This week the economy has come to the full attention of the entire country. With the fall of Fannie and Freddie, the rest of the credit industry of this country came down as if someone took away a card from the bottom of a pyramid of cards. McCain and Obama have been pointing the finger of blame at each other, but neither have come up with anything concrete. McCain has not really come up with anything of importance. At least he's trying. Obama had to get with his team to discuss what he would do for this crisis. After all of the discussion and planning, his big solution was that he needs more time. Apparently, he is voting present again. Maybe this is above his pay grade too.
From both economic plans that the candidates as they have been presented, we will have deficits no matter who we elect. The real question who will be able to trust to control the amount of spending the best.
Palin has had experience in cutting budgets. McCain has already been against the overuse of earmark pork spending. Obama has made campaign promises that, if kept, will put the deficit of into astronomical amounts. He is chastising the Bush administration for increasing the national deficit, but his plans will raise it even more. He wants to add more spending to the federal budget. His health care plan will cost at least about 50-60 billion. Last week, he also pledged at least another 50 billion to fight worldwide poverty. Many believe that the final amount to both will be substantially higher, possibly in the hundreds of billions. Other than getting out of Iraq, he has not proposed any other spending cuts. He still going to fight in Afghanistan. Even though he chastises the Bush administration for the leap in the amount of the deficit, he has not come up with anything that will cut it. So far, it will seem to only increase under his administration. His tax increases to the wealthy isn't going to be enough to cover his ambitious aspirations.
Apparently, he has found out that if he spends more, we will get a surplus. He seems to believe that if you subtract money from the budget, it will actually add money to our budget. My elementary math teachers were wrong all of this time.
I want to go into the topic of the probable spending of hundreds of billions for worldwide poverty. Donating money to the poor is a very noble thing to do, but shouldn't we use that money to take care of our own poor. Recently there have been tent cities or "Hoovervilles", as they were called in the Great Depression, have been popping up accross the nation. From Reno to Seattle to Athens, Ga. they are growing at alarming rates. Many inhabitants of those "cities", whose homes were foreclosed on, have nowhere to go, and the shelters are full. With the amount of growing homeless population and economic insecurity, shouldn't we focus our limited financial resources on our own poor before we focus so much on other countries?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Cleaning Up the Mud
A lot has been said ever since John McCain picked Palin to be his VP. When the US magazine cover said "Babies, Lies, & Scandal", they were referring to Palin, but they should have been talking about themselves and the rest of the media. In this case, it is certainly true that the same hand that the media had pointing an accusing finger at Palin had four other fingers pointed right back at them. Gibson needs to do a little more research next time. His question to Palin about the "Bush Doctrine" was very misleading. There are at least 4 statements that have been called the "Bush Doctrine" over the past 8 years. Which means there is no real Bush Doctrine.
Let me, also, get things straight about ads coming from both campaigns.
First: McCain. Obama wasn't directly calling Palin a pig, but I believe it was too soon and too much of a coincidence for it not have been at least a slap to her. Obama didn't pass a law that kindergarteners should learn about sex but rather how to avoid sexual predators.
Second: Obama. McCain isn't incapable mentally or unwilling to learn to use a computer or do email, but his war injuries make it physically impossible to type or use a PC efficiently. He needs to stop talking about the GOP's role in covering up for Freddie and Fannie. In just 4 yrs, he managed to make it to 2nd in the Senate all-time money received from those two companies. McCain on the other hand only received $20,000 over 20 yrs. Here's some more advice to Obama. Don't take a page out of Biden's '88 campaign playbook and plagerize in his speeches. He took almost a direct quote out of a cartoon when make fun of McCain's declaration that he will shake up Washington in his RNC speech. The Obama campaign has made some gross misquotes by cutting them out of context. They said that Karl Rove said that McCain has gone too far in his ads and Carly Fioriona said that neither McCain or Palin can run a corporation. They conveniently forgot that Rove also said that Obama went too far, and Carly said that Obama nor Biden could be CEOs either.
Come on let's be real.
Let me, also, get things straight about ads coming from both campaigns.
First: McCain. Obama wasn't directly calling Palin a pig, but I believe it was too soon and too much of a coincidence for it not have been at least a slap to her. Obama didn't pass a law that kindergarteners should learn about sex but rather how to avoid sexual predators.
Second: Obama. McCain isn't incapable mentally or unwilling to learn to use a computer or do email, but his war injuries make it physically impossible to type or use a PC efficiently. He needs to stop talking about the GOP's role in covering up for Freddie and Fannie. In just 4 yrs, he managed to make it to 2nd in the Senate all-time money received from those two companies. McCain on the other hand only received $20,000 over 20 yrs. Here's some more advice to Obama. Don't take a page out of Biden's '88 campaign playbook and plagerize in his speeches. He took almost a direct quote out of a cartoon when make fun of McCain's declaration that he will shake up Washington in his RNC speech. The Obama campaign has made some gross misquotes by cutting them out of context. They said that Karl Rove said that McCain has gone too far in his ads and Carly Fioriona said that neither McCain or Palin can run a corporation. They conveniently forgot that Rove also said that Obama went too far, and Carly said that Obama nor Biden could be CEOs either.
Come on let's be real.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
RNC "Changes" the Game
The RNC this past week revealed their attack on Obama's change platform. This moves the campaign in a whole new direction. I believe that McCain thinks that he has experience locked. The left are attacking Palin's experience, but there one important difference. Obama is the #1, and Palin is the #2. I will get to Palin and the experience issue in a later article. Obama has left the change window open.
Everyone knows that McCain has often bucked his own party. He has often voted with Democrats on environmental issues. He has been apart of most of the bipartisan "gangs" to reach compromises on tough issues. He had gone after Bush for his mismanagement of the war early. He went up against both Republicans, including Bush, and Democrats in going for the surge. He picked Sarah Palin, a reformer governor from Alaska and Washington outsider, as VP. She went after the corruption in Alaska including Republicans.
Obama has opened the door by promoting himself as the personification of bipartisan and post-race America. One of the main reasons for his victory over Clinton was his ability to energize younger voters by being "different". That support has dwindled, since he has lost a lot of that "new" look.
His bipartisan and post-racial claims has taken a hit because of his antics. His use of McCain's "5 million" joke, that he made at Saddleback, as proof of McCain's beliefs reeks of same old politics. His flip-flops on public financing isn't new politics. His love for the small-town America and the middle class in Scranton and disdain for them in San Francisco with the charge of them clinging to Bibles and guns shows that he will say what he has to say, depending on who he is talking with, to get their support. That is not anything new but the oldest of political ploys. His charge that the right will try to scare people cause he "doesn't look like the rest of the people on the dollar bills" or because "he's black" before anyone brought up race shows that he doesn't really transcend race. He embraced the Wright church and the Chicago political machine to help him get ahead. Then, he throws them aside when it hurts him politically is not new. His constant changing of positions on Russia's invasion of Georgia shows that he is only saying what he feels is more politically beneficial to his win. All of this has cost him support, especially among younger voters.
Will McCain be able to steal this advantage? Possibly. He will definitely blunt it at least. Obama has left himself vulnerable on this issue lately. McCain's pick of Palin and previous bipartisan record will help take advantage of Obama's vulnerability on it. His pick of Palin could re-energize some of those younger voters especially women except this time in favor of McCain/Palin.
Everyone knows that McCain has often bucked his own party. He has often voted with Democrats on environmental issues. He has been apart of most of the bipartisan "gangs" to reach compromises on tough issues. He had gone after Bush for his mismanagement of the war early. He went up against both Republicans, including Bush, and Democrats in going for the surge. He picked Sarah Palin, a reformer governor from Alaska and Washington outsider, as VP. She went after the corruption in Alaska including Republicans.
Obama has opened the door by promoting himself as the personification of bipartisan and post-race America. One of the main reasons for his victory over Clinton was his ability to energize younger voters by being "different". That support has dwindled, since he has lost a lot of that "new" look.
His bipartisan and post-racial claims has taken a hit because of his antics. His use of McCain's "5 million" joke, that he made at Saddleback, as proof of McCain's beliefs reeks of same old politics. His flip-flops on public financing isn't new politics. His love for the small-town America and the middle class in Scranton and disdain for them in San Francisco with the charge of them clinging to Bibles and guns shows that he will say what he has to say, depending on who he is talking with, to get their support. That is not anything new but the oldest of political ploys. His charge that the right will try to scare people cause he "doesn't look like the rest of the people on the dollar bills" or because "he's black" before anyone brought up race shows that he doesn't really transcend race. He embraced the Wright church and the Chicago political machine to help him get ahead. Then, he throws them aside when it hurts him politically is not new. His constant changing of positions on Russia's invasion of Georgia shows that he is only saying what he feels is more politically beneficial to his win. All of this has cost him support, especially among younger voters.
Will McCain be able to steal this advantage? Possibly. He will definitely blunt it at least. Obama has left himself vulnerable on this issue lately. McCain's pick of Palin and previous bipartisan record will help take advantage of Obama's vulnerability on it. His pick of Palin could re-energize some of those younger voters especially women except this time in favor of McCain/Palin.
Monday, September 1, 2008
DNC goes Hollywood
First of all, let me congratulate Obama for becoming the party's nominee. It is a historic moment for America. I watched the DNC and read many of the speech transcripts more than once. It was an impressive spectacle and a great show. It just had some major flaws in their arguments. I am going to go over some of the major themes going thru most of their speeches.
The economy was one of the big topics. Now the economy has taken a hit. Even though technically we are not in a recession, we are definitely in a stalemate. They want to blame the republicans for all of it. That is unfair considering two of the main reasons for this stalemate are just as much the Dems fault. The reasons are 9/11 and the energy crisis.
Let's first talk about 9/11. It did happen under Bush's watch. So, he does deserve some blame, but it happened only 9 months after he took office. The plot was not planned for only months. This was a plot that was cooked up over years. Al Queda hit us 3 times during Clinton's presidency: WTC, embassies in Africa, and USS Cole. Terrorism also hit us in Oklahoma City. OKC wasn't Al Queda but it should have helped wake us up to the threat of all kinds of terrorism. Clinton was our leader. He should have helped build our defenses against our enemies. All he did was throw missiles at him after calling them and warning him giving them time to get out. Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights twice. He let him go twice. Sudan offered him up to us gift-wrapped with an apple in his mouth. He refused to extradite him even though he had already been indicted in the first WTC bombing in 93. Could his arrest have stopped 9/11 before it happened? Why do they give him a pass for his role in the attack?
Secondly, the energy crisis is the fault of both parties. The dems have been influenced by environmentalists and republicans have been influenced by the oil industry. What we need is all the above. We need offshore drilling, better conservation, alternative fuels, nuclear, etc. They can't put all of the blame on the GOP.
With Gustav approaching, we are reminded of Katrina. They gave themselves all of the credit for rebuilding New Orleans and none of the blame for the botched handling of the storm. They want to give all of the blame to Bush (which he was man enough to admit) and FEMA. They do deserve it, but let's not forget Dems Gov Blanco and Mayor Nagin. The bulk of the responsibility of dealing with and preparing for disasters has been the job of the local govts not federal.
Iraq was another big issue that was beat to death. Obama was said to have been right about not going into Iraq and a time line of getting out. I happen to believe that if we would have known that there were no WMDs, we wouldn't have gone in. However, most of the democrats thought he did too including Biden. I've got to wonder was his stance against the war because of military reasons or appeasement. It was too soon to go into Iraq, but hindsight is always 20/20. They give him credit for setting a time line of withdrawal. He was for a time line when we were losing. Basically, he wanted to cut and run. He wanted to make the same mistake that Bush 41 made. The only reason a time line is being accepted by the administration isn't because of Obama's influence but the success of the surge that McCain fought for and Obama spoke out against. People need to realize that the two main jobs of a president is foreign relations and commander-in-chief, the two biggest weakness' of Sen Obama.
Hillary made a great speech. However, did anyone else realize that she didn't say once during the speech that Obama was ready or that he would be a good president. She just implied that we should vote for him because he was a dem. It was a "put your name here" speech. The speech could've fit any generic democrat. There wasn't anything good in it specific to Obama.
Bill's speech was much better and beneficial to Obama. Although, he said that they were on the right side of the history. Obama was wrong about the surge, and at the timeline he first brought it up, he was wrong about the time line.
Here are some various misinformation that was thrown out there by some speakers. Biden claimed that McCain was against raising minimum wage. He didn't mention that McCain voted for the last time it was raised. Sen Kerry said that N Korea had nuclear bombs. Bush has kept that from happening. Kerry chastised McCain for flip-flops he had over the years, but he doesn't mention Obama's flops over the past few months. He implied that Bush did little for AIDS research. Bush spent over $15 billion on fighting AIDS worldwide in 07. That is much more than any other administration before him including two "champions" of AIDS research like Clinton and Carter. What is wrong that picture?
Finally, let me get to the superstar himself. Obama had a very good speech. It was a huge celebration. I almost thought he just won the Super Bowl for the Broncos with all of the fireworks. It was almost as much as China did for the opening ceremony for the Olympics. I half expected him to start telling reporters that he was going to Disneyworld. Maybe we will see him on a Wheaties box in a couple weeks shooting a basketball with that sweet jumpshot he has.
It was mostly platitudes no specific ideas on how he was going to accomplish what he said he would do. How is he going to pay for it? He has not given any specific plan. If he says wants to debate McCain anytime, why is he avoiding it?
The economy was one of the big topics. Now the economy has taken a hit. Even though technically we are not in a recession, we are definitely in a stalemate. They want to blame the republicans for all of it. That is unfair considering two of the main reasons for this stalemate are just as much the Dems fault. The reasons are 9/11 and the energy crisis.
Let's first talk about 9/11. It did happen under Bush's watch. So, he does deserve some blame, but it happened only 9 months after he took office. The plot was not planned for only months. This was a plot that was cooked up over years. Al Queda hit us 3 times during Clinton's presidency: WTC, embassies in Africa, and USS Cole. Terrorism also hit us in Oklahoma City. OKC wasn't Al Queda but it should have helped wake us up to the threat of all kinds of terrorism. Clinton was our leader. He should have helped build our defenses against our enemies. All he did was throw missiles at him after calling them and warning him giving them time to get out. Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights twice. He let him go twice. Sudan offered him up to us gift-wrapped with an apple in his mouth. He refused to extradite him even though he had already been indicted in the first WTC bombing in 93. Could his arrest have stopped 9/11 before it happened? Why do they give him a pass for his role in the attack?
Secondly, the energy crisis is the fault of both parties. The dems have been influenced by environmentalists and republicans have been influenced by the oil industry. What we need is all the above. We need offshore drilling, better conservation, alternative fuels, nuclear, etc. They can't put all of the blame on the GOP.
With Gustav approaching, we are reminded of Katrina. They gave themselves all of the credit for rebuilding New Orleans and none of the blame for the botched handling of the storm. They want to give all of the blame to Bush (which he was man enough to admit) and FEMA. They do deserve it, but let's not forget Dems Gov Blanco and Mayor Nagin. The bulk of the responsibility of dealing with and preparing for disasters has been the job of the local govts not federal.
Iraq was another big issue that was beat to death. Obama was said to have been right about not going into Iraq and a time line of getting out. I happen to believe that if we would have known that there were no WMDs, we wouldn't have gone in. However, most of the democrats thought he did too including Biden. I've got to wonder was his stance against the war because of military reasons or appeasement. It was too soon to go into Iraq, but hindsight is always 20/20. They give him credit for setting a time line of withdrawal. He was for a time line when we were losing. Basically, he wanted to cut and run. He wanted to make the same mistake that Bush 41 made. The only reason a time line is being accepted by the administration isn't because of Obama's influence but the success of the surge that McCain fought for and Obama spoke out against. People need to realize that the two main jobs of a president is foreign relations and commander-in-chief, the two biggest weakness' of Sen Obama.
Hillary made a great speech. However, did anyone else realize that she didn't say once during the speech that Obama was ready or that he would be a good president. She just implied that we should vote for him because he was a dem. It was a "put your name here" speech. The speech could've fit any generic democrat. There wasn't anything good in it specific to Obama.
Bill's speech was much better and beneficial to Obama. Although, he said that they were on the right side of the history. Obama was wrong about the surge, and at the timeline he first brought it up, he was wrong about the time line.
Here are some various misinformation that was thrown out there by some speakers. Biden claimed that McCain was against raising minimum wage. He didn't mention that McCain voted for the last time it was raised. Sen Kerry said that N Korea had nuclear bombs. Bush has kept that from happening. Kerry chastised McCain for flip-flops he had over the years, but he doesn't mention Obama's flops over the past few months. He implied that Bush did little for AIDS research. Bush spent over $15 billion on fighting AIDS worldwide in 07. That is much more than any other administration before him including two "champions" of AIDS research like Clinton and Carter. What is wrong that picture?
Finally, let me get to the superstar himself. Obama had a very good speech. It was a huge celebration. I almost thought he just won the Super Bowl for the Broncos with all of the fireworks. It was almost as much as China did for the opening ceremony for the Olympics. I half expected him to start telling reporters that he was going to Disneyworld. Maybe we will see him on a Wheaties box in a couple weeks shooting a basketball with that sweet jumpshot he has.
It was mostly platitudes no specific ideas on how he was going to accomplish what he said he would do. How is he going to pay for it? He has not given any specific plan. If he says wants to debate McCain anytime, why is he avoiding it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
