The biggest danger the Democrats could face would be overreaching to their leftist base. This is still a center-right nation. It won't take much to start turning their constituents away. Bill Clinton found that out when he tried to get Hillacare passed and instituted the "don't ask, don't tell policy" in the military. The Democrats got thumped in the '94 mid-term elections. After only the first two weeks in power, it looks as if they haven't learned that lesson yet.
Obama's first two executive orders were to overturn the "Mexico City policy", which funds abortions internationally with federal tax money, and to close Guantanamo Bay within the year. He is, also, championing the "stimulus" package that is going through Congress. However, all of these are very unpopular with the American people.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans said they disagreed with the president's decision to give overseas funding to family planning organizations that provide abortions, according to a recent Gallup survey. Only, 35% of Americans supported decision.
The closing of Guantanamo was closer but still more Americans were against it than for it by a 50-44% margin.
The most toxic issue today for Obama and his fellow band of merry liberals is the "stimulus" bill by far. The "porkulus" bill, as it as been called by conservatives, is full of goodies for left-leaning organizations like ACORN and programs like an increase in the amount of food stamps given out that will have little to no effect on stimulating the economy.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure. The support for the bill has skydived overall the past two weeks. Opposition was 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today. Even Democrats are starting to sour on the bill. Sixty-four percent of Democrats still support the plan. That is down from 74% a week ago, though. The more people hear about the bill, the more people don't like it. A recent Gallup survey found that 54% of those surveyed wanted the bill to be changed dramatically or killed altogether. Breaking down the 54% mentioned above: 37% wanted major changes made to the legislation, and 17% said that it should be rejected entirely.
The bill needs to be scrapped down all the way and rebuilt from the floor up. In fact, 45% favor a tax-cut only plan while 34% are opposed to the idea. On the other side of the coin, 72% of voters oppose a stimulus plan that includes only new government spending without any tax cuts.
More Americans seem to favor tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy versus government spending. Obama would be wise to listen those who voted him in.
Obama still enjoys an approval rating of 61.8% (RCP average), but it has been steadily declining since his inauguration. Now, there is a natural decline that happens to every president after the "high" of inauguration. However, it'll keep falling if they follow the same policies that kicked the Democrats out of power in the White House under Carter and the Congress under Clinton. The GOP is gaining ground on the Democrats in Congress already. The Rasmussen survey said that 42% of voters said they would vote for their district's Democratic candidate while 38% said they would choose the Republican. A week ago, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point lead, 42-35%.
It's still way too early to predict a mid-term backlash against the Democrats, but it is not off to a good start. If the bill goes through as is, and it the economy doesn't recover, there probably will be. Obama campaigned against the deficit spending of Bush. He criticized W. for ballooning the deficit over his years in office and claimed that McCain would be an extension of the Bush administration. However, he will be seen as a major hypocrite, if he doubles-down on the Bush style deficit spending. If he's not careful, it will be Obama that will be seen as Bush squared.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Audacity of Prayer
Yesterday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected an injunction that would have prevented religious references during the upcoming presidential inauguration in a lawsuit brought about from an atheist group led by Michael Newdow and Dan Barker. This is the third time that Newdow has failed to stop the prayers. Thank God that the third time wasn't the charm. He tried to file injunctions during Bush's past two inaugurations, also.
The atheist group was attempting to take away Obama's freedom of religious expression by filing a lawsuit to prohibit any references to religion in the festivities. They didn't want any prayers in the ceremony, "So help me, God," to be included at the end of his oath, or Obama to take his oath by placing his hand on the Bible. No one is forcing the president-elect to keep the religious aspect to the ceremony. If Obama didn't want them, he could have taken it out, but he wanted to keep it. In fact, he made a personal request to use the same Bible that Lincoln used at his first inauguration.
"The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers," Dan Barker, the Freedom From Religion leader said.
He's obviously forgetting that this country is founded on Judeo/Christian principles. From John Smith to the Pilgrims, the first Americans came to the New World seeking refuge from the English monarchy which forced their people to belong to the Church of England and practice their rituals. They kept them from practicing and proclaiming their own beliefs in public. Now, they want to do the same thing, today, in this country.
The Declaration of Independence specifically says that "Nature's God" entitled us the ability to govern ourselves. In addition, it specifically says that we were also "endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The founders put a reference to a higher power at the beginning of the document twice. This is proof that we are a country founded on religious principles not totally secular ones.
America was founded on the concept of a "universal" God. There wasn't just one denomination or sect that was dominant over the others. According to recent poll, 92% of Americans that believe in God in one form or another or a universal spirit. Why would we totally take God out of our public and political lives? As long as the prayers are more on the generic side and focus on God and not Jesus, there is no reason why it shouldn't be included.
They want the state religion to be agnostic and force everyone to comply with their lack of beliefs in public, so they won't feel "uncomfortable". In order to make a few people "comfortable", the rest of America must feel awkward wanting to express their beliefs but forced not to by the concern for their comfort levels.
"Yet, we are subjected to someone else's religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders," Barker continued. Apparently, they want to make the overwhelming majority in this country that are religious in anyway feel like outsiders instead. That seems very intolerant for those who say they want tolerance for their beliefs or rather the lack thereof.
Michael Newdow is an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church and the founder of the First Amendment Church of True Science (FACTS).
"The First Amendment reminds us that people see things differently, and guarantees that every individual will be afforded an opportunity to express (themselves) and follow (their) own conscience," said Michael Newdow in his first "sermon" given as FACTS founder. If this is how he believes, why is he wanting to take away Obama and everyone else's ability to express themselves religiously or follow their own conscience regarding their beliefs and actions?
"I hope people understand this is not an anti-God issue -- this is a pro-equality issue," Newdow told The Associated Press. "And it's not treating people equal when the government takes one side in a religious debate." That's a bit of a oxymoron when considering that the judge is going to have to take sides in making a decision, and he wants the judge to "choose" their side of argument.
Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Newdow has described how he believes as a "religion", and by definition, how atheists' believe is a religion. So, if they don't want the government to "pick sides" in matters of religion, the government cannot choose their "religion" either. They shouldn't try to prevent people from praying in public. In doing so, they would be favoring the position of the atheist "religion" over all others.
Another example of their hypocrisy: On Tuesday lawyers representing the atheists submitted the 1952 Supreme Court brief filed by the United States in Brown v. Board of Education, the case the declared segregated schools unconstitutional. They used a quote out of the brief from Harry Truman to justify their demands.
"We shall not finally achieve the ideals for which this nation was founded so long as any American suffers discrimination as a result of his race, or religion, or color, or the land of origin of his forefathers," Truman said.
How can they site a court case that gave people freedoms who should have them in the first place in order to take away freedoms from other people that should have them, too? That just seems wrong on so many levels. Also, I might be wrong, but wouldn't forbidding anyone to express themselves religiously through prayer or otherwise be the kind of religious discrimination that Truman was talking about?
"These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about. The establishment of religion that is forbidden by the First Amendment means the official declaration of an official national church. It doesn't mean that public ceremonies can not include prayers or acknowledgment of the existence of God," Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, told FOX News Radio.
"The atheists, while they have every right to practice their atheism, they do not have an absolute right not to be exposed to viewpoints they don't agree with," Sprigg continued.
Another attack on Obama came a month ago. The far left were all in a tizzy over one of his choices of preachers. Rev. Rick Warren was tapped by Obama to give a prayer at the ceremony. Liberals called it a "slap in the face" to them, especially gay rights activists.
Warren has caught a lot of heat from the left for vocally opposing Prop. 8, the amendment to California's state constitution that defines marriage between a man and a woman. The passing of Prop. 8 made gay marriage illegal again, trumping the ruling made by the activist judges in Sacramento. One of the more vocal critics of the pick was everyone's favorite House bloviater, Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.
"Giving that kind of mark of approval and honor to someone who has frankly spoken in ways I and many others have found personally very offensive, I thought that was a mistake for the president-elect to do,” said Frank.
Well, if saying something that offends many or not is the yardstick that determines who gets to speak or not, than Frank shouldn't speak either. He has been quoted as saying that conservatives “believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth”. I know that about half of America might be offended at that.
This kind of hypocrisy is par for the course for many on the left that preach tolerance and diversity while refusing to be tolerant of anyone's decision to be more diverse in who they associate with professionally especially if they have a "R" after their name.
Why is it so hard to believe that Obama might respect Warren enough to bestow him this honor? After all, their views on gay marriage is almost identical. Rev. Warren is against redefining marriage, but he is for civil unions and other gay rights.
Obama said at the presidential candidate forum at the Saddleback Church, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian it is also a sacred union." That is exactly almost the same as Warren's position. The only difference is that Obama didn't want the definition to be added to the constitution.
They have a selective memory, when it comes to the "chosen one". They will forgive him of anything, but if you are a conservative, you are demonized.
The atheist group was attempting to take away Obama's freedom of religious expression by filing a lawsuit to prohibit any references to religion in the festivities. They didn't want any prayers in the ceremony, "So help me, God," to be included at the end of his oath, or Obama to take his oath by placing his hand on the Bible. No one is forcing the president-elect to keep the religious aspect to the ceremony. If Obama didn't want them, he could have taken it out, but he wanted to keep it. In fact, he made a personal request to use the same Bible that Lincoln used at his first inauguration.
"The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers," Dan Barker, the Freedom From Religion leader said.
He's obviously forgetting that this country is founded on Judeo/Christian principles. From John Smith to the Pilgrims, the first Americans came to the New World seeking refuge from the English monarchy which forced their people to belong to the Church of England and practice their rituals. They kept them from practicing and proclaiming their own beliefs in public. Now, they want to do the same thing, today, in this country.
The Declaration of Independence specifically says that "Nature's God" entitled us the ability to govern ourselves. In addition, it specifically says that we were also "endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The founders put a reference to a higher power at the beginning of the document twice. This is proof that we are a country founded on religious principles not totally secular ones.
America was founded on the concept of a "universal" God. There wasn't just one denomination or sect that was dominant over the others. According to recent poll, 92% of Americans that believe in God in one form or another or a universal spirit. Why would we totally take God out of our public and political lives? As long as the prayers are more on the generic side and focus on God and not Jesus, there is no reason why it shouldn't be included.
They want the state religion to be agnostic and force everyone to comply with their lack of beliefs in public, so they won't feel "uncomfortable". In order to make a few people "comfortable", the rest of America must feel awkward wanting to express their beliefs but forced not to by the concern for their comfort levels.
"Yet, we are subjected to someone else's religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders," Barker continued. Apparently, they want to make the overwhelming majority in this country that are religious in anyway feel like outsiders instead. That seems very intolerant for those who say they want tolerance for their beliefs or rather the lack thereof.
Michael Newdow is an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church and the founder of the First Amendment Church of True Science (FACTS).
"The First Amendment reminds us that people see things differently, and guarantees that every individual will be afforded an opportunity to express (themselves) and follow (their) own conscience," said Michael Newdow in his first "sermon" given as FACTS founder. If this is how he believes, why is he wanting to take away Obama and everyone else's ability to express themselves religiously or follow their own conscience regarding their beliefs and actions?
"I hope people understand this is not an anti-God issue -- this is a pro-equality issue," Newdow told The Associated Press. "And it's not treating people equal when the government takes one side in a religious debate." That's a bit of a oxymoron when considering that the judge is going to have to take sides in making a decision, and he wants the judge to "choose" their side of argument.
Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Newdow has described how he believes as a "religion", and by definition, how atheists' believe is a religion. So, if they don't want the government to "pick sides" in matters of religion, the government cannot choose their "religion" either. They shouldn't try to prevent people from praying in public. In doing so, they would be favoring the position of the atheist "religion" over all others.
Another example of their hypocrisy: On Tuesday lawyers representing the atheists submitted the 1952 Supreme Court brief filed by the United States in Brown v. Board of Education, the case the declared segregated schools unconstitutional. They used a quote out of the brief from Harry Truman to justify their demands.
"We shall not finally achieve the ideals for which this nation was founded so long as any American suffers discrimination as a result of his race, or religion, or color, or the land of origin of his forefathers," Truman said.
How can they site a court case that gave people freedoms who should have them in the first place in order to take away freedoms from other people that should have them, too? That just seems wrong on so many levels. Also, I might be wrong, but wouldn't forbidding anyone to express themselves religiously through prayer or otherwise be the kind of religious discrimination that Truman was talking about?
"These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about. The establishment of religion that is forbidden by the First Amendment means the official declaration of an official national church. It doesn't mean that public ceremonies can not include prayers or acknowledgment of the existence of God," Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, told FOX News Radio.
"The atheists, while they have every right to practice their atheism, they do not have an absolute right not to be exposed to viewpoints they don't agree with," Sprigg continued.
Another attack on Obama came a month ago. The far left were all in a tizzy over one of his choices of preachers. Rev. Rick Warren was tapped by Obama to give a prayer at the ceremony. Liberals called it a "slap in the face" to them, especially gay rights activists.
Warren has caught a lot of heat from the left for vocally opposing Prop. 8, the amendment to California's state constitution that defines marriage between a man and a woman. The passing of Prop. 8 made gay marriage illegal again, trumping the ruling made by the activist judges in Sacramento. One of the more vocal critics of the pick was everyone's favorite House bloviater, Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.
"Giving that kind of mark of approval and honor to someone who has frankly spoken in ways I and many others have found personally very offensive, I thought that was a mistake for the president-elect to do,” said Frank.
Well, if saying something that offends many or not is the yardstick that determines who gets to speak or not, than Frank shouldn't speak either. He has been quoted as saying that conservatives “believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth”. I know that about half of America might be offended at that.
This kind of hypocrisy is par for the course for many on the left that preach tolerance and diversity while refusing to be tolerant of anyone's decision to be more diverse in who they associate with professionally especially if they have a "R" after their name.
Why is it so hard to believe that Obama might respect Warren enough to bestow him this honor? After all, their views on gay marriage is almost identical. Rev. Warren is against redefining marriage, but he is for civil unions and other gay rights.
Obama said at the presidential candidate forum at the Saddleback Church, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian it is also a sacred union." That is exactly almost the same as Warren's position. The only difference is that Obama didn't want the definition to be added to the constitution.
They have a selective memory, when it comes to the "chosen one". They will forgive him of anything, but if you are a conservative, you are demonized.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Stretch Obama
President-elect Obama has a very difficult first 100 days ahead of him. He is going to be pulled apart in a tug of war between the center-right electorate and the liberal left. It is going to be like a couple of two-year-olds fighting over a Stretch Armstrong doll. Either one of them is going to win and make the other throw a temper tantrum, or he is going to torn so far apart that he will be unrecognizable in four years.
The radical left wing blowhards have already begun to say that he has a mandate from Americans to swerve us to the hard left. MoveOn implied that they put up millions of dollars to help him get elected, so he better do what they say. Monday, the ACLU demanded that Gitmo be shut down. The next day the New York Times uses a hate crime against a hispanic to go after those who want to enforce our illegal immigration laws. The Times is angling for the president-to-be to give pardons to all illegal immigrants.
Left wing bloggers are also getting in the act. David Sirota of Salon.com and Mark Green of the Huffington Post both wrote articles directed straight at President-elect Obama. They both say that his election is a "mandate" to proceed with their liberal agendas. They claim that the nation has turned into a center-left nation. Is the democratic wave because of a new liberal majority or because he successfully stole conservative ideas from republicans?
Obama ran on a budget and tax cutting platform. The promise to "cut" the taxes of 95% of workers was key to his victory over McCain. He said that he was for the right for an individual to bear arms. These are all issues that republicans have been known for the last 100 years. He didn't win on a platform of "spreading the wealth around", abortions without any restrictions, or legalizing gay marriage. He won as a fiscally responsible spender that would only raise taxes minimally on the rich and would cut everyone else's taxes.
Let me start first with David Sirota of Salon. He said that, "Voters want you (Obama) to go big and go liberal -- and not channel Clinton-style incrementalism." However, that is exactly how he campaigned in the latter days. He gave praise to President Clinton as an example of how he will govern. He basically said that if you loved the 90's, then you will also love his administration.
He went on to say, "What the party gains in strength, it loses in a Republican scapegoat that previously justified inaction. On huge issues -- whether re-regulating Wall Street, reforming trade, solving the healthcare emergency, or ending the Iraq war -- America envisages enormous progress in the months ahead, and Democrats will have no one to blame for failure but themselves."
Well I partially agree with him on this. With a dominant control of Congress and the White House, they can no longer blame Bush and republicans for the country's problems. Let's not forget that the deregulation of Fannie and Freddie's business practices and overregulation of the local bank's ability to deny people loans that could never pay them back was due to the democrats like Barney Franks and Chris Dodd and community organizations like ACORN not the GOP.
As for universal healthcare, it failed the first time that it was brought up by Hillary Clinton in the early 90's. The unpopularity and failure of Hillary Care and Bill's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy led to the Republicans getting control of Congress in 1994. In fact, President Clinton, who is naturally more of a centrist than other democrats, told one of his aides at the time, Dick Morris, that by the end of his second year, he didn't recognize himself anymore.
Mark Green of the Huffington Post continued with the same themes, but he expounded a bit more on social issues. He said, "Polling shows increasing majorities who are pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-expanded healthcare and anti-Iraq war, anti-big business."
No one is anti-environment, but there is also a huge majority that want responsible drilling and nuclear energy which neither are democratic issues.
Abortion is such a controversial issue that even most of those that are "pro-choice" don't agree with it for themselves personally. Even though South Dakota and Colorado denied the heavy restrictions on abortions, many believe it was not because they disagree with the restrictions, but it was because of the people's reservations of being the state that directly challenges Roe V. Wade. They don't want the national spotlight on their respective state.
People have said that they want healthcare reform not government-run healthcare. Earlier this year, Rasmussen did a poll about healthcare, only 29% of people believed in a single-payer system. Forty-six percent of those polled believe that the quality of healthcare would go down, and forty-two percent believe that cost would go up with more government control.
Most are against the Iraq War in hindsight, but most of those that are against it now were for it before the war started. Also, people aren't against big business but against excessive greed and bad management.
I will agree with him that the democrats have had a much better grassroots efforts in getting people to go out and vote for their candidates. However, that doesn't mean that there are more democrats than republicans. They have just been better at getting their voters out over the past two cycles.
Two recent polls dispute their claim that this country is now center-left. The first is a poll by the American Issue Project which polls 300 people each in four of the battleground states: Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. In the poll 58.6% of people said that the republicans either lost their way or were incompetent. Only 23.7% said that they disagree with the GOP's stances on the issues, and just 9.6% said that they were too conservative. In a Rasmussen poll from earlier in the week, 37% thought that a candidate being conservative was good, and only 22% said it was bad. In comparison, 36% said being liberal was bad, and only 19% said it was good. These polls obviously show that this country as a whole still leans more to the conservative side than liberal.
The democrats have been able to steal the advantage on issues of typical republican strength like cutting taxes and keeping government spending under control. How have they been able to do this? The republicans shot themselves in the foot by doubling the federal deficit and championing earmarks. About seventy-two percent agree with the statement: "The Republican Party used to stand for keeping government spending under control, but not anymore." Over 75% say that they agree with this: "When the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, they promised to reform government and clean up corruption in Washington, but they failed to live up to that promise."
This sounds more like a referendum on the loss of core conservative values by republicans more than a mandate on the more progressive policies. By the way that Obama has been talking, he knows it. If Obama has any hope of getting a second term, he must keep his campaign promises to be post-partisan and in the middle like Clinton. If he let's the loony liberals pull him to the left, he will feel Jimmy Carter's pain in 2012.
The radical left wing blowhards have already begun to say that he has a mandate from Americans to swerve us to the hard left. MoveOn implied that they put up millions of dollars to help him get elected, so he better do what they say. Monday, the ACLU demanded that Gitmo be shut down. The next day the New York Times uses a hate crime against a hispanic to go after those who want to enforce our illegal immigration laws. The Times is angling for the president-to-be to give pardons to all illegal immigrants.
Left wing bloggers are also getting in the act. David Sirota of Salon.com and Mark Green of the Huffington Post both wrote articles directed straight at President-elect Obama. They both say that his election is a "mandate" to proceed with their liberal agendas. They claim that the nation has turned into a center-left nation. Is the democratic wave because of a new liberal majority or because he successfully stole conservative ideas from republicans?
Obama ran on a budget and tax cutting platform. The promise to "cut" the taxes of 95% of workers was key to his victory over McCain. He said that he was for the right for an individual to bear arms. These are all issues that republicans have been known for the last 100 years. He didn't win on a platform of "spreading the wealth around", abortions without any restrictions, or legalizing gay marriage. He won as a fiscally responsible spender that would only raise taxes minimally on the rich and would cut everyone else's taxes.
Let me start first with David Sirota of Salon. He said that, "Voters want you (Obama) to go big and go liberal -- and not channel Clinton-style incrementalism." However, that is exactly how he campaigned in the latter days. He gave praise to President Clinton as an example of how he will govern. He basically said that if you loved the 90's, then you will also love his administration.
He went on to say, "What the party gains in strength, it loses in a Republican scapegoat that previously justified inaction. On huge issues -- whether re-regulating Wall Street, reforming trade, solving the healthcare emergency, or ending the Iraq war -- America envisages enormous progress in the months ahead, and Democrats will have no one to blame for failure but themselves."
Well I partially agree with him on this. With a dominant control of Congress and the White House, they can no longer blame Bush and republicans for the country's problems. Let's not forget that the deregulation of Fannie and Freddie's business practices and overregulation of the local bank's ability to deny people loans that could never pay them back was due to the democrats like Barney Franks and Chris Dodd and community organizations like ACORN not the GOP.
As for universal healthcare, it failed the first time that it was brought up by Hillary Clinton in the early 90's. The unpopularity and failure of Hillary Care and Bill's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy led to the Republicans getting control of Congress in 1994. In fact, President Clinton, who is naturally more of a centrist than other democrats, told one of his aides at the time, Dick Morris, that by the end of his second year, he didn't recognize himself anymore.
Mark Green of the Huffington Post continued with the same themes, but he expounded a bit more on social issues. He said, "Polling shows increasing majorities who are pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-expanded healthcare and anti-Iraq war, anti-big business."
No one is anti-environment, but there is also a huge majority that want responsible drilling and nuclear energy which neither are democratic issues.
Abortion is such a controversial issue that even most of those that are "pro-choice" don't agree with it for themselves personally. Even though South Dakota and Colorado denied the heavy restrictions on abortions, many believe it was not because they disagree with the restrictions, but it was because of the people's reservations of being the state that directly challenges Roe V. Wade. They don't want the national spotlight on their respective state.
People have said that they want healthcare reform not government-run healthcare. Earlier this year, Rasmussen did a poll about healthcare, only 29% of people believed in a single-payer system. Forty-six percent of those polled believe that the quality of healthcare would go down, and forty-two percent believe that cost would go up with more government control.
Most are against the Iraq War in hindsight, but most of those that are against it now were for it before the war started. Also, people aren't against big business but against excessive greed and bad management.
I will agree with him that the democrats have had a much better grassroots efforts in getting people to go out and vote for their candidates. However, that doesn't mean that there are more democrats than republicans. They have just been better at getting their voters out over the past two cycles.
Two recent polls dispute their claim that this country is now center-left. The first is a poll by the American Issue Project which polls 300 people each in four of the battleground states: Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. In the poll 58.6% of people said that the republicans either lost their way or were incompetent. Only 23.7% said that they disagree with the GOP's stances on the issues, and just 9.6% said that they were too conservative. In a Rasmussen poll from earlier in the week, 37% thought that a candidate being conservative was good, and only 22% said it was bad. In comparison, 36% said being liberal was bad, and only 19% said it was good. These polls obviously show that this country as a whole still leans more to the conservative side than liberal.
The democrats have been able to steal the advantage on issues of typical republican strength like cutting taxes and keeping government spending under control. How have they been able to do this? The republicans shot themselves in the foot by doubling the federal deficit and championing earmarks. About seventy-two percent agree with the statement: "The Republican Party used to stand for keeping government spending under control, but not anymore." Over 75% say that they agree with this: "When the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, they promised to reform government and clean up corruption in Washington, but they failed to live up to that promise."
This sounds more like a referendum on the loss of core conservative values by republicans more than a mandate on the more progressive policies. By the way that Obama has been talking, he knows it. If Obama has any hope of getting a second term, he must keep his campaign promises to be post-partisan and in the middle like Clinton. If he let's the loony liberals pull him to the left, he will feel Jimmy Carter's pain in 2012.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Reaction to Obama Shows Racism Dying But Not Dead
The election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the US and leader of the free world has brought out the truth that racism is still out there. Around the world and in this country, it has become a greatly reduced problem over the years, but the idiots still remain.
The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, implied that Russia's President Medvedev would have an easy time dealing with Obama because "He's young, handsome, and even tanned." When confronted by those upset by the comment, he called them "imbeciles without any sense of humor". I don't think that anyone is laughing but him.
Austrian TV anchor, Klaus Emmerich, called Americans racist, and "it must be going very badly for them that they so convincingly... Send a black man, and a very good-looking woman into the White House." In a Murtha-like moment, he clarified his statement by saying that "blacks aren't as politically civilized" and that Obama has a "devil-like talent to present his rhetoric so effectively."
A Moscow real estate agent told Fox News that Obama's race could be an issue when dealing with the East. She said that he won't be able to play a leading role in the eastern hemisphere.
The fact that he was elected shows that the racism is not as prevalent in this country as it used to be. We have come a long way in a relatively short time, but there are some examples of such lunacy.
In a suburb of Newark, New Jersey, a homemade Obama sign was stolen and returned the next night attached to a burning cross on the front lawn of one family tuesday night. According to Gary Grewal, the homeowner, his 8-year-old daughter saw it and has been afraid to sleep in her room since that night. Why must we have to explain hate to an eight-year-old?
In Staten Island, New York, Ali Kamara, 17-year-old black teen, was assaulted by four white men with baseball bats chanting "Obama". Ali was on his way home after the election on tuesday night.
In Austin, Texas, the University of Texas lineman Buck Burnette got canned by Coach Mack Brown for writing "hunters gather up, we have a n***** in whitehouse" on his facebook page. (Note to self: What's written on facebook doesn't ever stay on facebook.) Duh!
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be very proud of the progress that this country has made, but he would also say that we still have some work to do. There has been a lot said from various black leaders that a new page has been turned in the civil right movement.
According to Rev. Eugene Rivers of Boston, "Racism is no longer the primary obstacle to black progress. With the election of a black man whose middle name is Hussein, the rhetoric of white racism is off the table...The old school is over." "Old school" is the worldview proclaimed by civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson that asks for people to denounce inequality and blame white racism for all of the problems of black people.
Kevin Patterson, a community activist, says, "The notion that black people need to employ racially polarizing stances is now extinct. There are more effective ways to get things done for our communities than being accusatory."
This election has been talked about in barbershops all across the country. "I think the mentality will change," said Timmigo Burnett, 47, owner of Phase II Barber Shop in Spartanburg, S Carolina. "Seeing a black man make it that far is the ultimate. (Young people) see hope. That's going to help us as mentors." The buzz around other barbershops has been that this is a signal to young black people everywhere that they don't have any excuse when it comes to whether they succeed or not anymore. They also say that young people cannot blame their fathers leaving when they were babies. Obama met his father only once in his life, and he became the President of America. Dan Quailes, owner of a barbershop in Pharr, Texas, said that young people can now "reach for the stars".
I'm not saying there aren't more minorities incarcerated than non-whites. Also, the gap of the average income and education is major, but the gap can be bridged. Rev. Mark Scott based out of Boston said it best. "You can't say it's because of racism. You can't just say, 'Pull your pants up.' You have to ask, 'What work are we going to do to close the gaps?' "
The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, implied that Russia's President Medvedev would have an easy time dealing with Obama because "He's young, handsome, and even tanned." When confronted by those upset by the comment, he called them "imbeciles without any sense of humor". I don't think that anyone is laughing but him.
Austrian TV anchor, Klaus Emmerich, called Americans racist, and "it must be going very badly for them that they so convincingly... Send a black man, and a very good-looking woman into the White House." In a Murtha-like moment, he clarified his statement by saying that "blacks aren't as politically civilized" and that Obama has a "devil-like talent to present his rhetoric so effectively."
A Moscow real estate agent told Fox News that Obama's race could be an issue when dealing with the East. She said that he won't be able to play a leading role in the eastern hemisphere.
The fact that he was elected shows that the racism is not as prevalent in this country as it used to be. We have come a long way in a relatively short time, but there are some examples of such lunacy.
In a suburb of Newark, New Jersey, a homemade Obama sign was stolen and returned the next night attached to a burning cross on the front lawn of one family tuesday night. According to Gary Grewal, the homeowner, his 8-year-old daughter saw it and has been afraid to sleep in her room since that night. Why must we have to explain hate to an eight-year-old?
In Staten Island, New York, Ali Kamara, 17-year-old black teen, was assaulted by four white men with baseball bats chanting "Obama". Ali was on his way home after the election on tuesday night.
In Austin, Texas, the University of Texas lineman Buck Burnette got canned by Coach Mack Brown for writing "hunters gather up, we have a n***** in whitehouse" on his facebook page. (Note to self: What's written on facebook doesn't ever stay on facebook.) Duh!
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be very proud of the progress that this country has made, but he would also say that we still have some work to do. There has been a lot said from various black leaders that a new page has been turned in the civil right movement.
According to Rev. Eugene Rivers of Boston, "Racism is no longer the primary obstacle to black progress. With the election of a black man whose middle name is Hussein, the rhetoric of white racism is off the table...The old school is over." "Old school" is the worldview proclaimed by civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson that asks for people to denounce inequality and blame white racism for all of the problems of black people.
Kevin Patterson, a community activist, says, "The notion that black people need to employ racially polarizing stances is now extinct. There are more effective ways to get things done for our communities than being accusatory."
This election has been talked about in barbershops all across the country. "I think the mentality will change," said Timmigo Burnett, 47, owner of Phase II Barber Shop in Spartanburg, S Carolina. "Seeing a black man make it that far is the ultimate. (Young people) see hope. That's going to help us as mentors." The buzz around other barbershops has been that this is a signal to young black people everywhere that they don't have any excuse when it comes to whether they succeed or not anymore. They also say that young people cannot blame their fathers leaving when they were babies. Obama met his father only once in his life, and he became the President of America. Dan Quailes, owner of a barbershop in Pharr, Texas, said that young people can now "reach for the stars".
I'm not saying there aren't more minorities incarcerated than non-whites. Also, the gap of the average income and education is major, but the gap can be bridged. Rev. Mark Scott based out of Boston said it best. "You can't say it's because of racism. You can't just say, 'Pull your pants up.' You have to ask, 'What work are we going to do to close the gaps?' "
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Congratulations President-Elect Barack Obama
I just want to congratulate Obama. This is truly a historical moment. The election of our first black president is a great moment in our nation's history and our lifetime. It was a hard fought campaign. We may have differences ideologically, but I greatly admire him.
I will be taking a week off from the blog to give the other side some time to enjoy their victory. I will be back to fight for my views and the views of the silent majority.
I will be taking a week off from the blog to give the other side some time to enjoy their victory. I will be back to fight for my views and the views of the silent majority.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
My Love Affair With Barack Obama
From the beginning of the year, I have been looking at who I believe that would be the best for this country.
During the primaries earlier in the year, my top democrat was Barack Obama. I was no different than the rest of America. I fell in love with him. His John F Kennedy good looks, warm smile, and calm demeanor intrigued me. His eloquence, his post-racial and post-partisianship rhetoric made me fall in love. It was as if I was a teenage girl swayed by the star high school quarterback's cheesy lines into "giving it up". Eventually, the power of his words wore off. After a brief and passionate relationship, I woke up one day realizing that he was not the man I thought he was.
What made me see the truth? It wasn't one thing in particular. One by one the qualities that made me fall in love with him started eroding away. His actions were speaking louder that his rhetoric.
His claim of being post-racial came under fire starting with his attack on Pres. Bill Clinton and his 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
How can he be "post-racial" when he throws around the race card like an ace in the hole? It has become a strategy to make the opposition, whether it be Hillary ot McCain, overly cautious and reluctant to say anything negative about Obama in fear of being called racist by the Obama campaign. In the case of McCain, Obama started crying racism before McCain could even bring up the subject. He repeatedly told people that the GOP candidate would try to scare voters by saying that "he has a funny name", "he doesn't look like the other people on the dollar bills", "and by the he's black".
What can I say about Rev. Wright that hasn't already been said? I could understand if Obama was there for only a few months and didn't know the true nature of man at first, but he stayed there 20 yrs. You don't stay in the pew of a church for two decades when you don't share at least most of their beliefs. Most people would never come back to a church after the head preacher said "G D America" or called this country we love the "US of the KKK".
It wasn't as if he was only there on Easter and Christmas. According to what he told Bill O'Reilly, he went to the church about twice a month. That is about 500 times he attended the church, if what he said is accurate. I highly doubt that he never heard such things. The law of probability says that over 500 sundays he would had to have heard that kind of sermon several times. He wants us to assume that he dodged that racial mine field for over 20 years of going to that church, and he never heard anything like Wright's belief that the US government put AIDS into the low income areas to kill off blacks.
Let's say that for the sake of argument, he didn't hear these kind of comments on one of those hundreds of sundays that he was there. They sell tapes of his previous sermons in the lobby just like any other church. He would have had to have never saw anything racially divisive in one of those tapes. We would also have to assume that he doesn't talk to any of the other fellow parishioners about the church and any of Wright's previous sermons. Did anyone ever tell him about what he missed when he wasn't there? That is a lot of assuming. You know what is said that happens when you assume a lot. It makes an ass out of you and me.
Let's also look at his claim of being post-partisan. He votes for 97% of the time with the democratic leaders. He has not had any real experience with reaching across the aisle. He has a 100 rating from NARAL, the pro-abortion organization. He even voted against the born alive bill. This was the bill that would make abortion clinics try and keep babies alive that survived botched abortion attempts. According to the National Journal, Barack Obama was voted the most liberal senator of 2007. He is so far to the left that he is about to fall off the face of the earth. What happened to his ability to build bridges?
He was "the One". The one who would mend the wounds that separated us as a nation. He was the personification of the Martin Luther King's dream. He was the man that history has waited to come. He was the one to show the world that America has moved past our racist past. Obama was the man that transcended politics.
Everything that he claimed to be, post-racial and post-partisan, he wasn't. He broke my heart. I had faith in the "new kind of politician". I was going to be part of history. Instead, I found a man who would say or do anything to get elected. He would lie about his previous friendships and beliefs just to get my vote. Just like a fling with the good looking star quarterback, I would have regretted the morning after.
During the primaries earlier in the year, my top democrat was Barack Obama. I was no different than the rest of America. I fell in love with him. His John F Kennedy good looks, warm smile, and calm demeanor intrigued me. His eloquence, his post-racial and post-partisianship rhetoric made me fall in love. It was as if I was a teenage girl swayed by the star high school quarterback's cheesy lines into "giving it up". Eventually, the power of his words wore off. After a brief and passionate relationship, I woke up one day realizing that he was not the man I thought he was.
What made me see the truth? It wasn't one thing in particular. One by one the qualities that made me fall in love with him started eroding away. His actions were speaking louder that his rhetoric.
His claim of being post-racial came under fire starting with his attack on Pres. Bill Clinton and his 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
How can he be "post-racial" when he throws around the race card like an ace in the hole? It has become a strategy to make the opposition, whether it be Hillary ot McCain, overly cautious and reluctant to say anything negative about Obama in fear of being called racist by the Obama campaign. In the case of McCain, Obama started crying racism before McCain could even bring up the subject. He repeatedly told people that the GOP candidate would try to scare voters by saying that "he has a funny name", "he doesn't look like the other people on the dollar bills", "and by the he's black".
What can I say about Rev. Wright that hasn't already been said? I could understand if Obama was there for only a few months and didn't know the true nature of man at first, but he stayed there 20 yrs. You don't stay in the pew of a church for two decades when you don't share at least most of their beliefs. Most people would never come back to a church after the head preacher said "G D America" or called this country we love the "US of the KKK".
It wasn't as if he was only there on Easter and Christmas. According to what he told Bill O'Reilly, he went to the church about twice a month. That is about 500 times he attended the church, if what he said is accurate. I highly doubt that he never heard such things. The law of probability says that over 500 sundays he would had to have heard that kind of sermon several times. He wants us to assume that he dodged that racial mine field for over 20 years of going to that church, and he never heard anything like Wright's belief that the US government put AIDS into the low income areas to kill off blacks.
Let's say that for the sake of argument, he didn't hear these kind of comments on one of those hundreds of sundays that he was there. They sell tapes of his previous sermons in the lobby just like any other church. He would have had to have never saw anything racially divisive in one of those tapes. We would also have to assume that he doesn't talk to any of the other fellow parishioners about the church and any of Wright's previous sermons. Did anyone ever tell him about what he missed when he wasn't there? That is a lot of assuming. You know what is said that happens when you assume a lot. It makes an ass out of you and me.
Let's also look at his claim of being post-partisan. He votes for 97% of the time with the democratic leaders. He has not had any real experience with reaching across the aisle. He has a 100 rating from NARAL, the pro-abortion organization. He even voted against the born alive bill. This was the bill that would make abortion clinics try and keep babies alive that survived botched abortion attempts. According to the National Journal, Barack Obama was voted the most liberal senator of 2007. He is so far to the left that he is about to fall off the face of the earth. What happened to his ability to build bridges?
He was "the One". The one who would mend the wounds that separated us as a nation. He was the personification of the Martin Luther King's dream. He was the man that history has waited to come. He was the one to show the world that America has moved past our racist past. Obama was the man that transcended politics.
Everything that he claimed to be, post-racial and post-partisan, he wasn't. He broke my heart. I had faith in the "new kind of politician". I was going to be part of history. Instead, I found a man who would say or do anything to get elected. He would lie about his previous friendships and beliefs just to get my vote. Just like a fling with the good looking star quarterback, I would have regretted the morning after.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Democrats Play Middle Class Limbo
Obama and the democrats are preparing for a luau on the White House lawn and Capital Hill. The party supplies are being bought. Sen Barack Obama brought the leis from his home in Hawaii. Michelle Obama is getting the hula skirts. Sen. Joe Biden is bringing those fashionable shirts. Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid are coming together to bring the pua'a pig (with lipstick) complete with an apple in her mouth.
There will be lattes and fine wine served. Celebs like Spike Lee, George Clooney, and Sean Penn will arrive in their limos. Ludacris, U2, and Madonna will be the entertainment for the evening. There will be a sign at the door asking entrants to be "patriotic" and pay the one million dollar cover charge. All proceeds will go to Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and the 40% of Americans that don't pay income taxes. It will be the party of the millennium.
The highlight of the night will be a rousing game of middle class limbo. First, the man of the hour, Obama will start. He clears it at the $250,000 mark. To just show how good he is, he goes again and clears it at $200,000. Biden is next. He clears it at $150,000. Surprisingly, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico clears it at $120,000. How low will they go? Will they get to their goal of $42,000? America is on pins and needles and holding onto their wallets while waiting for the results of the contest.
-------------------------------------------------
Over the past couple of weeks, Obama, his running mate, and one of his surrogates, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, have changed the definition of rich from its initial definition that was given at the Saddleback Forum all the way back in August. Are these just innocent slips of the tongue? Maybe. Are they freudian slips? Likely. Is it a carefully orchestrated decline in the definition to foreshadow what is really to come, if Obama is elected to the White House? Very possible.
Let's look at the spending promises of Obama. He wants to overhaul the health care system and provide government health care for those without insurance, noble but very expensive. The plan could conceivably cost billions. If you add the money that will be spent for the bailout and the tax "cuts" and a possible second stimulus package that is currently being to be talked about in Congress, there is no way he is going to be able to decrease the deficit much less balance the budget. Unless the Democrats plan on using the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines to hunt for the lost pirate treasure of Blackbeard off the coast of North Carolina, I have no idea where they're going to come up with the money for all the new spending that he proposes. There is a huge possibility that these "slips" are in fact closer to what the truth is in respect to the Obama tax plan.
Obama says that he won't lower the starting income for the tax raises. He claims that he will "cut government programs that don't work", but when he is asked to name an example of a program he will cut, he can't name one except military research. However, he can't take too much away from the Pentagon without getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two options should be off the table. It seems that his budget will be the same kind of out of control spending that has become commonplace in government especially over the past few years.
The only way it won't be the same is if he breaks his promise and raises taxes on more than just the stated $250,000 for individuals and $200,000 for families. He doesn't exactly have a good track record for honesty. Now, all politicians lie or embelish the truth a little, but all of his flip flops would make the Tazmanian Devil dizzy. His associations with left wing activists and organizations change according to what the media can prove. He backed out of his promise to take campaign financing as soon as he realized he could get more without it. Now, it seems he may be laying the ground work to pull a Clinton.
Pres. Bill Clinton also promised to give tax cuts to the middle class before he got elected in 1992. After Clinton got elected, he told the American people that he looked at the budget with his financial advisors, and he realized that could not just cut the taxes but had to raise them.
Let's, also, look at his senate voting record. Obama has voted to raise taxes on the middle class earlier this year. According to Factcheck.org, Obama voted to let the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire. This made the taxes go up for people making just $41,500 for individuals and $83,000 for families. This was not the first time he voted to raise taxes on the middle class.
In June, Obama said that he would raise taxes for the top 5% of wage earners. According to Gerald Prante of taxfoundation.org, the actual bottom of the top 5% is slightly above $150,000 not $250,000. Which definition is Obama going to end up with after November 5th, if he is elected? Will it be $250,000, top 5%, or $42,000?
What will he do once he gets into office? Will he keep his promises that he made to the American people or follow Clinton's lead and raise taxes right when he gets in office? If he follows how he has voted in the past, he will no doubt raise them. If he cares about getting reelected in 2012, he will keep his promise.
There will be lattes and fine wine served. Celebs like Spike Lee, George Clooney, and Sean Penn will arrive in their limos. Ludacris, U2, and Madonna will be the entertainment for the evening. There will be a sign at the door asking entrants to be "patriotic" and pay the one million dollar cover charge. All proceeds will go to Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and the 40% of Americans that don't pay income taxes. It will be the party of the millennium.
The highlight of the night will be a rousing game of middle class limbo. First, the man of the hour, Obama will start. He clears it at the $250,000 mark. To just show how good he is, he goes again and clears it at $200,000. Biden is next. He clears it at $150,000. Surprisingly, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico clears it at $120,000. How low will they go? Will they get to their goal of $42,000? America is on pins and needles and holding onto their wallets while waiting for the results of the contest.
-------------------------------------------------
Over the past couple of weeks, Obama, his running mate, and one of his surrogates, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, have changed the definition of rich from its initial definition that was given at the Saddleback Forum all the way back in August. Are these just innocent slips of the tongue? Maybe. Are they freudian slips? Likely. Is it a carefully orchestrated decline in the definition to foreshadow what is really to come, if Obama is elected to the White House? Very possible.
Let's look at the spending promises of Obama. He wants to overhaul the health care system and provide government health care for those without insurance, noble but very expensive. The plan could conceivably cost billions. If you add the money that will be spent for the bailout and the tax "cuts" and a possible second stimulus package that is currently being to be talked about in Congress, there is no way he is going to be able to decrease the deficit much less balance the budget. Unless the Democrats plan on using the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines to hunt for the lost pirate treasure of Blackbeard off the coast of North Carolina, I have no idea where they're going to come up with the money for all the new spending that he proposes. There is a huge possibility that these "slips" are in fact closer to what the truth is in respect to the Obama tax plan.
Obama says that he won't lower the starting income for the tax raises. He claims that he will "cut government programs that don't work", but when he is asked to name an example of a program he will cut, he can't name one except military research. However, he can't take too much away from the Pentagon without getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two options should be off the table. It seems that his budget will be the same kind of out of control spending that has become commonplace in government especially over the past few years.
The only way it won't be the same is if he breaks his promise and raises taxes on more than just the stated $250,000 for individuals and $200,000 for families. He doesn't exactly have a good track record for honesty. Now, all politicians lie or embelish the truth a little, but all of his flip flops would make the Tazmanian Devil dizzy. His associations with left wing activists and organizations change according to what the media can prove. He backed out of his promise to take campaign financing as soon as he realized he could get more without it. Now, it seems he may be laying the ground work to pull a Clinton.
Pres. Bill Clinton also promised to give tax cuts to the middle class before he got elected in 1992. After Clinton got elected, he told the American people that he looked at the budget with his financial advisors, and he realized that could not just cut the taxes but had to raise them.
Let's, also, look at his senate voting record. Obama has voted to raise taxes on the middle class earlier this year. According to Factcheck.org, Obama voted to let the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire. This made the taxes go up for people making just $41,500 for individuals and $83,000 for families. This was not the first time he voted to raise taxes on the middle class.
In June, Obama said that he would raise taxes for the top 5% of wage earners. According to Gerald Prante of taxfoundation.org, the actual bottom of the top 5% is slightly above $150,000 not $250,000. Which definition is Obama going to end up with after November 5th, if he is elected? Will it be $250,000, top 5%, or $42,000?
What will he do once he gets into office? Will he keep his promises that he made to the American people or follow Clinton's lead and raise taxes right when he gets in office? If he follows how he has voted in the past, he will no doubt raise them. If he cares about getting reelected in 2012, he will keep his promise.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama's Six Month Exam
"Mark my words: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. He's going to have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I promise you that it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going to happen." Joe Biden-10/19/08-Seattle
This comparison of Obama to Kennedy is not new. Obama himself brought it up while speaking back on May 18 while in Portland. He said that he was going to follow John F. Kennedy's example of meeting with dictators without preconditions. He sites JFK's meeting with Soviet leader Khrushchev in June 1961, almost six months to the day that he took office, as proof of the wisdom of conducting such meetings. Obama called the Vienna Summit one of the great triumphs the led to our victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately, everyone that was alive in 1961 and actually in Vienna on June 3 and 4 of that year remember the meeting very differently.
In the debates before the election, Kennedy said he wouldn't met with Russian leaders without preconditions, but JFK meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on June 3 without any precondtions anyway. During the meeting, Khrushchev took a "dazed" JFK to school. According to many around the president, Khrushchev, and JFK himself, he was belittled, berated, and bullied for two straight days. Many diplomats, including the US ambassador to Russia, was suprised by how little resistance JFK gave to Khrushchev's tirade on the superiority of Communist ideology, nuclear weapons, the "balance of power" between East and West, etc. The only thing that made Kennedy act like a man in the meeting was Berlin. He all but said there would be nuclear war, if the USSR acted against West Berlin.
After the meeting, those close to Khrushchev said that the Soviet leader thought Kennedy was "very young, very intelligent, but not very strong". Despite all of his charisma and eloquence, it meant nothing when faced with an actual dictator. Khrushchev came away from the meeting thinking that the leader of this country was a pushover and full of himself. An aide to the Soviet dictator called the president "very inexperienced, even immature". Even Kennedy agreed with the Soviet assessment. Right after the meeting, he was seen in the bedroom of the embassy pacing back and forth and saying that "He treated me like a little boy, like a little boy." JFK told James Reston of the New York Times, "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem, if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."
After the failures of the Bay of Pigs (This was where JFK backed out of sending air support into Cuba for Cuban rebels which were supposed to overthrow Castro. In turn, the rebels got slaughtered for their trouble.) and the Vienna Summit, the aggressiveness of the USSR escalated. About a month and a half later, the Berlin Wall went up. They, also, soon started sending nuclear missles into Cuba which started the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the crisis, President Kennedy finally succeeded in standing up to Khrushchev, but the crisis might have been avoided altogether, if he would've stuck to his original statement. He shouldn't have met with any Soviet leaders without preconditions.
Let's also look at the last few other young presidents we've had and how they were tested. Clinton had the first World Trade Center bombing just months after he took office. Bush, also, was tested by China when they took American hostages from a downed spy plane just three months after inauguration. It's very likely that Obama is going to be tested like the rest, if he is elected. Is he ready to handle those that want to do us harm and hate us? "Please" and flowery woods aren't going to melt their hearts of stone. Strength is the only thing that men like Khrushchev and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela understand.
We already have a brewing Cuban-like crisis possibly brewing with Russia/ Vladamir Putin and Venezuela/Hugo Chavez. They have a new "friendship" brewing. They are running military exercisies together.
They are in the process of talks of sharing nuclear technology for "energy" purposes. Russia has even started sending warships and selling military vehicles and weapons to Venezuela like helicopters, combat planes, and rifles. Even Iran said they are receptive to opening trade and talks between the two countries especially about their nuclear program.
Is the disasterous Vienna Summit what Obama wants to pattern his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Vladimir Putin of Russia after? Does the way that Russia looked at JFK as young, intelligent, but weak or inexperienced, immature, and arrogant sound familiar? Is the way that JFK was viewed be the same way that Obama will be viewed by our enemies?
This comparison of Obama to Kennedy is not new. Obama himself brought it up while speaking back on May 18 while in Portland. He said that he was going to follow John F. Kennedy's example of meeting with dictators without preconditions. He sites JFK's meeting with Soviet leader Khrushchev in June 1961, almost six months to the day that he took office, as proof of the wisdom of conducting such meetings. Obama called the Vienna Summit one of the great triumphs the led to our victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately, everyone that was alive in 1961 and actually in Vienna on June 3 and 4 of that year remember the meeting very differently.
In the debates before the election, Kennedy said he wouldn't met with Russian leaders without preconditions, but JFK meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on June 3 without any precondtions anyway. During the meeting, Khrushchev took a "dazed" JFK to school. According to many around the president, Khrushchev, and JFK himself, he was belittled, berated, and bullied for two straight days. Many diplomats, including the US ambassador to Russia, was suprised by how little resistance JFK gave to Khrushchev's tirade on the superiority of Communist ideology, nuclear weapons, the "balance of power" between East and West, etc. The only thing that made Kennedy act like a man in the meeting was Berlin. He all but said there would be nuclear war, if the USSR acted against West Berlin.
After the meeting, those close to Khrushchev said that the Soviet leader thought Kennedy was "very young, very intelligent, but not very strong". Despite all of his charisma and eloquence, it meant nothing when faced with an actual dictator. Khrushchev came away from the meeting thinking that the leader of this country was a pushover and full of himself. An aide to the Soviet dictator called the president "very inexperienced, even immature". Even Kennedy agreed with the Soviet assessment. Right after the meeting, he was seen in the bedroom of the embassy pacing back and forth and saying that "He treated me like a little boy, like a little boy." JFK told James Reston of the New York Times, "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem, if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."
After the failures of the Bay of Pigs (This was where JFK backed out of sending air support into Cuba for Cuban rebels which were supposed to overthrow Castro. In turn, the rebels got slaughtered for their trouble.) and the Vienna Summit, the aggressiveness of the USSR escalated. About a month and a half later, the Berlin Wall went up. They, also, soon started sending nuclear missles into Cuba which started the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the crisis, President Kennedy finally succeeded in standing up to Khrushchev, but the crisis might have been avoided altogether, if he would've stuck to his original statement. He shouldn't have met with any Soviet leaders without preconditions.
Let's also look at the last few other young presidents we've had and how they were tested. Clinton had the first World Trade Center bombing just months after he took office. Bush, also, was tested by China when they took American hostages from a downed spy plane just three months after inauguration. It's very likely that Obama is going to be tested like the rest, if he is elected. Is he ready to handle those that want to do us harm and hate us? "Please" and flowery woods aren't going to melt their hearts of stone. Strength is the only thing that men like Khrushchev and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela understand.
We already have a brewing Cuban-like crisis possibly brewing with Russia/ Vladamir Putin and Venezuela/Hugo Chavez. They have a new "friendship" brewing. They are running military exercisies together.
They are in the process of talks of sharing nuclear technology for "energy" purposes. Russia has even started sending warships and selling military vehicles and weapons to Venezuela like helicopters, combat planes, and rifles. Even Iran said they are receptive to opening trade and talks between the two countries especially about their nuclear program.
Is the disasterous Vienna Summit what Obama wants to pattern his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Vladimir Putin of Russia after? Does the way that Russia looked at JFK as young, intelligent, but weak or inexperienced, immature, and arrogant sound familiar? Is the way that JFK was viewed be the same way that Obama will be viewed by our enemies?
Friday, October 17, 2008
"The Great Depression II" Brought to You by the Letter O
From the same people that brought you this past fall's blockbuster "Financial Crisis", brought to you by the letter D, comes "The Great Depression II", the exciting sequel to the 1929 hit - a thriller that topped the charts for 15 years. Everyone loved "Financial Crisis". The ensemble cast included superstars both young and old: Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, ACORN, and last but not least, a cameo by Barack Obama.
They are joined by George Bush and John McCain as the villains of the movie. Bush and McCain try to foil the success of Fannie and Freddie by putting unneeded regulations on them. Thankfully, our heroes were able to stop those evil doers from putting more regulations on the companies. Since 2001, McCain and Bush started talking about the possible failure of Fannie and Freddie. In 2003, Bush tried to create an agency to regulate government sponsored housing enterprises like Fannie and Freddie. Year after year, our heroes are able to stop those evil regulators.
Bill Clinton, who plays a minor role in "Financial Crisis", claims in a recent interview that the democrats were the ones who fought against the regulation of Fannie and Freddie all of these years.
The heroes were vigilant in their attacks on Bush and McCain. They accused them of being racist and supporting the rich by keeping the poor, who cannot afford the loans, from coming up in the world. They distracted people by focusing on Bush's high spending and "war-mongering ways". They called him financially inept, so how could he have known that Fannie and Freddie were going down?
Everyone remembers how the "The Great Depression" story went. Herbert Hoover and FDR starred in the 1929 blockbuster. Prior to the beginning of the story, Hoover canceled drilling for oil on government lands which took away jobs from people that could have used a job during the upcoming depression. The story started with the stock market crash of October 1929, shortly after Hoover took office. Hoover began by trying to let the crisis solve itself. Much to his dismay, the economy didn't rebound on its own. There was a run on banks. As a result, the banks had no money and collapsed. He finally tried helping the banks out in 1932, but it was three years too late. Then, contrary to normal economic logic, he raised taxes (tariffs, income tax of higher incomes, corporate taxes up 15%, estate tax doubled, and a check tax) during a depression which made us go into an even deeper depression. The tariff hikes made other countries raise tariffs in retaliation. We were buying our own products, but no other country was - at least until WW2. If it wasn't for World War II, and Europe buying military and other necessary supplies for the war effort, the high taxes and big government policies would have kept us in the depression for a long time.
The sequel stars a new, up and coming star named Barack Obama. He plays the role of a Hoover-like character by stopping domestic oil production and raising taxes in a recession, turning it into another depression. The high corporate taxes cause many companies to move out of the US or simply fire employees that they cannot afford to employ anymore, causing unemployment to rise. Many CEO's say that it is just too expensive to do business in the US. People cannot invest in the stock market because they've lost their jobs from the outsourcing and layoffs that the high corporate taxes cause. The US economy will cease to grow as a result of a government growing so big that it chokes national growth. Will it take World War 3 to get us out? You will have to wait until after November 4 to find out the fate of the United States.
They are joined by George Bush and John McCain as the villains of the movie. Bush and McCain try to foil the success of Fannie and Freddie by putting unneeded regulations on them. Thankfully, our heroes were able to stop those evil doers from putting more regulations on the companies. Since 2001, McCain and Bush started talking about the possible failure of Fannie and Freddie. In 2003, Bush tried to create an agency to regulate government sponsored housing enterprises like Fannie and Freddie. Year after year, our heroes are able to stop those evil regulators.
Bill Clinton, who plays a minor role in "Financial Crisis", claims in a recent interview that the democrats were the ones who fought against the regulation of Fannie and Freddie all of these years.
The heroes were vigilant in their attacks on Bush and McCain. They accused them of being racist and supporting the rich by keeping the poor, who cannot afford the loans, from coming up in the world. They distracted people by focusing on Bush's high spending and "war-mongering ways". They called him financially inept, so how could he have known that Fannie and Freddie were going down?
Everyone remembers how the "The Great Depression" story went. Herbert Hoover and FDR starred in the 1929 blockbuster. Prior to the beginning of the story, Hoover canceled drilling for oil on government lands which took away jobs from people that could have used a job during the upcoming depression. The story started with the stock market crash of October 1929, shortly after Hoover took office. Hoover began by trying to let the crisis solve itself. Much to his dismay, the economy didn't rebound on its own. There was a run on banks. As a result, the banks had no money and collapsed. He finally tried helping the banks out in 1932, but it was three years too late. Then, contrary to normal economic logic, he raised taxes (tariffs, income tax of higher incomes, corporate taxes up 15%, estate tax doubled, and a check tax) during a depression which made us go into an even deeper depression. The tariff hikes made other countries raise tariffs in retaliation. We were buying our own products, but no other country was - at least until WW2. If it wasn't for World War II, and Europe buying military and other necessary supplies for the war effort, the high taxes and big government policies would have kept us in the depression for a long time.
The sequel stars a new, up and coming star named Barack Obama. He plays the role of a Hoover-like character by stopping domestic oil production and raising taxes in a recession, turning it into another depression. The high corporate taxes cause many companies to move out of the US or simply fire employees that they cannot afford to employ anymore, causing unemployment to rise. Many CEO's say that it is just too expensive to do business in the US. People cannot invest in the stock market because they've lost their jobs from the outsourcing and layoffs that the high corporate taxes cause. The US economy will cease to grow as a result of a government growing so big that it chokes national growth. Will it take World War 3 to get us out? You will have to wait until after November 4 to find out the fate of the United States.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Obama's Nuttiest Radical Association Yet
A lot of attention as been on Obama's long list of questionable at best radical associations. Enough has been said of how can he fight terrorists, if he is "friendly" with Bill Ayres, an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Questions have also arisen about how he can be "post-racial", if his "spiritual advisors" are Rev. Wright or Father Fleiger, two outspoken racists. One could also wonder how can he champion "bipartisanship" when he votes with the democratic leadership about 97% of the time. The only time he can cite that he worked with the republicans was with the nuclear proliferation bill, which helped keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. That is not exactly a huge leap to get the GOP to go along with that. It is like getting both sides to agree that murderers should be in jail. Instead, I'm going to focus on the little talked about his partnership with ACORN.
If John McCain wants to win in a few weeks, he needs to focus less on Ayres, Wright, and Fleiger and more on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Most know about the other three. Most don't know about ACORN. The housing bubble bursting should bring ACORN more into the forefront. Until recently, the thing that this organization was known for was numerous voter fraud scandals like the one in Las Vegas just a few days ago where some of the Dallas Cowboys somehow got registered to vote in Nevada or in the states of Washington, Missouri, Ohio, etc. Now their tactics in getting sub-prime lending for people in Chicago and many other cities need to be payed more attention. Obama uses his "community organizing" as an example of the "experiences" that prepared him for the presidency. Not much is known about his time as a community organizer. We do know that he spent time with ACORN as a trainer. Some of those people that he trained went out to strong-arm and intimidate local banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford it, the starting point of the trouble that we're having in the economy. He kept his hands clean and didn't do any of this himself, so he could run for office. It hasn't been proven that he taught them to strong-arm and intimidate, but he was the one that supposedly taught them how to do their job. In Chicago, there were reports of ACORN activists going to bank managers' homes to "persuade" them to do sub-prime loans. He also raised alot of money for them and represented them in court.
The democrats have their fingerprints all over this crisis. Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. This was designed to make credit more available to lower income families. In 1995, Clinton took the CRA to a new level. Altogether, they overregulated where there was little need of any regulations by adding a quota of a certain number of loans to the poor, and they underregulated where there was a great need by lowering the oversight of the banking practices. Even Clinton recognized his own mistakes in this in a recent interview. Why can't the rest of the left? Obama blames the GOP for the deregulation when it was Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd, and company fighting regulation of Fannie and Freddie all the way. McCain and other republicans warned of impending disaster, but they didn't protest loud enough. Activists from ACORN even began to have a say about who received loans and control massive sums of bank capital. The CRA became instrumental in the bank's lending practices and the fall of our economy by being exploited by community organizations like ACORN. If this is how Obama organized his community, should we give him a nation to "organize"? The democrats are still beholden to ACORN. In the bailout bill, the democrats still tried to give more money to ACORN. Why are they wanting to reward the people who helped bring down the economy? The GOP was so outraged by this that in the end, it wasn't kept in the bill.
Let's not forget that the democrats also put pressure on Fannie and Freddie to take on the toxic loans that the banks, that ACORN and others intimidated, could no longer handle. There is a reason why Fannie and Freddie has given the democrats much more campaign contributions than republicans. The democrats have been covering up for Fannie and Freddie's shortcomings for years. Obama reached number 2 all-time (that's counting over 20 years of contributions) even though he has been in the senate for only 3 years. Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd, who is number one, and Sen. John Kerry, who is number three, have been in office over two decades longer than Obama.
If McCain focuses on these issues, he could still be moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave by January.
If John McCain wants to win in a few weeks, he needs to focus less on Ayres, Wright, and Fleiger and more on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Most know about the other three. Most don't know about ACORN. The housing bubble bursting should bring ACORN more into the forefront. Until recently, the thing that this organization was known for was numerous voter fraud scandals like the one in Las Vegas just a few days ago where some of the Dallas Cowboys somehow got registered to vote in Nevada or in the states of Washington, Missouri, Ohio, etc. Now their tactics in getting sub-prime lending for people in Chicago and many other cities need to be payed more attention. Obama uses his "community organizing" as an example of the "experiences" that prepared him for the presidency. Not much is known about his time as a community organizer. We do know that he spent time with ACORN as a trainer. Some of those people that he trained went out to strong-arm and intimidate local banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford it, the starting point of the trouble that we're having in the economy. He kept his hands clean and didn't do any of this himself, so he could run for office. It hasn't been proven that he taught them to strong-arm and intimidate, but he was the one that supposedly taught them how to do their job. In Chicago, there were reports of ACORN activists going to bank managers' homes to "persuade" them to do sub-prime loans. He also raised alot of money for them and represented them in court.
The democrats have their fingerprints all over this crisis. Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. This was designed to make credit more available to lower income families. In 1995, Clinton took the CRA to a new level. Altogether, they overregulated where there was little need of any regulations by adding a quota of a certain number of loans to the poor, and they underregulated where there was a great need by lowering the oversight of the banking practices. Even Clinton recognized his own mistakes in this in a recent interview. Why can't the rest of the left? Obama blames the GOP for the deregulation when it was Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd, and company fighting regulation of Fannie and Freddie all the way. McCain and other republicans warned of impending disaster, but they didn't protest loud enough. Activists from ACORN even began to have a say about who received loans and control massive sums of bank capital. The CRA became instrumental in the bank's lending practices and the fall of our economy by being exploited by community organizations like ACORN. If this is how Obama organized his community, should we give him a nation to "organize"? The democrats are still beholden to ACORN. In the bailout bill, the democrats still tried to give more money to ACORN. Why are they wanting to reward the people who helped bring down the economy? The GOP was so outraged by this that in the end, it wasn't kept in the bill.
Let's not forget that the democrats also put pressure on Fannie and Freddie to take on the toxic loans that the banks, that ACORN and others intimidated, could no longer handle. There is a reason why Fannie and Freddie has given the democrats much more campaign contributions than republicans. The democrats have been covering up for Fannie and Freddie's shortcomings for years. Obama reached number 2 all-time (that's counting over 20 years of contributions) even though he has been in the senate for only 3 years. Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd, who is number one, and Sen. John Kerry, who is number three, have been in office over two decades longer than Obama.
If McCain focuses on these issues, he could still be moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave by January.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Obama Invents New Math
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?
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?
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.
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)
