitution-Journal: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/09/28/healthed_0928.html

The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602633.html?sub=AR

The Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/09/21/worlds_apart_on_healthcare/

Are you getting the idea?

This a bad idea and will hurt a LOT of people.

So what do you think? Do you want to pay more to keep your health insurance? Do you want less service and no help from your HR department? Do you really want to deal with health insurance companies yourself?

Remember this on November 4th.

McCain's housing plan... URGH!

2008-10-09T19:16:00.000-07:00

At the debate on Tuesday, October 7th, John McCain put forth a plan where he said: "I would order the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the... diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."

He even stressed the point that this was not Obama's plan, not President Bush's plan, this was HIS plan.

And what a terrible plan it is.

Why?

Because it bails out people who made bad investments and they receive a get out of jail free card. The lenders who let these unqualified people buy homes and gave them mortgages they couldn't afford without any documentation that they could pay for them would be again bailed out by the government. At full price!

And you and I get to pay for it.

Here's how it would work.

So someone had to keep up with the Jones's and buy a huge house that cost more than they could afford with a standard fixed-rate 30 year mortgage. The lender convinced them that with a sub-prime loan, they could afford the house. For the first X number of years (usually 5 or 7) the buyer would pay a much lower monthly mortgage than they would with a standard fix rate loan. When the introductory period ended, they knew that their monthly payment would increase significantly. I mean, VERY significantly. Maybe three times what they were currently paying. But the lenders would say, that's OK, then you could refinance into a fixed-rate 30 year mortgage.

Well, what happened is people started coming to the end of their introductory periods, their mortgages increased, and people couldn't afford it so they defaulted on their loans. People who wanted to refinance couldn't because their house values dropped, credit froze up, and their houses were worth less now than what they paid for them. Plus they weren't qualified for a loan to begin with so now they couldn't get them. People are stuck with mortgages they cannot afford and never should have gotten in the first place.

For the lenders, they're in trouble because they lent the money to buy the houses and now they are not getting repaid. They're evicting people and they're stuck with the houses which are worth less than what was paid for them. They can't get rid of them and don't have the money coming back to them that they put out for the houses originally.

For the borrowers, they agreed to terms on their mortgage that the knew they couldn't afford, on houses they couldn't afford, assuming they'd be able to refinance in many cases. They tried to cheat and pay a lower monthly payment at first for a few years. They lived it up at a falsely lowered mortgage rate and lived the high life. Now it's time to pay up for that privilege and they can't afford it so they're defaulting on their loans, hurting the whole housing market, and either being evicted or abandoning their homes altogether. Or struggling to make payments.

So what's the point of all of this?

Well, John McCain wants to help them out. How? By making the people who do the right thing, buy homes that they can afford, and make their mortgage payments on time pay to bail all these other people out.

Here's what McCain wants to do.

He wants to buy up the houses that people are struggling with at the cost the owners paid for them and then allow them to refinance them at their current value. So if someone agreed to buy a house for $500,000, they are going to get a discount on the house. If the house is now worth $400,000, these delinquent owners will get to refinance at that amount. So for agreeing to a bad mortgage, missing their payments, and basically screwing up, they get $100,000 knocked off their mortgage. And guess who gets to pay that $100,000? You and me. The taxpayers.

Basically, under McCain's plan, the government will buy these houses for more than they are worth and then sell them back to the owners at a loss with a great new interest rate, probably better than what the normal home buyer got when they bought their home. That's a loss that will never be recouped.

This is different than the bailout plan that was just passed last week. In the bailout plan, the government would be buying up bad mortgages at what they are worth now and then eventually selling them at a profit. But in this McCain plan, all of these people and lenders, these people who screwed up and put our economy in the position that it is currently in, are going to have all their problems solved for them, get out without any penalty, while others pay for it. The people who screwed up get rewarded while the people who played the game the right was get nothing. Or worse, we get more debt.

Is anyone else as ticked off about this as I am? I pay my mortgage every month. I didn't try to cheat the system when I bought my home. I don't want to have to pay someone else's mortgage without some kind of incentive to me. This isn't right. It's a terrible plan for those of us who did the right thing!

I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Here's an article from the Washington Post that says this is a bad idea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100803532.html?nav=hcmodule

Here's one from CNN that also says it's a bad idea: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/08/news/economy/mccainhouse_easton.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008100813

Look, I'm not in favor of throwing out all of these people into the street. Something needs to be done but this plan is not it. It's a BAD idea. It puts the government in a further financial hole, increasing the national debt, it rewards the people's bad behavior, and it hurts everyone else who didn't get one of these sub-prime loans and make their payments on time.

I hope you read this and agree with me. Just remember this on Election Day.

Obama's character

2008-10-09T15:42:00.000-07:00

I'm on FIRE tonight.

I have a few things I want to talk about: health care, John McCain's housing plan, and the recent attacks on Barack Obama's character.

I'm going to do these as separate posts so they individually show up as individual topics in the blog list and don't get lost being posted together. I'm going to start with the character issues.

The latest thing is that McCain and Sarah Palin are questioning Obama's relationships with a man named William Ayers.

Ayers was a co-founder of a radical organization called the Weather Underground in the 1960s. This group was responsible for bombings at the Pentagon and the Capitol in the 1970s. He was obviously involved with some bad stuff back then.

Since then he has reformed himself. He's currently a "distinguished" professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In 1997 he was named Chicago's Citizen of the Year for his work on a project to reform schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He's generally been an upstanding citizen since his transgressions more than 30 years ago.

Now, I'm not giving you Ayers background to dismiss his past. What he did many years ago was awful, regardless of his reasons (to protest the Vietnam War). But I wanted to give this information to give you an idea of the person that Barack Obama knew. Because when Ayers was terrorizing people in the 1970s, Obama was a child. When he did know him, Ayers was a reformed man, a respected citizen and college professor. So because, 30 to 40 years ago, Ayers performed horrible acts, that means that Obama is a supporter of terrorism?

Let's look at this a little more...

So what the McCain campaign is getting at is that Obama knew Ayers through a few different associations. In 1995 Ayers hosted a meeting at his home a fund-raiser for Obama when he was starting his political career. While that's nice, it doesn't mean that they were close. I'm sure there are all kinds of people who hosts all kinds of functions for politicians but that doesn't mean they are close friends. It just means they are a supporter. That's all.

Later they were both board members for the Annenberg Challenge Project. This is equivalent to being co-workers. Now, I can tell you, I like many of my co-workers. I talk to them, I have meetings with them, I occasionally have lunches with them, and other activities. However, if one of them goes out and commits a crime, am I guilty for that crime? Because they did it, does that automatically mean I condone it? Because they have radical views, does that mean I also have those views? No, it does not. And it doesn't mean that for Barack Obama, either, because he worked with William Ayers.

Now, if there was any proof that these two have been good friends, that would be one thing. But multiple sources have determined that Ayers and Obama have NOT had a close relationship.

From the New York Times: "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20ayers&st=cse

From the Washington Post: "The AP and other news organizations have reported that Obama and Ayers, now a college professor who lives in Obama's neighborhood, are not close but that they worked together on two nonprofit organizations from the mid-1990s to 2002. In addition, Ayers hosted a small meet-the-candidate event for Obama in 1995 as he first ran for the state Senate. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100901868.html

From Time Magazine: "Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd....If Obama's relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others--including Republicans and conservatives--who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children's issues."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810338,00.html

The Chicago Sun-Times: "Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s legislative campaign in 2001, but there is no other sign that he has actively aided Obama’s political career. "

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/900386,rad041708.article

From CNN: "There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/

So it has been proven that Obama and Ayers had no significant personal relationship. Yet the Republicans are still bringing up the point at rallies and accusing Obama of "palling" with a terrorist. And it's truly getting scary and downright offensive.

Sarah Palin was the first one to start it. At a rally last weekend she brought this whole issue up, saying, ""We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.""

The clear implication here is that Obama is a supporter of terrorists, turns a blind eye to terrorism, or is a terrorist himself or just flat out against America. This claim of Obama's relationship with Ayers has been brought up many times in recent days in interviews and rallies featuring McCain and/or Palin. And it's gotten downright dangerous. People at these rallies have been getting into a frenzy and yelling things like "He's a terrorist", "Kill him", and "Cut off his head". McCain and Palin have had their chances to stop and condemn these proclamations but they have not, there by showing that they have no problems with this line of attack and supporting these thoughts. How disgusting is that? Silence is consent.

I'm not even going to get into Rev. Wright or Tony Rezko, two other people with whom Obama's relationships are being overblown by the Republicans. I do not believe that Obama share's Wright's view (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/obama.wright/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) or that anything improper happened with Rezko (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/19/obamas-rezko-connection/) and there has been NO evidence to say Obama has done anything improper in either case.

So the Republicans are making up controversies to try to question Obama's character and relationships. Fine. Let's be fair. Let's talk about McCain's relationships and what they say about his judgement and character.

McCain was very close to Charles Keating, a disgraced business man who was convicted for defrauding investors in the late 1980s. McCain was involved in this by being part of a group of Senators that tried to get regulators to back off Keating. This was after Keating contributed money to the Senators. McCain was a personal friend of Keating's. He took trips with Keating and spent time together with their families, taking trips. McCain was censured by the Senate for his involvement in the matter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five)

So you have a situation here where a personal friend of McCain's was performing criminal acts WHILE THEY WERE FRIENDS, as opposed to Ayers, whose criminal acts were conducted years before he ever met Obama. I guess McCain is a defrauder and supports that. He has questionable judgement. Guilty by association... REAL association and involvement.

McCain also attended a rally by the Oregon Citizens Alliance in 1993 where he addressed their delegation. The OCA is an ultra-far-right, anti-gay group. At that rally, Marylin Shannon, the vice chairwoman of the Oregon GOP, praised someone who had shot an abortion doctor. And McCain never condemned it. In any way. Then Shannon just attended the Republican National Convention this past month as a McCain delegate. So in the McCain/Palin world of guilt by association, I guess McCain is an anti-gay sympathizer of people who shoot doctors. You can read about this here: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_connections_coming_back_to_haunt_1007.html

The article also talks about:

McCain has a friendship with G. Gordon Liddy, the mastermind of Watergate.
His membership on the board of the US Council for World Freedom, which The Associated Press describes as "part of an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America."
Sarah Palin's husband's affiliation with the Alaska Independence Party, a group that wants to secede Alaska from the United States. (Here's Keith Olbermann talking about this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qe0fgS7K8Q. I know... not the most unbiased opinion, but shows how guilt by association can work both ways to call someone a terrorist...) Here's an article about it with links to other articles: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/secessionist-palin-story_n_123310.html

So now let's talk about John McCain's character.

While he was a POW in Vietnam, his wife had a debilitating accident. She was left crippled and deformed. So when John McCain returned from Vietnam (and God bless him for his service and what he went through) he eventually cheated on his wife, divorced her, and then married his current wife, Cindy, one month after the divorce was finalized. There's character for you! His own kids wouldn't talk to him for years after he did that.

He also said he would not take on negative campaigning... which he obviously has. A truthful man!

When his wife was addicted to pain killers in the early 1990s, he called her names I don't want to reprint here. Caring!

He made a nasty joke about Chelsea Clinton calling her ugly. WARNING. This isn't nice: http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html Some judgement on his part, huh?

He offered up his wife at a motorcycle rally in Sturgis, SD, for something called the Buffalo Chip Beauty Contest which is apparently a nude beauty contest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4X6XqNeF1o

So McCain wants to question Obama's character and judgement when his own is much more troubling. He's been involved in several controversies and with shady people. Much more troubling character issues. Real issues and involvement, as opposed as trying to make mountains out of molehills with regards to Obama and Ayers.

Palin is living in a glass house throwing stones when she herself is married to a man who belonged to an organization that wanted to leave the United States. That's quite un-American, isn't it?

So I think McCain and Palin ought to start thinking twice about questioning Obama's character because of guilt by association because of fleeting relationships without any proof. Their own associations make their own character questionable, if not even more so, because the actual issues in question are indisputable as far as their relations with shady characters.

Comments on the 2nd Presidential debate

2008-10-07T17:23:00.000-07:00

The second Presidential debate just ended. You can read my thought/comments as I kept as I was watching below.

My thoughts?

Well, ... I'm not sure. It didn't change anything for me.

I do think McCain was very strong. He was obviously in his element and quite comfortable, but he's still saying the same things he's been saying for months, the same talking points and rhetoric... the same false attacks. There was nothing new said for me to say, "Hey, I didn't know that!" Well, except for him saying Obama's health plan would fine small businesses and people with children for not providing health benefits. I'm sure there's more to it than that. But there was nothing new for me to say I'd consider him now.

I thought Obama did well in making himself look thoughtful and contemplative. He gave good answers but nothing earth shattering. I thought he made a few good points at McCain's expense. A solid performance.

I was disappointed that nothing was brought up about the recent attacks regarding character. I was really hoping that would be brought up. I think that would have been interesting. I really thought the two guys were too civil with each other. I mean, they did their usual attacks, but nothing harsh. Oh well. Maybe next week.

The winner? Well, not because he did anything especially special, but Barack Obama only because John McCain didn't do anything to swing it his way and turn things in his favor. So that makes Obama the winner in my book. It keeps moving in his favor.

One more debate next week. These first two have been rather snoozers. Let's hope for some fireworks next week.
_________________________

- Well, Obama just answered the first question about the economy and what we need to do. I thought it was brilliant. To the point. He gave ideas on what we can do. McCain answers and talked about energy independence, debt to China.... and just said something about buying up bad home mortgages and repackaging them at current values to people so they can stay in their homes. So let me get this straight... to people who made bad loans, didn't make their payments, they now get to refinance at less than what they agreed to pay for them? While people like me, who did the right thing and got a fixed rate loan and make my payments on time, I get nothing? Does that seem right?

- Brokaw asked about who they would pick for Treasury Secretary. Obama didn't have an answer. Hasn't he thought about that?

- Oh! Brokaw getting tough, getting on them for the length of their answers and staying on topic. Way to go, Tom!

- Now McCain's blaming Obama and his "cronies" for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Will the smearing never end? And we're just getting started... He just took the opportunity to slam Obama instead of explaining to the questioner how the bailout helps him, which was the question. So now Obama's answering it with a good answer about how it will work for him. Good.

- Uh oh. Obama said he believes in the American economy. That could come back to haunt him.

- McCain got up while Obama is talking and was walking around. Isn't that rather disrespectful?

- Now they are both taking credit for warning about the sub-prime loan problems. Jeez!

- Obama's answering a question about how we can trust either party since they both got us into this mess. He's pointing out how the deficit has doubled under Bush and McCain voted for his plans 4 out of 5 times. And McCain's still wandering around in the background...

McCain again pointing out how Obama doesn't go against his party... if they have the correct ideas, why would he vote against them? McCain's also talking about Obama's new spending plans, but again conveniently forgetting about his spending cuts. Accusing Obama of supporting earmarks while he's a maverick, he's gone against his party, he's fought special interests... blah, blah, blah... sorry if this is unfair, but it's more of the same rhetoric I've been hearing for quite a while.

- Brokaw asks them to put energy, health benefits, and entitlements in order of importance. Of course McCain avoids prioritizing them by saying they can work on all three. Way to answer like a politician!

- Brokaw again getting on them on their length of responses.

- Obama says energy's at the top of the list. Health care is #2. #3 is education. At least he gave an answer and gave the items priority instead of not taking a stand, which you know whoever wins is going to have to do.

- Brokaw again with a time reminder. Yikes! He's being tough.

- McCain says there are programs we might have to eliminate. He says defense spending isn't working. He's saying he helped save $6.8 billion dollars on a tanker project, which was previously proven false. Bringing up the spending freeze again. Cutting budgets and worthless programs is the answer, not a complete spending freeze. Then some rhetoric... blah, blah, blah.

Oh! Obama's bringing up 9/11. Let's see where this goes... talking about how it unified us and got everyone on the same page about doing something. Talked about how Bush said to go out and shop. Says that's not the kind of service we need. Talking about everyone saving energy... is this the kind of service that was being questioned? I'm not so sure...

- Question about debt and easy credit and Obama says it starts in Washington. I hope he means that.

McCain's still standing up, wandering around while Obama's speaking. It's like he's trying to steal Obama's spotlight. That's not right.

- McCain again accusing Obama of wanting to raise taxes. How can they keep saying that? It's NOT TRUE! Now he was condescending to Obama telling him that the economy was bad? Oh! Does McCain actually know that now?

- Obama wanted to respond to McCain's accusations but Brokaw wouldn't allow it. Dang! He's controlling things, isn't he? Shame, too. I wanted Obama to respond to that.

- I missed the question Brokaw was asking, but Obama started talking about entitlements but changed it to what he wanted to talk about, which was his tax cut plan that McCain was attacking for the last question. Interesting... he's trying to tie it back to the topic Brokaw brought up, but I'm not sure if it is working or is just not answering the question at hand and talking about what he wanted to talk about...

- Oh! Zinger by McCain! "I'll answer the question." That was actually good. Brought up that McCain tried to tie his comments to the question, but I'm not sure that he completely did.

- But then McCain start back again with how "mavericky" he is by taking on his own party. Ugh.

- McCain again bringing up the 94 times Obama supposedly voted against tax cuts, which has been proven to not be true.

- Question from the crowd about environmental issues. McCain says he's disagreed with the Bush Administration about the environment. Says nuclear power is the best way to fix it. It's safe and clean. Says Obama has opposed this. Talking about hybrids, battery power cars... then goes into his whole how-great-America-is spiel.

Obama says the environment is a national security issue? Okay... Points out that McCain has voted 23 times against alternative fuels. Nice! He also pointed out that the government hasn't done anything for 30 years and McCain was there for 26 of them. Hee hee!

- Brokaw again on them about going on too long. Even said there are lights. Haha! Brokaw's too much.

- McCain again talking about how he's voted against earmarks on an energy question. He can't get off that, can he?

- The question is should health care be treated as a commodity? Huh? I don't understand that. Anyway... Obama says he's going to work with employers to lower premiums by $2500 a year. Does that benefit us or our employers? Now talking about McCain's $5000 health care credit but how he wants to tax benefits. I think that plan is terrible.

McCain talking about community health centers and clinics... huh? Talking about how Obama will fine small companies and people looking for care for their children will be fined under Obama's plan. Really? Talking about giving people choice in plans, but when the average health plan costs $12000 a year, how does $5000 help?

Obama says it's every American's right to health care. He says small business will not have a mandate. Pointed out how McCain voted against a child health care plan. He spouted a lot there in support of his plan... I'm sorry I didn't get it all, but it was pretty good. Watch a replay!

- A question about how the economy will affect our ability to be a peacemaker in the world. Who thought of these questions? Can anyone ask them a tough one or ask about the attack ads/character issues?

McCain suggested how Obama doesn't understand our security issues. Obama says he's right ... he doesn't understand... how we invaded Iraq. Ha! Talking about how that's put enormous strain on our budget. How we need to spend the billions being spent in Iraq here. Hallelujah! Says how our current foreign policy has not allowed us to help in places like Darfur. Sweet. Well done, I think.

- Question about intervening in other countries when our security is not threatened. Obama say there's moral issues there that we can't stand idly by for. Says we need to work with our allies on these issues. Says he'll mobilize the international efforts to make those efforts happen. Very nice.

McCain again saying Obama will bring our troops home in defeat from Iraq. I'm so sick of hearing that. It's so not true.

- Question about moving into Pakistan to chase terrorists. Obama talking about moving to Iraq instead of finishing in Afghanistan. Talking about how we coddled Musharraf and gave Pakistan billions while he was working on peace treaties with the Taliban. Says we will act if Pakistan will not.

McCain says Obama is saying he is going to attack Pakistan. What!?!? He did not! URGH! He doesn't want to attack the Pakistanis. Oh, that's low. He's saying that they need to use the strategy from Iraq of getting the support of the people... because that worked so well in Iraq with all the insurgencies.

Obama asks for a followup and McCain says that's fine, he'll do the same. Obama wants to clarify: If Pakistan is unwilling or unable to find bin Laden, we should. Talks about how McCain talked about bombing Iran and annihilating North Korea.

McCain wants his chance to respond. Says he knows how to handle these crises. He says he won't telegraph his punches like Obama did.

- Brokaw bring up that we are failing in Afghanistan. How do reorganize the Afghanistan situation? Obama says we need to make the Iraqis take responsibility for their own country so we can start withdrawing troops, work with the Karzai government in getting his people's support.

McCain says Patreaus is taking over command and will use the same overall strategy as Iraq... and again says Obama has not said the Iraq surge worked. He did! URGH!!!! "... succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." That's what Obama said.

- McCain says we won't have another Cold War with Russia. Says he warned about Putin and his efforts in Georgia and Ukraine. Make Russia understand there are penalties for aggression. McCain just filibustered about it for quite a while...

Obama says he agrees with many of the points McCain made, but makes points about helping satellite states in their economy and anticipating issues with Russia ahead of time. I feel like he's fumbling this question a little bit... I have to give McCain the win on this question.

- Interesting question from the crowd about what we would do if Iran attacked Israel. Would we defend Israel immediately or wait for UN support? McCain says we'd support Israel. Talking about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Mentions how Obama says he'd meet with the Iranians without preconditions... "a matter of record".

Obama says we cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Talking about imposing sanctions on Iran on reduce their funds. Says talking gives the chance for better outcomes. Very right.

- The question: What don't you know and how will you learn it? Obama talking about how it's not the challenge you expect, it's the ones you don't expect. Talking about his life and how being in this country gave him great opportunity and we need to give that to our children. We need change to do that.

McCain talking about how he knows what everyone is going through. He knows what it is like. Talking about how proud he is of the country.

- And that's the end.

It's getting UGLY out there!

2008-10-06T17:19:00.000-07:00

Well, there were some interesting things today and this past weekend. A lot of smearing has starting... from both sides. Some outrageous claims are being made. Some warranted, some not. My original purpose for this blog was to talk about things like this. So let's get to it!

- First there's the outrageous (I've used that word twice tonight) claim that Obama is palling around with a terrorist.

The "brilliant" Sarah Palin said that Obama has had a relationship with William Ayers, a co-founder of the Weather Underground, a group responsible for the bombings of some federal buildings in the early 1970s in protest of the Vietnam War. This is somewhat, but mostly not true. You can find out the details here: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/776/

Here's the part that is really the truly disturbing comment:

"We see America as the greatest force for good in this world," Palin said at a fund-raising event in Colorado, adding, "Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

How awful is this? The implication behind this comment is that Obama is a supporter of terrorism. What other way is there to look at this? Never mind the fact that Obama was 8 years old when the bombings took place. Never mind the fact that Obama was unaware of Ayers' past when he was dealing with him and has since denounced his past activities. Never mind the fact, that while he has had dealings with Ayers, they are not exactly "pals" and it's not like they've ever been more than casual acquaintances. Never mind the fact that Ayers has cleaned up his image and is now a respected person in the Chicago community, a college professor, and has been for quite some time.

Here's the fact check from Politicaltracker on CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/#more-22716):

"Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are."

This line of attack is beyond repulsive. It's a last ditch effort by the desperate Republicans to try to pull a rabbit out of a hat at the last minute by trying to attack Obama's character with exaggerated and flat out false claims. This is disgusting. Pathetic.

_________________________

- The next thing is there's a new ad from McCain saying that Obama is criticizing our troops for bombing villages and killing civilians in Afghanistan. Here's the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je8_tNFmzCc

Of course what you see in the clip is just a portion of the entire statement that Obama made. Here's the whole quote from Obama:

"We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

That is obviously not a criticism of our troops and is instead a criticism of the strategy in Afghanistan. But they are, again, like they did with the "lipstick on a pig" comment, taking a comment out of context and trying to make an issue out of it. Is this what they do there? Sit around trying to find something innocuous that Obama says and make an issue of it? Not to mention that this is a comment from about a year ago.

According to CNN's Politicalclicker, this statement is completely false. Here's what they say:

"The Verdict: False. The McCain ad inaccurately presents this as Obama's current position, citing a an out-of-context comment from more than a year ago."

Here's where you can find it: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/06/fact-check-what-did-obama-say-about-troops-in-afghanistan/

Another slanderous, untrue attack from the McCain campaign.
_________________________

- Well, since the McCain campaign has been making an issue of Obama's past relationships, his party has decided to do the same.

John McCain was involved in a scandal in the early 1990s with a disgraced business man named Charles Keating. Keating was convicted of fraud and was a contributor to McCain and four other Senators. McCain worked with a group of Senators to try to delay regulators from doing anything about Keating's dealings. And unlike McCain and Palin's made up accusations, these accusations are true. A Senate hearing was held on the scandal.

And unlike McCain's assertions that Obama's been possibly associated with shady characters, McCain was very close to Keating and it was even noted in a hearing about the scandal, where McCain was given a reprimand.

You can find out all the details about the scandal here: http://www.keatingeconomics.com/

And here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/06/obama-camp-raises-mccain%e2%80%99s-ties-to-charles-keating/#more-22873

And here is the fact check on the scandal and McCain's role from Politicaltracker on CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/06/fact-check-did-mccain-intervene-on-behalf-of-charles-keating/

"The Verdict: True. McCain did push to delay regulations that would have cracked down on savings-and-loans practices and intervened on Keating's behalf, although he was cleared of wrongdoing in the "Keating Five" case. "

This is the guy people want to lead our country and fix our economy? I don't think so.
_________________________

- Here's John McCain saying HIMSELF that anyone who runs negative attack ads has nothing to say about the issues and people will figure out that they have nothing to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW35wiCbtak

That's too funny! He's the kettle calling himself black! Hee hee!
_________________________

- That's all I can do tonight. This is giving me a headache. These baseless attacks on Obama's character are making me sick. This election cannot end soon enough for me so I can stop thinking about.

I'm just hope the people of this country don't fall for McCain's and Palin's desperation.

I couldn't have said it better myself

2008-10-06T10:40:00.001-07:00

I just read this comment from another user on MSNBC and had to share this. It perfectly summarizes the leadership abilities of both candidates. All credit goes to a poster named jaycee from Ventura, CA, and the original post can be read here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/06/1497767.aspx

"So let’s review John McCain’s maverick brand of experienced leadership during the current financial crisis. First he reflexively pulls out his old stump speech line and reassures everyone that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Whoops. He says the crisis does not warrant bailing out insurance giant American International Group, only to reverse course the very next day calling the rescue of AIG “regrettable, but unavoidable.” Then he decides he needs to look decisive and blames it all on the SEC chairman, as though we can hang the entire global financial mess around the neck of a single goat and drive it into the wilderness. Maybe he thought it would divert attention from his own role in creating the lax regulatory environment that allowed this mess to develop.

With his scapegoating gambit failing to attract much of a following, John decides he’s really going to take charge and refuses to campaign or debate until a bailout agreement is reached. Or until he turns blue. He makes a dramatic return to Washington to force a meeting with the president and the principal negotiators so he could work some that old bipartisan maverick magic. The meeting degenerates into a shouting match that derails the process. McCain fails to even take a stand on the wildly divergent Republican views expressed during a meeting that he called in order to look like he’s taking charge. With his big move going nowhere, John reverses course and decides he will debate and resume campaigning without an agreement after all.

After losing the debate John heads right back to Washington for the weekend, determined this time to jump into the driver’s seat. He issues a high-minded call to put aside partisanship while pointing his finger at Barack Obama, whom he now claims was square in the middle of the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling. Never mind that for months John’s been desperately trying to paint Obama as the inexperienced guy who started running for president within weeks of arriving in Washington.

John makes a big show over the weekend of working the phones and scrambling around to the front of the Republican pack so it looks like he’s in the lead. Monday morning he takes credit for bringing his troops to save the day. Problem is, John hasn’t even noticed that 2/3 of his troops wandered off down a side street along the way. The bill goes down to defeat after John has already declared victory. A bad habit of his.

In stark contrast to the flailing floundering maverick, Barack Obama has again demonstrated that he possesses the intelligence, temperament, and resolve to steer through troubled waters with a steady hand. He understands that a leader must recognize when intervention will help and when it will hurt, a lesson John McCain seems to have missed in all those years of experience. One of many such lessons. If all John’s experience can’t help him make good decisions, then how much is it really worth? The guy is plain unreliable and his chaotic decision-making process makes him a dangerous choice for president in today’s complex and threatening world. "

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I've been busy

2008-10-05T16:19:00.001-07:00

Hey there.

Sorry I didn't post anything the past few nights. I've been very busy with my family and had to take a couple of nights off. Priorities, you know.

Anyway, let's see what I can find on Al Gore's Internet tonight...

- Here's an article from Newsweek that talks about Sarah Palin. It gives a little back ground information on what happened when she was selected for and again gives the argument on why someone who is folksy does not make her a good candidate for VP. It talks about how she has lacked the curiosity about world affairs that is necessary for someone to hold such a high position and how she's not very organized: http://www.newsweek.com/id/162396

- One of my arguments for why McCain would not make a good President is because of his decision making. He's very reactive and not very contemplative. He doesn't think about a problem before taking action. Proof of that thought? How about:

Suspending his campaign and threatening to miss the first debate to deal with the problem of the bailout.
Then showing up for meetings with Bush and basically not saying anything.
Saying he would get support from Republicans, only then most of them decide not to vote for the bill
Showing up at the debate even though he said he wouldn't until the bailout was approved, and it wasn't yet.
Has he yet to say that he's officially resumed his campaign?
How about the fact that he voted FOR an earmark loaded final bailout plan when he's been basing a good chunk of his campaign on being anti-earmark? Way to stand up for your convictions!

That enough for you?

What has Obama done? Kept his cool and stayed consistent. Didn't overreact or make rash judgements. He kept a level head, which is what is needed in a President.

Anyway, Obama has now been pointing out McCain's erratic behaviour. Good for him!: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27034817

This article also talks about Obama's supposed relationship with a former radical, William Ayers. Even though Obama has denounced this actions from about 40 years ago, the desperate Republicans are now trying to make this an issue. What do they think this means? That Obama backs terrorism? That he is a terrorist? That he's somehow going to support terrorism? Give me a break! Ugh.

Then there's this article with Palin trying to raise the same attack against Obama: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27034817

I'm sorry, but I can't take any attack from her seriously. How can I when she can't remember what newspapers she reads?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBO_YungPjU

Anyway, here's fact checking from CNN saying the claim is false: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/

Personally, I find this line of attack disgusting and it figures that it would be Palin coming up with such an absurd line of attack.

- Just in case you haven't done so yet, here's the facts about the VP debate and what was not true or misleading in their comments: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html

That's all I have time for tonight.

VP Debate thoughts

2008-10-02T18:03:00.000-07:00

So the debate just ended and my comments I noted during the debate are below. What did I think?

Well, I thought Palin did not completely embarrass himself. She obviously practiced, brushed up a little bit, and used a decent strategy. She didn't stammer or just be completely stumped at any time... or at least not obviously. Of course, I thought there were several points where she changed the topic or just started spouting rhetoric that had nothing to do with what they were discussing. Why? Well, I think it's because she didn't know what to say about several topics so she changed it to something else or just started a spiel about the great things they are going to do and how wonderful John McCain is because she had nothing else to say on a subject. Several times out of the blue she started talking about energy. But I think that was her strategy. Don't know what to say? Change the topic or spout off rhetoric. So while she did do better than she has in her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, she still had trouble staying on topic and giving any meaningful thoughts on several topics. See more about that below.

As far as Biden I thought he presented himself very well. I think he was very strong, attacked McCain well, tied him to the Bush Administration, pointed out the flaws in McCain's policies and the good things that Obama plans, and gave educated, thoughtful answers to all subjects that stayed on topic. He obviously knows what he's talking about. He certainly didn't say anything that would be considered stupid and he avoided the trap that he had to in not attacking Palin in the wrong way or bullying her. As a matter of fact, I think he was very smart tonight, not attacking Palin and just going after McCain. He did a great job

I thought Gwen Ifill was OK as moderator. I didn't think the questions were that tough and I thought too many times she asked Biden to go first, at least 2/3rds of the time. I didn't think that was fair because it allowed Palin the chance to prepare her answers and hear what Biden had to say about a topic before she said anything. You can't tell me that didn't help her as it gave her time to gather her thoughts and prepare her answers instead of being put on the spot.

The winner? Biden by far. He obviously has more expertise than Palin does and it showed tonight. He knew more about the issues and said more meaningful things than she did about the topics.

Anyway, that's all I have. My thoughts are below. Enjoy them.

____________________________________

- Well, for the first question, Palin is actually sounding competent. She's not tripping over herself and mumbling gibberish. We'll see if she can keep that up.

- Well, she just rebutted Biden's comments about McCain saying the economy is strong pretty well. Of course, McCain said he was talking about the American workers hours after he made the initial comments when he had time to think about how to clarify what he meant.

- I love how Palin and McCain are now talking about reform and oversight when for 26 years McCain was anti-regulation, he's anti-earmarks but then yesterday just voted for a bailout that was loaded with earmarks, and Palin had no problem with gathering millions of dollars in earmarks for Alaska.

- After Palin pointed out Obama supposedly voting to raise taxes 94 times, Biden pointed out that McCain voted for the same thing. And that the votes did not raise taxes. (NOTE: After the debate, ABC noted that the number is actually about half of that and most of those where not for raising taxes. They also noted that McCain did not actually vote the same way every time.)

- Ifill just asked separate questions of Biden and Palin at the same time. While Biden is answering, now Palin's getting a chance to prepare. I don't think that's fair.

- Biden is talking about how McCain wants to tax health care benefits. This drives me mad. Health insurance costs more than $5000.

- Why does Biden keep going first? Let Palin go first so she doesn't have time to take notes and think!

- So Palin was asked what they would change about their plan following the bailout and financial issues. She could say anything so she said something about serving the people, yea America, etc. I dunno what she said but was pointless. But she said it well this time!

- Uh oh! Ifill asked her about mortgage holders declaring bankruptcy and she stammered! She's talking about Wall Street and praising McCain. She's repeating things she said earlier in other stumps and interviews, but she's not really answering the question.

- She just said it's "a toxic mess on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street"! OH! That was a mistake. She's starting to lose it!

- So we were just talking about mortgages and bankruptcy and Palin changed the topic to energy for no apparent reason... other than maybe she knows something about that and doesn't know what to say about bankruptcy. Is this going to be her strategy? If she doesn't know anything about the topic, change it to something else?

- So now Ifill just changed the topic to Energy. Why didn't she ask Palin why she changed the topic or get her back on it?

- She just said "Senator O-Biden". He he!

- I like how Biden just said that McCain says he supports everything but then voted 20 times against funding new energy sources.

- Oh! Nice topic. Gay rights. Biden says they are for it. He even said something about gay marriage and being for it. Not exactly, but it was implied ... or I thought it was. Guess not (see below). Good. Of course, Palin's against gay marriage. OK. Now Biden's saying they don't support gay marriage. Dang. But they both say they support rights for gay couples. Sigh...

- After Palin said that Obama did vote to support the troops, Biden again said that McCain voted the same way. That's twice that's happened.

- OK, Palin said that Obama's plan is a "white flag of surrender". NO IT'S NOT! It's a plan. It's not like McCain, with no plan. A plan shows thought and leadership.

- So Palin just went off about how Obama shouldn't talk to Iran without preconditions then just said she thinks the former Secretaries of State who said we should were correct when they said we should. She just contradicted herself in 20 seconds!

- I love right now how Biden is talking about how our Allies want everyone to talk but McCain doesn't want to. Great!

- Again, Palin is changing the topic. They're talking about Israel and she just went on a rant about reform and how great McCain is going to be. Again, she doesn't know what to say about Hamas, Hezbollah, and other international issues, so she goes into her spiel.

- She's AGAIN changing the topic. The discussion was about nuclear weapons and she changed it to Afghanistan. UGH!

- Wow! We spent as much in three weeks in Iraq as we've spent in 6 1/2 years in Afghanistan? That's not right.

- She's doing her thing here... she's talking about the "bad" things that Biden and Obama have done instead of talking about Darfur. Now she's talking about it. "Making sure all options are on the table." She's said that many times. Ohe of her catchphrases. Now she's talking about money in Sudan that supports Darfur, but she's not talking about the situation there. She doesn't know about it.

- So after Biden gives a great elaboration of McCain's plans on the war and why they are wrong, all Palin can say is that she disagrees. And now she's talking about how McCain knows what to do. But she didn't answer the question or give any insight.

- So now Ifill is asking about what they would do if they became VP. So she asks Biden to go first again. Why does Biden have to keep going first? Let Palin go first! I thought they were supposed to take turns going first? This keeps giving Palin a chance to think. I want to see her go first and not have that chance. Put her on the spot!

- The question is what they would do if they became President. So Biden says he would continue Obama's policies and what he would do. A very thoughtful plan. Palin is repeating the same things she always says. Back in the hands of the people, blah, blah, blah. She's offering no plan. She didn't answer the question.

- OK, Palin just changed the topic to education. Biden mentioned it and now she's going off on it. She's very off topic here, ...again.

- So, according to Sarah Palin, the VP's role is lead the Senate and she'll lead on energy and reform. Yea. Biden says he'd be the point person for legislation, he'll advise Obama, give independent judgement. A much better answer.

- Palin was asked about the executive branch not holding sway of the vice presidency. She just said... position... agenda... agenda... position. Huh? She's spurting gibberish right now. Talking about her executive experience. I have no idea how what she said applied to the question or even what she actually did say.

- Biden is answering the question and I don't completely understand it but at least he's answering it and knows what he's talking about.

- They were asked about their own Achilles' heels and Palin starts talking about energy and her experience. She's talking about being a special needs parent, her son in the military, her world view... but again is not answering the question. Tolerance, democracy, freedom... She shares that view with McCain... but she's not answering the question!

- Biden talked briefly about some of his Achilles' heels then brought up how he knows what it's like to be a single parent and what people are going through. Brilliant!

- It goes back to Palin and she's off on another spiel about how great McCain is..., greed and corruption on Wall Street, winning the war, more rhetoric.

- Palin just said "when the Republicans were in charge, we didn't see a lot of progress there either". He he!

- Oh! Biden's going off on McCain now about how he has not been a maverick on the war, health care, the budget. Nice!

- OK, I'm sorry, I've lost track of the question, but again she's off on a side-track instead of answering a question about how to stop bi-partisanship. Talking about change, ... and other things. I dunno. It was off topic again and she again didn't answer the question.

- They both gave their closing remarks and that's the end.

VP Debate tomorrow!

2008-10-01T19:29:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note that tomorrow night is the Vice Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. I anticipate this with bated breath. I can't wait to see what happens. To see what dumb things these two might say. Palin just not having any answers that mean anything and Biden just sticking his foot in his mouth. In any event, it should be VERY interesting.

I hoping everyone will be watching this. I know I'll be very tired at work Friday morning from staying up to watch the whole thing. However, after keeping a running blog of the last debate between McCain and Obama, I've decided not to do that again. I figure if any of you are truly interested in the debates, you'll just watch it and don't need to read my recap. So I'm just going to watch, keep notes, and I'll post what I think of what happened when it's all over.

So enjoy the show tomorrow night. Thanks for reading.

Back to the issues... Looking at the Issues - Part 2

2008-10-01T17:42:00.000-07:00

So I want to get back to discussing the issues and giving my opinions on the candidates' policies. So, here we go!...

So I'm back on procon.org. I left off with Immigration. I'm starting off following that with Iran...

Iran. The section on Iran on procon.org presents the question about whether the US should use military action against them if they do not dismantle their nuclear program. It says that McCain is not clear on his stance on this issue and that Obama is clearly against it.

But the most important issue for me regarding Iran is diplomacy. Obama has stated that he wants to open a dialog with Iran without any preconditions. McCain says you have to have preconditions or you are validating their thoughts on Jews, Israel, and other of their extreme views.

I'm on Obama's side on this. You can't improve relationships by being an antagonist. You can't make other countries feel like you think you are better than them because you are setting terms and conditions for your willingness to even talk to them. Diplomacy involves being willing to talk and working towards peaceful solutions. Not even being willing to talk is not going to change anything. You have to take the chance and talk. Not talking will get you nowhere.

Iraq. There are several questions discussed here. The first question is was invading Iraq a mistake? Obama says Yes, McCain says No.

Again, I'm with Obama on this one.

We were told that we needed to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. Our military has been in Iraq for 5 1/2 years now. Not ONE WMD has been found in that time. NOT ONE. We were tricked into this military action under false pretenses and bad intelligence.

In the meantime, billions of dollars, money that could have been used to help US citizens here, have been spent in Iraq to rebuild the country we unnecessarily destroyed. Thousands of US troops have lost their lives, not to mention the thousands and thousands of Iraqis who have been killed and might not have been if we had not attacked. We didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and now that situation is spiraling out of control again. The country itself is out of control. The opinion of the US internationally has never been lower because of what we've done in Iraq and the policies of George Bush. It's just been an overall bad deal for Americans. None of this would have happened if we had not attacked.

People want to argue that we needed to take this action to fight terrorism and depose Saddam Hussein. There were no terrorists in Iraq! Saddam controlled that country and would not allow terrorists to control anything there. There was no threat of terrorists in Iraq. Also, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That was another excuse.

We attacked a basically defenseless country without cause. Why? Oil. Money. Watch Fahrenheit 911 some time and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The next question had to do with has the war made America safer? McCain still argues for the war, but is not clear on this question. Obama says it has not. If anything, he thinks it has made things worse.

My opinion? Iraq has become a hotbed for terrorist activity since the war started whereas it was not before the war. In the meantime, the Afghanistan situation has gotten worse making it an even safer harbor for terrorists. Things are worse than they were.

The final question is should we set a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq? McCain says No, Obama says Yes.

Again, I agree with Obama. We cannot afford to endlessly stay in Iraq with no end in sight, both financially and practically. We "liberated" the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein to give them a chance at democracy. How can they ever form their own democracy while constantly being in a militarily controlled state? Now, I'm not saying that we should set a date and just pull out at that time. You can't do that. But you need to have a plan, a goal, to try to accomplish. You cannot just pull out of ground conditions will not allow that. And I don't believe Obama is stupid enough to just set a date and pull out if Iraq is not ready for us to do that. But what he is suggesting is setting that goal and giving the Iraqis back their country as soon as possible. The Iraqis have even said they would like us to leave. So why would we stay there?

At some point you have to let the bird out of the nest. You have to give the Iraqis a chance to run their own country. We can be there at their beck and call to help them if they need it but we have to give them a chance, we have to get out, we have to start focusing on our own country and focus on helping ourselves as recent circumstances have proven (economy, housing, unemployment, etc.)

Obviously, I'm with Obama on this issue.

Gays in the military. McCain supports the "Don't ask, don't tell" philosophy. Obama says it should be repealed.

I don't think a person should disqualified for anything based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. If a gay person wants to serve his or her country, I don't think that they should be prejudiced against from doing so. I know they could potentially have a hard time with prejudice in the military but I would hope rules would be enacted to protect them.

Obama seems more gay-friendly than McCain, another reason I like him.

BTW, a different section states that McCain supported anti-gay marriage rights legislation in Arizona. That's great. Not only do we have Bush already in the presidency not looking out for the rights of all Americans, including gays, we have a candidate who also is bigoted against gays. That's exactly the type of open-minded, for all people person we want running our country.

Social Security. McCain is for at least some privatization. Obama seems to be against it.

I'm torn on this issue. Considering that it's been said that Social Security will run out some time in the future, having the opportunity to invest retirement funds for myself certainly appeals to me. However, if the system can be fixed, I do think it should not be killed. I'm not sure what to make of this issue.

Stem cell research. McCain is against it, Obama is for it.

Stem cell research is very important. It has the possibility of wiping out countless numbers of diseases and medical maladies. The only reason people oppose it are for religious purposes. But this research could do so much to improve the quality of human life that it needs to be further allowed.

Again, I follow Obama.

Taxes. McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts, giving preference to the wealthy and businesses. Obama wants to repeal then and offers a new plan that will give a high number of tax cuts to the poorest and middle-class Americans, while raising taxes for the richest Americans and closing the loopholes for businesses that abuse the tax code to pay a ridiculously low tax rate.

So Obama wants to give tax cuts to the average Americans while raising taxes on the wealthy so that they are paying a closer tax rate to the rest of us. What's wrong with that? Right now the wealthiest Americans don't pay as high a percentage of taxes as the rest of us. Why shouldn't they? I have no problems with this.

I do have some concerns with raising taxes on businesses as this could affect the prices of goods and maybe even cost some people their jobs, but Obama has said he would look at this and maybe do things differently for businesses. But as far as the wealthiest Americans... they got that way off the backs of the rest of us. They should chip in as much as the rest of us do... or more.

.......

So those are some of the more important issues and issues where McCain and Obama differ in their opinions. There are more things discussed on procon.org and I encourage you to visit this site if you would like to see more on the candidates' positions. http://2008election.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=1561

I'll come back to this again and when we are closer to the election, I'll summarize my views on the positions and why I think you should vote for Barack Obama. But for now, this is what I have for you.

More idiocy from Palin...

2008-09-30T18:35:00.000-07:00

I want to get back to the original point of my starting this blog by discussing the issues and giving my viewpoint on which candidate I agree with. I will do that more eventually, but probably as we get closer to the election date so it's fresh in the mind of anyone who's reading what I write. But there's been a lot else going on and I want to cover some of those things. Also, the VP debate is on Thursday and I can't WAIT to see how that goes.

In any case, more interesting links for you tonight...

- Here's a transcript of Sarah Palin talking to Katie Couric. This is a different interview from the one she did last week. Just read it. It's unbelievable some of the things she says and how little sense she makes at some times. Unreal. There are people out there who are comfortable with her being one seat away from the Presidency? http://thepage.time.com/palin-interview-on-cbs-evening-news/

- Here's some video of the above mentioned interview where Palin cannot tell Katie Couric what magazines or newspapers she reads to keep up with the issues: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/

C'mon, people of America? Can you serious want to put her in the position to possibly be President?

- Here's an article that talks about how Palin is just not ready to be in the position that she's been put in. I couldn't agree more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1845116,00.html

- OK, enough making fun of Palin for now. She's an easy target.

Here's an article from Time about how frenetic and reactionary McCain has been: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1845150,00.html

Compare this to Obama, who is generally reflective, contemplative, and thinks through a problem instead of just reacting. We need someone who considers options instead of just jumping into the fire like McCain does.

- Here's an article from Yahoo that talks about how Obama has been running some very negative ads about John McCain on the radio: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080930/pl_politico/14134;_ylt=AmhBPzF8mU0Hgdw4R5fyvktsnwcF

There's a few things mentioned in this article that I think are a little unfair to say about McCain and a few things that are fair enough. Here are a few things mentioned in those ads about McCain:

One ad says McCain is against abortion. I believe McCain's is Pro-life for the most part, but he does allow exceptions for special cases such as rape or incest.
Another ad says McCain is against stem cell research. I know this is wrong and McCain has stated he is for stem-cell research. This ad is misleading.
I've heard the ad mentioned here that talks about a Ferris wheel being built in Iraq. I've been pretty vocal about how I think we should get out of Iraq ASAP (responsibly, of course) so we can start spending the billions being spent there here. We all know McCain is pro-Iraq war.

- Here's an article where a commentator says McCain's picking of Palin for VP was fundamentally irresponsible. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/29/zakaria.sarah.palin/index.html

And people want to trust him to run the country?

- Here's an article that asks the question: Why should anyone trust Joe Biden?: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-why-should-anyone-trust-joe-biden-946127.html

Why? Well, first, I'd feel much more comfortable with him being President than I would Palin. He's infinitely more qualified with decades of experience in our federal government. The gaffes the article points out are just some dumb mistakes he said not flat out lack of knowledge about what's going on in our country. Here's the things talked about:

20 years ago he somewhat quoted someone else speech when running for President. He was barbecued for this because he didn't give proper credit to the original speaker. I can't believe such a big deal was made about this that he had to end his presidential bid at the time. This is so minor to me it's ridiculous.
He said while running for President last year that Obama was not ready to be President. Of course he did! He was his opponent! What would you expect him to say? He was trying to win for himself. I don't hold this against him.
Now this quote, I have more of a problem with:

" I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man."

This was a less than... uh... a politically correct thing to say. I mean, this was pretty stupid. But, obviously Obama has overlooked it and it wasn't such a big deal as to cost him his Senate seat or anything. Do I like it? No.
He incorrectly said Franklin Roosevelt addressed people on TV during the Depression. Herbert Hoover was president then and TV wasn't used then. But I think this was just a mistake on his part. I don't think this would mean he was trying to deceive anyone or didn't know what he was talking about. This is history, man, not present day issues, where Biden has a lot of knowledge and Palin, so far, has shown she knows very little.

Biden has said some foolish things, but everyone does that at times and their not out there for public displays. People will see on Thursday that Biden knows the issues and can articulate on them proficiently. On the other hand, we have Palin who has said so many dumb, inarticulate things in the few interviews she has granted that it's ridiculous anyone can take her seriously at this point.

- I thought this was a great article from Arriana Huffington asking if McCain still thinks government is the problem following the collapse of Wall Street. This is a great read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/does-mccain-still-agree-w_b_130417.html

- If you have a chance, check out http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks. These guys love pointing out the ridiculousness of McCain and Palin and their exaggerations.

- This article talks about how Palin is even losing support in Alaska: http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/541124.html

- Finally, here's an article basically saying that McCain's gambles during this election are not paying off. This is a great read: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/mccains_gambles_not_paying_off.html

That's enough for tonight. Thanks for reading!

Taking a break tonight

2008-09-29T19:59:00.001-07:00

Hi everyone.

I've had a very busy day and night so I'm taking a break tonight. I'm hoping tomorrow to get back to reviewing the issues. Have a good night.

McCain the hypocrite...

2008-09-28T18:19:00.000-07:00

Just a few things for tonight... I haven't had much time to look around and I've had a busy day...

- So McCain got all over Obama at the debate on Friday for his comments about how he would go into Pakistan to fight terrorism. McCain said you shouldn't say that. Well, apparently his running mate agrees with Obama as Sarah Palin was caught saying that she thinks we should go into Pakistan if we need to: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080928/ap_on_el_pr/palin_pakistan;_ylt=AqsQhvJQWgKVeg3e6SPcjntsnwcF

Of course, then McCain tried to spin it as if that wasn't really what she meant. Uh huh.

- Here's an article from the AP about Palin getting special favors and gifts as mayor of Wasilla: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PALIN_ETHICS?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US

- I mentioned this before, but I feel like I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't point out this article from the Philadelphia Inquirer addressing a controversial ad that Obama ran in Spanish about McCain not being a friend to immigrants, which isn't true: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080928_Back_Channels__Obama_s_lowball_attacks.html

So what was true from last night's debate...

2008-09-27T08:24:00.000-07:00

According to factcheck.org, here's what was and wasn't true in the candidates statements at last night's debate:

Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.
Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.
McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.
McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.
Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.
McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.
Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.
Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.
McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.
McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.

You can read a full analysis of these claims here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

The tally? By my count:

False statements by Obama: 5
False statements by McCain: 11
Call it a push: 3

Some interesting things from the analysis...

For all of McCain's bluster about earmarks, earmark spending is actually down.
Obama's tax cuts would help 95% of families with children, not people. The real number is actually 81% of Americans. Still, that's a high percentage.
McCain's health care plan would tax your health benefits. Right now Americans don't have to pay any taxes for their health care. Under McCain's plan you would, meaning even less take home pay. There is talk of a tax credit to offset this, but what if you have to pay more now than what you get back in a tax credit. I'm sorry for not remembering where I read it, but I did read that in the long run this would mean that Americans would have to pay more for health care because as health care costs rose, the tax credit would remain the same. Does that seem like a good idea to anyone? I don't think so.
McCain boasted that he killed a contract to Boeing, saving tax payers $6.8 billion. Of course, what he failed to mention was that the contract later when to EAD/Airbus. So read this paragraph:

Further, the New York Times reported that "McCain’s top advisers, including a cochairman of his presidential campaign, were lobbyists for EADS. And Mr. McCain had written to the Defense Department, urging it to ignore a trade dispute between the United States and Europe over whether Airbus received improper subsidies." A liberal campaign finance group ran an ad hitting McCain on the connections back in July and our colleagues at PolitiFact found their attacks to be true, saying: "Center for Responsive Politics prepared a report for PolitiFact that backs [the charge] up. U.S. employees of EADS/Airbus have contributed $15,700 in this election cycle to McCain’s campaign."

Interesting, huh? McCain has connections to Airbus and helped kill a contract for their rival!

Quick thoughts on the debate...

2008-09-26T20:31:00.000-07:00

The first debate is now over. What did I think?

I actually think that both candidates did well for themselves. I give a slight edge to Obama because I think he got a few more zingers in on McCain and actually gave a few more points about how McCain has misjudged somethings, but I think McCain did a decent job of pointing out his experience advantage and how he thinks his policies are different and better than Obama's. I think it just comes down to what plan you like better.

I do think Obama looked more comfortable up there. He was engaging McCain, addressing him directly, and even looked into the camera a couple of times to address the country. McCain only ever looked at Jim Lehrer.

Some of my favorite points?...

When talking about the financial plan for the bailout, Obama said he's looking out for the middle-class. I hope everyone in the middle-class realizes that.
When Obama mentioned that 10 days before the whole financial crisis started, McCain said the economy is strong, Lehrer told him to say it to McCain, so Obama turned, looked at him, addressed him, and repeated the exact thing again. That was great. And there was nothing McCain could say about that because he did say it. Nice!
McCain now saying there are fundamental problems in the financial system when 2 weeks ago he was saying the fundamentals were strong. Eeek!
When McCain was saying Obama wants to implement $800 billion on new spending, Obama interrupted him to review what he wants to do. I loved that interruption.
I liked how neither candidate would say how they would cut the budget. They couldn't do it.
I loved it when Obama pointed out to McCain that he's voted with the Bush Administration 90% of the time over the past 8 years, approving their budget and spending, after McCain was complaining about the way spending has gotten out of control. I thought that was brilliant.
After McCain kept crowing about the troop surge in Iraq, Obama pointed out that was necessary after four years of mismanagement. He pointed out how McCain said the war would be quick and easy, we knew where the WMDs were, that we would be greeted as liberators, that there was no history of violence between Sunnis and Shiites... after making each of these statements, Obama pointed out that McCain was wrong. He he!
After McCain said he talked to a mother who lost her son in Iraq, she gave him a bracelet with her son's name and said that she didn't want him to have lost his life in vain, implying that leaving Iraq before the war is over would be doing so. Then Obama said he ALSO got a bracelet from another mother who lost her son who said she didn't want any other mother to go through what she was going through and that no US soldier ever dies in vain. I thought this was a draw but took some of the sting out of what McCain was saying.
I'll give this one to McCain... after Obama talked about not having preconditions for talking with Iran and said we'd tell them they they can't threaten Israel, McCain zinged him good, saying: "Let me get this straight... Ahmedinejad says were going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and we say, no you're not?" I thought that was good.

Those were my favorite parts.

Let me say this about John McCain: he didn't embarrass himself like George Bush did in the debates 8 and 4 years ago. (I still don't understand how he got elected after those travesties.) I think he did a very good job in this debate and presented his positions well. I do think he's an honorable man, I think he'd do a very respectable job as president if he did win the election, but I just don't agree with his policies... or more that I'm in favor of Obama's positions. Plus I still cannot fathom Palin as VP and potentially President. That just cannot happen.

In any case, a very educational debate tonight. I think they both had strong performances, but I do give the slight advantage to Obama.

Good night, everyone!

Time for a Debate! ... My blog on Debate #1...

2008-09-26T17:58:00.001-07:00

I was just watching 20/20 about Barack Obama and John McCain and I will say this... John McCain is an honorable, brave man. What he did while a POW was just amazing. But I don't agree with his politics, his constant changing of stances on the issues, his poor choice for VP, and that he should be elected President just because he served in the military. I think Obama is a more steady hand and is a much better choice to be our President.

In any case, here are my thoughts as we went along watching the debate... as I'm going along, I'm doing my best to summarize comments but they may not be 100% accurate... but they should be pretty darn close...

- 9:01: Jim Lehrer is giving his introduction and the instructions... I'm not a big fan of how structured these debates are. I think they should be a little more free form. Allow the candidates to interact and interject on each other. THEN you'll get a real feel for who they are.

Hey! McCain showed up! You can't see my eye rolling.

- 9:02: First question: Lehrer gave a quote I didn't catch. OH! But he's starting off strong with a question about the financial plan.

Obama first, giving his positions... nothing new for me, ... golden parachutes shouldn't be allowed... take care of homeowners... of course, what about he homeowners who did the right things and are still struggling?... Says he's looking out for the middle-class. EXACTLY! Good!

McCain's turn... talks about Ted Kennedy not doing well... that's sad... he's talking about the two Parties working together now ... Will he take sole credit for it at some point? The man who has said he doesn't know much about the economy and that it's strong?... Now he's given credit to the House Republicans for joining the effort... even though they're the ones that have been fighting it... and he just mentioned needing oil independence. I'm not sure what that has to do with the economic issues...

- 9:09: Asking about their feelings of the plan...

Obama first... asks the question: how did we get into this situation? He says he warned 2 years ago about the sub-prime mortgage problem... says the current framework where regulation is always bad is part of the problem.

McCain's saying he's not sure if he's going to vote for the plan. Now he's saying he warned about Fannie and Freddie. Uh huh... Now he's mentioned responsibility and Eisenhower ... how Dwight wrote two letters congratulating on D-Day and a resignation letter. Says we've lost accountability. No doubt! Greed and excess are rewarded. He says as President, people are going to be held accountable. Well, gee, they're trying to get that into this new economic package, so don't you think so?

Obama getting to rebut...

He agrees with McCain, but not only when there's a crisis. Mentions lowered salaries, health care, energy policies that don't work... he mentions McCain saying 10 days ago that the fundamentals of the economy are not sound and Lehrer tells him to say that to McCain... so he repeats it directly to McCain... McCain says her heard him... I love that.

- 9:14 PM: Lehrer directs the issue back to McCain. He says we have fundamental problems in the system. Didn't he says 10 days ago, as Obama point out, that the fundamentals are strong? HA! He says he has a fundamental belief in the strength of the American worker. He has a fundamental belief in the American system. But no solutions or possible comebacks at Obama on that topic.

- 9:16: What would you do to get us out of this crisis? McCain first... get Washington spending out of control. No kidding! Spending is ridiculous. No wonder there is a record deficit. He's talking about how gov't changed Republicans instead of the other way around. Talking about earmarks... He says he's going to kill all earmarks. YOU CAN'T! Some are needed.

Now he's mentioned Obama's earmark record. Apparently, according to McCain, Obama has requested over $900 mil in earmarks.

Obama says, yes, earmarks have been abused. Says he suspended his requests because of the abuse. Says McCain is proposing $300 billion in tax cuts for wealthiest people and companies. Says CEOs would get tax cuts under McCain's plan while his plan will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. AMEN!

McCain again. Says Obama suspended the earmark requests after he ran for President. Hits Obama for thinking $932 mil is not a lot of money. Says system has to be cleaned up and he has fought it through his career. Says Obama didn't mention $800 billion in new spending for programs.

Oooh! Obama interrupted him! Says he wants to be clear. He wants to close corporate loopholes that allow jobs to go overseas. Make sure we have health care for everyone to have basic coverage. Wants to go back to the original point. Says he'll make sure that he reviews how money is being spent on programs. Says can't just eliminate earmarks to help middle-class. Accuses McCain of helping the wealthy with his tax plan and neglecting the people who are struggling. Continues the Bush plan

--- I've had to pause the show a few times to catch up with my typing. Because of that, I'm going to leave the times out from now on. New topics or questions will have a dash on it.

- Lehrer asked McCain to explain his tax policies.

Talking about the business taxes. Says US businesses pay 2nd highest tax rate at 35%. Says Ireland's is much lower. Says he wants to cut the tax to create jobs. Says Obama is a recent covert to be against pork-barrel spending. Wants to give families tax credits to purchase health care... because that's so affordable!

Obama now making points. Talking directly to the camera. Says on paper, yes, taxes are high, but because of loopholes, that business actually have one of the LOWEST corporate tax rates in the world. But McCain doesn't want to close them. So effectively, he's making the taxes for businesses just lower.

Now he's talking about McCain's health plan... says McCain wants to tax health benefits. WHAT!?!? And if you lose your job, you lose your benefits and you have to buy your own. Says it's not a good deal for Americans.

Lehrer wants to move on, but McCain wants to bring up another topic. Talking about an energy bill. Says there were lots of breaks for oil companies. Says he voted against it and Obama voted for it. Says he's the one who has tried to keep spending under control. Says American have to choose if they want the existing tax code or a new one. A NEW ONE! Then he said that Obama voted to raise the taxes on people making less than $42K a year. Obama says that's just not true!

Obama's turn again... he says if he wants to talk about oil company profits, under McCain's plan, oil companies would get another $4 billion in tax cuts. Obama says he was opposed to those tax breaks.

- Back to Lehrer. What are you going to have to give up as far as priorities because of the financial rescue plan?

Obama says that's hard to anticipate because they don't know what the budget will be next year. But says we have to have priorities. Energy independence. Wants to have that in 10 years. Solar, wind, bio-diesel. Have to fix health care. Make sure we're investing in education. Science and technology. Make college affordable. Need to rebuild our infrastructure. Roads, broadband, electricity. Need to eliminate programs that don't work and others are more efficient.

McCain's turn... need to cut spending. Says Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Not sure that is true or not... opposes ethanol subsidies. Says defense costs are out of control. Need fix-cost contracts for defense spending. Says HE saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a contract between Boeing and D.O.D. Says he knows how to do this because he's been involved for a long time.

- Lehrer says neither one of them are suggesting major changes.

Obama says things will be delayed... Lehrer says, like what? Says energy independence is a major project but that it can't be completely stopped. Says health insurance companies are skimming billions... Says he worked with a conservative Republican (Tom Coburn?) to setup a rulebook for gov't so taxpayers can see who's promoting spending projects.

- Lehrer says, what he's trying to get at is how the economic plan will effect their spending plans and what they'll change.

McCain suggests a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran programs, and entitlement.. something... I didn't hear it.

Obama says the problem is that there are underfunded programs. Like early childhood education. He'd also like saving in Iraq. Says we need to bring war to a close.

McCain says we're sending money overseas even to countries that don't like us much and some of that money is ending up in the hands of terrorists. THEN DON'T SEND IT! He mentions other alternate fuel sources and that we need to start off-shore drilling. Suggesting nuclear power plants. Says it affects climate change as well as oil independence.

- Lehrer trying to represent the question... asking again how the financial plan will affect their Presidency.

Obama first... says if the plan works right and gov't makes money, that'll take time. He says he'll have to make tough decisions. Have to know what our values and priorities are. Says if we spend $300 billion in tax cuts for people who don't need or ask for them and leave out health care, then it's a bad decision.

McCain wants to make sure the health care system is not handed over to the gov't. Wants to make sure the plan choices are in the hands of families Says he's fought to cut spending. Says Obama has over $800 billion in new spending plans. Says a healthy economy without raising taxes is the best recipe to help the economy. Says spending restraint is vital. We owe China $500 billion. Says he's fought excessive spending his whole career.

Obama again... says to McCain that it's his President, who he voted with 90% of the time, who presided over the increase in spending and he voted for almost all of his budgets. THIS IS GREAT! And Obama says now McCain says he's going to lead on controlling spending and balancing tax cuts, when for the past 8 years that hasn't happened, it's hard to swallow. That's brilliant!

Now McCain. Says he's opposed spending, climate change, torture of prisoners, Guantanamo Bay, etc. Says he has a long record of being a Maverick.

Winner: Obama!

- New question: What are the lessons of Iraq?

McCain: You cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to near lose a conflict. Says we celebrated our initial success and then things were mishandled. Says he went to Iraq and said we need to change strategy. Says they came up with a new one that has succeeded. Says we'll come home with victory and honor. Says we'll see a stable ally in the region. Says if we lost, there would have been increased Iranian influence, more sectarian violence... says we're winning and will come home successful.

Obama says they have a fundamental difference here. Says he opposed the war 6 years ago. Says we didn't know the cost, exit strategy, foreign relations, didn't finish in Afghanistan. Says it would be a distraction. Says he was right. Says we've spent over $600 billion, lost thousands, says Al Qaida is stronger, we're still spending billions there every month. We're borrowing money overseas. Says the lesson to be drawn is we should not be hesitant to use military, but need to use it wisely.

McCain says next President doesn't have to decide if to go into Iraq. Says next President will have to decide when to leave. Says Obama said surge wouldn't work, .. would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to fail... he still says he'd decide against the surge today. Says Obama didn't go to Iraq for 900 days and is a chairman of a committee that oversights NATO for Afghanistan and has never had a hearing.

Obama again... says issues on Iraq and Afghanistan don't go through his sub-committee. Says troops have done a brilliant job. Says the surge was a tactic to clean up the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement. Says McCain said the war would be quick and easy, we knew where the WMDs were, that we would be greeted as liberators, that there was no history of violence between Sunnis and Shiites... after making each of these statements, Obama said McCain was wrong.. HA!... Obama says if the question is who is best equipped on how to use our military, we can see the judgements.

McCain says Obama doesn't know the difference between a tactic and a strategy. Now talking about troops re-upping. Says they said the want to win. Says Obama says refuses to acknowledge that we're winning in Iraq. Says the same strategy will be employed in Afghanistan. Now accuses Obama of voting against troop funding issue.

Obama says McCain opposed funding for troops because they had a time table. Says Obama opposed funding for troops without a timetable. Says Afghanistan is deteriorating. Says we rushed into Iraq. Says McCain says there was no threat there. Obama says we should end the war responsibility. Says in 16 months that we should be able to reduce troops. Says leaders in Afghanistan need more troops.

McCain... says Obama's plan is dangerous. Says both Gen. Patraeus and Bin Laden says Iraq is central. Says Obama wants to grab defeat from the jaws of victory by adapting his plan. Says it will widen the war. Including Afghanistan.

- New topic: Should more troops be sent to Afghanistan?

Obama first. Yes. Need to do it as quickly as possible. Says the situation is getting worse. Highest troop fatality since 2002. Would send 2 or 3 additional brigades. Says there was no Al Quaida in Iraq before we attacked. Need to press Afghan gov't. Need to deal with poppy trade. Need to deal with Pakistan because Taliban and Al Qaida have safe haven there and they don't do enough about it.

McCain now... won't repeat mistake he regrets. That we washed hands of Afghanistan when Russians left. Says he's not prepared to threaten Pakistan as Obama has done be saying he'd launch military strikes there. Says border areas have not been governed. Tribes run them. Says Obama doesn't understand new strategy there. We need their co-operation. Says terrorists do not want new Pakistani gov't to co-operate with us. Says it's not just troops that matter. Need new strategy. Says he would not publicly state that he would attack Pakistan... implying that Obama did say that.

Obama says he did not say he would attack in Pakistan. He says that if the US has Al Qaida in our sites and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to react, we should take them out. Says Presidents have to be prudent in what they say, but coming from McCain, who has threatened extinction for N Korea and singing songs about bombing Iran, he doesn't know how credible that it is. He thinks it's the right strategy. Says there are cross border attacks on our troops. Says we can take that or we can make decisions. Says we coddled Musharraf and alienated the Pakistani population because we supported a dictator and lost legitimacy there. Says that will change when he is President.

McCain says there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf took over. Now talking about bombing Iran and his record... talking about the things he supported ... voted against Marines in Lebanon, where 300 died... supported 1st Gulf War... going into Bosnia to stop genocide... supported Kosovo and ethnic cleansing... Somalia... has a record of being involved in national security issues and sending military into harm's way. Says a Mother gave him a bracelet with her son's name on it and asked him to make sure his son's death in Iraq was not in vain. Says we'll win war and not come back in defeat.

Obama says he has a bracelet, too, and that mother asked him to make sure that other mothers don't have to go through what she's going through. Says no US soldier ever dies in vain. We honor all the service they provide. But the question is are we making good judgements on how to keep America safe? His original point was we took our eye off Afghanistan and who was responsible for 9/11. Says it's not true that McCain's been concerned about Afghanistan. Says McCain said we can muddle through there. Obama says you can't muddle through. Says he will take it seriously.

McCain says he thinks Obama should have gone to Afghanistan as sub-committee chairman. Says when he's sub-committee chairman for something, he would. Knock on Obama! Says he's visited these places and knows what our security requirements and needs are. Says we need a new strategy. Says if we suffer defeat in Iraq, which we will if we leave when Obama says we should, that it would have a calamitous affect on Afghanistan and American interests.

- Lehrer says they have had equal time, but the 5 minute intervals have gone over.

- New question: What is the threat from Iran?

McCain first: if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it's a threat to Israel and that others in the region would feel they need to acquire them, too. Says the Russians are preventing action in the UN Security Council. Says he proposes league of democracy for countries with similar ideals. Says that could impose significant sanctions on Iran. Says Iran has lousy government. Says democracies around the world can affect Iran behaviour. Says they are after nuclear weapons. Says they are putting lethal IEDs in Iraq. Says Obama opposed amendment to declare Iranian National Guard as terrorist organization because it would be provocative.

Obama next... say ING is terrorist organization and said it consistantly. Says what has strengthened Iran is war in Iraq because they were enemies. Says they've since been able to develop nuclear program because of that. Says Iran cannot be nuclear. That threatens Israel and could start Middle East arms race. Says we need tougher sanctions but need Russia and China. Also need to engage in tough, direct diplomacy in Iran. Not talking does not punish them. It has accelerated their desire to get nuclear weapons and he'll change that.

Back to McCain... Says Obama said he's sit with other leaders without preconditions. Iran's leader (I'm not attempting his name) is espousing exterminating Iran and talking to them legitmizes their behaviour. McCain says he would not do that.

Obama again... he says Iran's leader is not most powerful person in Iraq but that he'd talk to anyone that would help keep America save. Says 5 recent Secretaries of State said that we should meet without preconditions. Says there's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Says it may not work with Iran. Says he was called naive when he said they need to explore contacts with Iran, but now Bush is doing something about that. Says we haven't done it, like in North Korea, they quadrupled their nuclear capacity, tested, and sent nuclear secrets to Syria. Says that lots of people says this is important, but McCain denies it. Says McCain said he would not meet with the PM of Spain (which is true) because he wasn't sure if they were aligned with us.

McCain's turn... says Henry Kissinger didn't say that. Says he said there could be lower level meetings. McCain says he's encouraged that. He says what Obama doesn't understand that if you don't set preconditions you legitimize their bad comments/thoughts, which is dangerous. Says North Koreans have broken every agreement they have agreed to. Says Obama's plan is dangerous.

Obama says that McCain is mischaracterizing his position. He says the idea is that we don't expect to solve every problem before talks. Says Bush recognizes this.

McCain mocking Obama's comments now: "Let me get this straight... Ahbejiminad (sp.) says were going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and we say, no you're not?" DANG!

Now there's a disagreement about what Kissinger would say. McCain says Kissinger would be interested in Obama's depiction of his views. He says he would not say that Presidential level should meet like that. Says Obama is parsing words. Obama says now, he's using words McCain's advisors use.

- New topic: Russia.

Obama says the Russian approach has to be reevaluated. Says they're a threat to stability in the region and their actions in Russia were unwarranted. Need unified alliance. Explain they cannot be a 21st Century superpower and act like that. Says Georgia and Ukraine should be allowed in NATO, if them meet requirements. Also cannot return to Cold War with Russia. Says they have lots of nukes and ability to make more. Have to deal with nuclear proliferation. You deal with Russia based on what our national security interests are, not by staring into their soul.

McCain's turn: Says Obama said both side should show restraint during Georgia conflict. Says that was naive. Says Obama didn't understand that Russia commited serious aggression against Georgia. Says Russia is KGB run. Says he doesn't believe we'll return to Cold War. Need to bolster friends and allies. Says former Russian countries are showing solidarity but are concerned about Russian threats. Says Russians ought to understand that we'll support Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. Russia is in violation of thier cease fire agreement by still being in Georgian territory. Says we want to work with Russians but they need to respect international boundaries and norms of international behaviour. Says this has a lot to do with Ukraine and we need to watch them.

Obama says that he thinks they mostly agree on this issue, except that he disagrees that the notion that he somehow that he did not forcefully disagree with the actions of Russia. Says he called for $1 billion to help Georgia, which they have gotten. Says we need to anticipate these problems. Said he warned the Administration in April that there were Russian peacekeepers in Georgia. About energy... says Putin is feeling powerful before of oil dollars. Says we need an energy strategy because of other, not-so-friendly countries. Says he has a plan for alternative energy choices. Says McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy choices.

McCain says Obama is against reprocessing and storing (of nuclear waste), which Obama denies.

- One more question... what do they think the likelihood of another 9/11 type attack?

McCain says it's less likely now than after 9/11. He thinks the nation is safer but a long way from safe. Says he and Joe Lieberman started a commission after 9/11 to investigate what happened and fix it. Says adminstration opposed that. But after familes came, they got the legislation passed. He says he got most of the suggestions from that commision into law. Says intelligent services must do better. Says we should never torture a prisoner again. Says we need to work more closely with our allies. He thinks American is safer but have a long way to go.

Obama's turn... he thinks we are safer in some ways. Airport security, potential targets... but a long way to go. Chemical sites, transit, ports need more work. But it's not a missle we need to worry about, it's a suitcase which is why nuclear proliferation is so important. Says we're spending billions on missle defense and we need that, but he also thinks that we need to spend more on nuclear proliferation. Also need to focus on Al Qaida. Can't focus just on Iraq. Need to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also need to change the way we are perceive in the world and need to improve our standing and improve our respect. Because of mistakes we have made we have to restore the sense that we are that shining beacon on a hill.

McCain... says Obama does not understand that if we fail in Iraq that it helps Al Qaida. Can't set a goal. Says Obama's plan of specific dates for withdrawal without certain ground conditions ... can't do that.

Obama... says for the last 8 years that the administration has been solely focused on Iraq. Says Bin Laden is still out there and Al Qaida is resurgent. Says were borrowing bilions from China. Says they hold a trillion dollars of our debt and China is active in Latin America, Asia and we are not because we've been focuse on Iraq. We have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens. Says we cannot invest in anything other than Iraq. Says Vets cannot get treatment. Says we're not talking about losing the war. Says next President needs broader vision.

McCain again... says he's been involved in every major security problem for the past 20 years. Says Obama doesn't have experience and Obama's made the wrong judgements in initial reaction to Georgian conflict. Says Obama is clinging to belief that Iraq surge did not work. Needs more flexibility. Says vets know he'll take care of them. Says he has ability and knowledge to keep country safe and secure. Says he doesn't need on the job training.

Obama closing... says his father came from Kenya and came to college here in the US becaue there was no other country on Earth where you could make it if you tried. Says our standing in the world now is not the same. Says what next President has to do is to send a message to the world that we will invest in education, how ordinary people are able to live out their dreams.

McCain... almost finished... says when he came back from Vietnam, he saw vets being treated badly. Says he'll heal the wounds of war.

THE END!

Next Thursday, the VP Debate!

A few thoughts on Bush's bailout speech

2008-09-24T18:23:00.000-07:00

Just some quick thoughts on Bush's speech tonight...

Surprisingly I thought Bush came across pretty well. I think he presented a good case. He explained the problem, why it happened, and how they want to solve it. As much as I don't like this plan from the standpoint of public tax money being used to bailout private companies that mismanaged themselves, I understand the implications of not doing it. My problems is doing it right:

Making sure the money goes to the right places
Making sure regulations change to prevent this from happening again
Making sure that the people who put us in this position pay for their carelessness and get to just keep the millions of dollars they jumped ship with. Something HAS to be done about that.

From the way things were described, in the long run, we might actually make out AHEAD in this deal.

If the government buys up all the bad mortgages that are sinking these companies at low prices, the housing market recovers, house prices go up and are sold, then the money from those increased price sales might actually cut into the federal deficit. Wow! How'd that happen? Is it possible that Bush might actually do something successful before he leaves office? Of course, let's not forget that it was his administration's policies that put us in this position to begin with.

Anyway, I'm more open minded now. I don't like the idea of using taxpayers money to help wealthy companies recover from the dumb mistakes they made, but as long as reform is done, oversight is setup, and things are done the right way, this could, in the long run, be a very good thing.

Only time will tell.

Things that are bothering me tonight...

2008-09-24T16:45:00.000-07:00

I haven't had a good day.

I can't tell you exactly why but I'm not in a good mood. It's probably an accumulation of things, but right now I'm just going to talk about things that are bothering me about the election, ...of course!

- First, there's John McCain saying that he's suspending his campaign and postponing the debate scheduled to take place on Friday.

I have a couple of problems with this.

First, I was really looking forward to finally seeing McCain and Obama debate for the first time to see what they really have to say about the issues. OK, that's a selfish reason.

But more importantly, this just stinks to me of grandstanding. It's like McCain is saying, "Look at me! I'm making myself look good to everyone by suspending my campaign and doing it before Obama does! Hey, everyone, I really do care! Country first!"

This is nothing more than a desperate ploy to win favor with voters. He's trying to make himself look good by making everyone think that he cares about this bailout. Even though he hasn't been in DC since April. Even though he's one of the people that helped get us in this situation by consistently being against regulation. And that's the way gullible people are going to look at it. Oh, look at that saint, McCain, being so selfless. What a crock! He's always been against bailouts. How is Obama and he getting involved in this going to help anything? If anything, it will probably make things worse because, if they do both get involved, their going to be working to prove themselves as leaders who can get things done their way instead of necessarily doing the right thing.

And what does this do to Obama? It puts him in a very difficult, unfair position. If he goes along with it, he looks like the fool for not being the one suggesting it or for giving in to what McCain wants. If he doesn't, then he looks like the bad guy who cares more about his campaign than what's going on in the nation's economy. This was the WRONG thing for McCain to do. He should have worked with Obama on this together, not by putting himself out there as the hero.

(I'm watching CNN right now (just after 8:00 PM) and they are saying that Obama actually called McCain FIRST about the bailout this morning and suggested they issues a joint statement about the crisis. McCain called him back, agreed, then 15 minutes later held a press conference where he basically threw Obama under the bus and told everyone he's suspending his campaign, they should cancel the debate, and go back to DC to help. He said they should both go back to Washington to deal with this issue. Why? What could they possibly do except bring Presidential politics into the bailout? This is so bad.)

So what do I think they should do? Keep themselves out of the problem. It's more important right now for them to move forward with the election and get out there how they are going deal with this problem and others when they get into office. If anything, they should keep the debate as planned and change the topic to the economy from foreign affairs. They don't need the candidates involved with this issue right now.

Obama says he's still planning going forward with the debate on Friday and showing up. I hope he does and McCain doesn't show up. That would give Obama the chance to address the nation by himself and present his views without anything coming from his opponent. It would give him a chance to shine.

This is such a terrible move by McCain. I mean, it's good PR for him, but just is not doing the right thing. A bad decision. Is this the type of decisions we can expect from him as President? Selfish ones? URGH! I just hope people don't fall for this.

Here's the story of how this came about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26872907?GT1=43001

- I'm still watching CNN at about 8:30 PM and they are showing video of Paulson and President Bush saying months ago that we shouldn't bailout lenders and everything is fine. The economy is strong. Oh boy!

- Here's a great commentary from CNN's Campbell Brown saying the Republicans have to stop protecting Sarah Palin, calling it sexist treatment: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campbell.brown.palin/index.html

Hallelujah! Stop protecting her! If you're going to put her up as a VP candidate, treat her like one! Let her be interviewed! Let her talk! Let us see if she actually has what it takes to be VP and potentially President!

- Even though the Bridge to Nowhere got killed, that didn't prevent Palin from letting millions of dollars from being spent to build a Road to Nowhere... a road to where the bridge was supposed to be even though it had already been cancelled. Does that make any sense? Is this the kind of waste we can expect from her? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/palin.road.to.nowhere/index.html

- Here's an interesting story... Apparently you can't completely fault Palin for the Bridge to Nowhere. Obama and Joe Biden supported the funding for it... twice!... before it was finally killed. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/biden.earmarks/index.html

I guess they can't keep getting on her for that any more!

The article also talks about how Joe Biden has taken and got a lot of earmarks for Delaware.

Look, not all earmarks are bad. Things that help people like creating jobs, infrastructure, community programs, veteran programs, etc, can be good things. But things like $400 million bridges to an island with 50 people and $1 million dollar face lifts for opera halls are not things that help the public at large. These are the types of things that need to stop. I can't fault politicians for trying to do good things for their states and getting earmarks to do so, but they need to be the right things, not things for private organizations or spending such large amounts on a small group of people. Stop wasteful spending!

- Here's a story that talks about all of the ... lack of truth in political ads.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843796,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

My favorite part is this:

As of late September, with the two candidates virtually tied, Obama's mostly true to mostly false tally was 65 to 33, while McCain's was 47 to 51.

Can you see this? It SHOWS that McCain is being more dishonest in this campaign. Deception! Lies! Telling falsehoods to dupe you! Don't fall for it!

I got an email from Barack Obama!

2008-09-24T05:16:00.000-07:00

OK, I'm sure this was a form letter and not personally to me, but I got this email from Barack Obama today about the bailout for Wall Street:

The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression.

Congress and the President are debating a bailout of our financial institutions with a price tag of $700 billion or more in taxpayer dollars. We cannot underestimate our responsibility in taking such an enormous step.

Whatever shape our recovery plan takes, it must be guided by core principles of fairness, balance, and responsibility to one another.

Please sign on to show your support for an economic recovery plan based on the following:

• No Golden Parachutes -- Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.

• Main Street, Not Just Wall Street -- Any bailout plan must include a payback strategy for taxpayers who are footing the bill and aid to innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure.

• Bipartisan Oversight -- The staggering amount of taxpayer money involved demands a bipartisan board to ensure accountability and oversight.

Show your support and encourage your friends and family to join you:

http://my.barackobama.com/ourplan

The failed economic policies and the same corrupt culture that led us into this mess will not help get us out of it. We need to get to work immediately on reforming the broken government -- and the broken politics -- that allowed this crisis to happen in the first place.

And we have to understand that a recovery package is just the beginning. We have a plan that will guarantee our long-term prosperity -- including tax cuts for 95 percent of families, an economic stimulus package that creates millions of new jobs and leads us towards energy independence, and health care that is affordable to every American.

It won't be easy. The kind of change we're looking for never is.

But if we work together and stand by these principles, we can get through this crisis and emerge a stronger nation.

Thank you,

Barack

How nice of him to think of me! ;)

In any case, the things he is talking about are very important. The American public should not be footing the bill on this by themselves. Please sign the petition, if you agree.

Just call me Tarp Lazer

2008-09-23T13:06:00.001-07:00

I just thought this was fun... The Sarah Palin Name Generator!

http://politsk.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah_13.html

If you try this, post your name on the Comments. I'm curious to know what comes up.

The bailout

2008-09-23T12:54:00.000-07:00

Here's tonight's links...

- John McCain has supported deregulation for almost his entire political career. But now that the economy is in the dumps and is the top issue of this election, he's decided that maybe deregulation isn't such a good idea after all and is conveniently switching his position: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/mccain.bailout/index.html

I can accept that people can change their mind on a topic when they discover new information and learn that what they thought before wasn't the best idea, but this just reeks of pandering to the voters. He knows he can't win this election by spewing his same old deregulation talk so he conveniently changes his position after all these decades. Don't be fooled! McCain has been one of de-regulation's strongest proponents for his entire Senatorial career. He's always been on the side of the wealthy and businesses at the expense of the middle-class. Now he's trying to win this election by saying anything. DON'T BE FOOLED!

- Here's another story from Time about the Bailout: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843642,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

I'm assuming (or hoping) that the purpose of this bailout is to help stabilize our economy and save people's jobs. But it still makes me sick that the American public has to pay for the greedy behaviour and outright stupidity of these companies that are getting these bailouts. Why do we have to pay for their mistakes? Are these CEOs going to be forced to reimburse the massive bonuses or golden parachutes they got while running their companies into the ground? At the very least they should have to do that. I read the FBI is investigating all of these failing companies and hopefully something positive for the tax-payers of this country will come out of this.

- Remember this article and what the Republicans are doing right now with this bailout when you go to the polls Nov 4th. It talks about the poor middle-class people that are losing everything but not getting any government help: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26841602

Bailing out the rich... nice!

- This article talks about how Joe Biden has been saying things that are against Obama's policy plans: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/23/biden-turns-on-the-gaffe-machine.aspx

C'mon Joe! Get with the program! Jeez! We can't have the VP Candidate saying things counter to what Obama's saying.

2008-09-22T05:01:00.000-07:00

So I don't have a lot of time tonight for any in depth analysis tonight. But I do have a few links I want to share...

- At this link, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26761504, you'll find some very interesting reviews of the candidates plans on several different topics. I really want to go through these one by one and discuss their plans and what they mean. But you can take a look yourself and judge for yourself. The link will take you to the candidates' plans for health insurance but there are other links there for many other issues, as well.

- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26831560 - This article talks about how Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, worked to defend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac against stricter regulation. Isn't that interesting? The Republicans have been all over Obama's case for his possible relationship to Franklin Raines but this guy actually worked to prevent those two companies from being regulated.

- By the time you read this: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/, it's possible the stories I'm referencing will be moved further down the list, but the first one is about Bill Clinton saying that the Dems should not attack Palin and recoginize she's a good choice for VP. Huh? I agree too much attention is being put on the VP candidate, but she's a good choice? I don't get that.

Two stories down from that there's a story that says Palin is accusing the Dems of attacking her family. But, of course, the story doesn't give specifics.

- Here's an article where Joe Biden says the ad mocking McCain about not being able to use a computer or email was "terrible": http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/biden_campaign_ad But then he does say given the tone of a lot of Republican ads, he doesn't think it's so bad.

- This article, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5842629&page=1, talks about how McCain keeps making verbal gaffes and saying the wrong things when it comes to the economy and other issues and it could cost him in the long run. Let's hope so! It highlights how the economy, possibly the biggest issue in this election, is not McCain's strong point.

That's all for tonight. Thanks for reading!

Palin, the backstabber

2008-09-21T19:08:00.000-07:00

So I have a few more links to share with you tonight...

- This first one is very interesting: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13650.html

The article basically talks about how Sarah Palin has turned against a good number of the people who have helped her get into the position she is in today. It really is an interesting read about the type of person he is. And it could be looked at in two ways: She's an honest person who came into office, saw things that were not kosher, and made sweeping changes to make things better.. or she a disloyal, power-hungry, self-centered, ambitious turncoat who looks for every opportunity to push herself and her agenda. Read the article and judge for yourself.

- I love this article: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080921_The_American_Debate__Populism_gone_wild__Palin_latest_example_of_push_to_mediocrity.html

It talks about how the Republicans seem to have a habit of elevating people into important positions and how are ill-qualified for them. Sound like anyone we know? I think it's brilliant.

- This article talks about how Joe Biden has been pretty much ignored... and that might be a good thing: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080921/news_lz1e21navarre.html

- One more for tonight, from the Chicago Tribune talking about Troopergate: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0921pagesep21,0,1329347.column

This one talks about how willing Palin was willing to be in the Troopergate investigation and how, after becoming the VP nominee, she suddenly changed her mind. It also talks about, if the McCain campaign is unwilling to be cooperative investigation, how can we trust what they would do once they get into office? It's more of what's wrong in Washington now.

- One other thing I wanted to mention... if you didn't get to watch on 60 Minutes tonight, they had interviews with both Obama and McCain. It's an interesting watch if you can find the time. You might be able to find it on CBS's website.

'Night everyone!

Taking a break today

2008-09-20T10:49:00.000-07:00

It's Saturday so I'm going to take a break today and spend some time with my family instead of posting any long messages. I do want to get back to going through the issue comparison on procon.org. I also do want to get on the candidates' websites and see their plans in their own words. I'll try to do that soon, but I do have more than a month. I'll get to it eventually.

Anyway, just a couple of links really quickly...

- So CNN got together five former Secretaries of State for an interview. Here is an article about it: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/former-secretaries-of-state-to-next-president-get-over-it-get-real-be-smart/

The interesting thing for me was this quote from the article:

It’s time to engage Iran, the Secretaries said. Drop the preconditions and the political posturing. “The whole point is you try to … deal with countries that you have problems with.” said Madeleine Albright, who tried to pursue an opening with Iran when she was in office. From across the aisle, James Baker agreed. His advice to the next president: “You ought to engage.”

EXACTLY! The Republicans keep wanting to give preconditions to talk to some other countries. McCain has said he would do this. That's ludicrous. Dialogs need to be open. That's the only way to figure out what the issues are and resolve them. Enough posturing! Talk to these people! That's what Obama wants to do.

- Here's John McCain talking about deregulating Health Care, because that's worked SO WELL for banks: http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_truth_will_out.html

- One final link... here's an article talking about the race factor: http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

I personally find this very sad. It's the year 2008 and there are still people in this country who are going to judge a Presidential candidate based on stereotypes and prejudices. I would hope at this time in our country, in the 21st Century, that people could look past the color of his skin and see the depth of the man and what it is he wants to do. He's intelligent, articulate, confident, more than able to handle the job of President, and has a plan that will put this country back on the right track. If he loses this race because he is black, I think that's a very sad statement about our country. It would be shameful.

That's all for now.