Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The speech that killed the bill!
Bipartisanship helped to kill the bailout bill on Monday. Listen here to Rep. Pelosi's speech that was meant to gather support just before the House voted. This linked contains a little exerpt. Is it any wonder people weren't jumping across the isle. Instead of rallying everyone in a crisis, she just blames Bush.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Economy
Well who isn't a little worried about the current economy? Today things seem even more shaky then usual. News agencies are quick to point towards doomsday as the Dow drops 775 points today. This leaves a lingering question, How much is 775 points in realtion to the market as a whole? What do these numbers look like on a long term scale? Perhaps I can helpt with that.
Let's start with a chart for the Dow for the last year. Using the previous link you can see that for the year the market is definately headed in a downward direction. If you look at this year alone, the market drop in the market by 28%. Now 28% is a alot. How do these numbers relate to Dow in the Last five years?
Here is the chart for the last five years. As you can see we are still up by nearly 1000 points from where we were in 2003. How does that relate in the market since the Great Depression?
Here is the chart for the last 80 years. At the bottom of the Great Depression the Dow was 42, now it is 10,403. It appears to me that the consumer inconfidence prodded by the media is about the only think that can make our current situation lead us into a new Depression. All previous quaters this year have show positive growth rate in the economy, yet the media continued to cry Depression or Recession. Irresponsible Congress people stood in front of the media and labelled institutions as failing. Amazingly they fell. The way to save an entity with a falling value is to support it and label it as hopeless. These instances were self fulfilling prophecies. We run the risk of the media creating another self fulfilling prophecy, a true long term Recession or Depression because of lost consumer confidence.
In a final attempt to put it in perspective according to the previous chart, between 1929 and 1932 the Dow fell 3058 points or about 98.6%. If you refer to the chart from before for the last five years, since 2003 the Dow is still up 1000 points or so, or a gain in the five years of nearly 11%.
Let's start with a chart for the Dow for the last year. Using the previous link you can see that for the year the market is definately headed in a downward direction. If you look at this year alone, the market drop in the market by 28%. Now 28% is a alot. How do these numbers relate to Dow in the Last five years?
Here is the chart for the last five years. As you can see we are still up by nearly 1000 points from where we were in 2003. How does that relate in the market since the Great Depression?
Here is the chart for the last 80 years. At the bottom of the Great Depression the Dow was 42, now it is 10,403. It appears to me that the consumer inconfidence prodded by the media is about the only think that can make our current situation lead us into a new Depression. All previous quaters this year have show positive growth rate in the economy, yet the media continued to cry Depression or Recession. Irresponsible Congress people stood in front of the media and labelled institutions as failing. Amazingly they fell. The way to save an entity with a falling value is to support it and label it as hopeless. These instances were self fulfilling prophecies. We run the risk of the media creating another self fulfilling prophecy, a true long term Recession or Depression because of lost consumer confidence.
In a final attempt to put it in perspective according to the previous chart, between 1929 and 1932 the Dow fell 3058 points or about 98.6%. If you refer to the chart from before for the last five years, since 2003 the Dow is still up 1000 points or so, or a gain in the five years of nearly 11%.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Presidential Debate
I was impressed by the debate last evening. I believe that it may have been the most civil debate I have seen so far. I will try and provide some of the highlights. For the entire transcript you can go here.
Economy
Barack Obama: He stated that he would help the economy by bringing home US troops in Iraq, but then stated in foriegn policy debate that he would send more troops to Afganistan. He also stated that he wanted a tax increase to everyone who makes over $250, 000. This he says he will need for the additional $800 billion he plans to add to the national budget. He plans to help make the life of US citizens better by nationalizing health care. When asked what he would need to cut in order to maintain his budget he stated that may have to cut some portions of the renewable energy plan. He stated that he has stopped asking for earmarks, though John McCain pointed out that was only after he started running for President. Obama concluded that with the economy the way it is, he may not be able to do all the things he wants to.
John McCain: He stated that he needed to cut economic spending and veto all earmarks. He through out a statistic that Barack Obama has spent for then $1 million dollars a day in earmarks as a Senator totaling more the $930 million dollars in his first year. McCain also advocated cutting the business tax stating that the US has one of the hieghest business taxes in the world at 35%. He also stated that he would raise the child tax credit from $3000 to $7000. McCain positted that by giving US companies more money and decreasing taxes for everyone, he could help ensure that US jobs don't leave the country. He stated the with the slowing economy spending would need to be cut everywhere. He specifically pointed to military cost plus spending where developers often charge much more then anticipated. He also stated that he wanted to give a $5000 tax credit for all individuals with health insurance. He also stated that he would cut the amount of money we are sending to countries who don't like us, which right now is nearly $700 billion a year, this statistic was not argued by Obama.
Winner on Economy: Tie. Neither candidate had a wow moment. The extreme differences were pointed out between a liberal and a conservative.
Foriegn Policy:
McCain: On Iraq John McCain stated that his surge had worked, which was not disputed by Obama. He stated that the new strategy of clear and hold had worked and would shortly free up troops to do the same in Afganistan. He refused to talk about the decision to go into Iraq focussing on where to go from here. On Iran McCain posited that tougher sanctions a from a league of democracies was imperative. He stated the a president must be prudent with what he says and that Obama's comments about blowing up Pakistan were irresponsible. He also defended sending monetary aid to Pakistan because they have delivered multiple Al Queda opperatives and are a recovering recently failed stated with nuclear weapons.
Obama: Stated he only voted against troops funding that didn't include a timeline. He stated that he would pull troops out of Iraq, all troops within the next 16 months. he focussed more on the decision to go to Iraq then what we do now with Iraq. He stated that he wanted to put more troops in Afganistan, which John McCain agreed with. He stated that he would have diplomatic dicussions with Iran without preconditions. He stated that he would not act on greater sanctions without the help of nations such as Russia and China. He said he would bomb Pakistan if Pakistan was unwilling to kill people he wanted killed. At point he attempted to defend a universal soveriegnty of every government and then stated that US was more important then Pakistan soveriegnty.
Good Jabs: McCain pounded Obama for saying he would blow up Pakistan. Obama pounded McCain for stating that the war in Iraq would be a quick victory. McCain pounded Obama for setting a timeline to leave Iraq without making sure the job was done, comparing the idea to the US leaving Afganistan once the Russians were defeated without ensuring a stable government.
Bad Wording: McCain stumbled on Achmenemijads name before getting it right. Obama said McCain was right several times and deferred some public policy decisions, including what to do in Afghanistan to his Vice Presidential Pick.
Winner on War and Foreign relations: McCain. He came out looking experienced and prepared to lead.
Winner of the Debate: I will go with John McCain because I believe that they tied in the economic debate. McCain needed to go more into why the US fundamentals are sound and why capitalism is good. Obama needed to tell people how in the midst of a shrinking economy he was going to be able to provide even a majority of his proposals on a smaller budget without incurring even more debt. In the two thirds related to foriegn policy and war John McCain was more convincing. He came off more experienced then Obama. Obama also multipled times stated that John McCain was right on many of the issues. John McCain was able to inspire a little with his stories of fallen solidiers, reenlistment cerimonies and personal experiences. He ended saying that he knew how to heal a country after war. Obama's stories were to illustrate someones mistaeks rather then peoples achievements. They came off as bitter counterpoints to McCain's story. Although not a blow out. I think McCain edged past Obama in this one. If people call this one a tie I wouldn't disagree a whole lot. I just McCain ended slightly better then Obama.
Economy
Barack Obama: He stated that he would help the economy by bringing home US troops in Iraq, but then stated in foriegn policy debate that he would send more troops to Afganistan. He also stated that he wanted a tax increase to everyone who makes over $250, 000. This he says he will need for the additional $800 billion he plans to add to the national budget. He plans to help make the life of US citizens better by nationalizing health care. When asked what he would need to cut in order to maintain his budget he stated that may have to cut some portions of the renewable energy plan. He stated that he has stopped asking for earmarks, though John McCain pointed out that was only after he started running for President. Obama concluded that with the economy the way it is, he may not be able to do all the things he wants to.
John McCain: He stated that he needed to cut economic spending and veto all earmarks. He through out a statistic that Barack Obama has spent for then $1 million dollars a day in earmarks as a Senator totaling more the $930 million dollars in his first year. McCain also advocated cutting the business tax stating that the US has one of the hieghest business taxes in the world at 35%. He also stated that he would raise the child tax credit from $3000 to $7000. McCain positted that by giving US companies more money and decreasing taxes for everyone, he could help ensure that US jobs don't leave the country. He stated the with the slowing economy spending would need to be cut everywhere. He specifically pointed to military cost plus spending where developers often charge much more then anticipated. He also stated that he wanted to give a $5000 tax credit for all individuals with health insurance. He also stated that he would cut the amount of money we are sending to countries who don't like us, which right now is nearly $700 billion a year, this statistic was not argued by Obama.
Winner on Economy: Tie. Neither candidate had a wow moment. The extreme differences were pointed out between a liberal and a conservative.
Foriegn Policy:
McCain: On Iraq John McCain stated that his surge had worked, which was not disputed by Obama. He stated that the new strategy of clear and hold had worked and would shortly free up troops to do the same in Afganistan. He refused to talk about the decision to go into Iraq focussing on where to go from here. On Iran McCain posited that tougher sanctions a from a league of democracies was imperative. He stated the a president must be prudent with what he says and that Obama's comments about blowing up Pakistan were irresponsible. He also defended sending monetary aid to Pakistan because they have delivered multiple Al Queda opperatives and are a recovering recently failed stated with nuclear weapons.
Obama: Stated he only voted against troops funding that didn't include a timeline. He stated that he would pull troops out of Iraq, all troops within the next 16 months. he focussed more on the decision to go to Iraq then what we do now with Iraq. He stated that he wanted to put more troops in Afganistan, which John McCain agreed with. He stated that he would have diplomatic dicussions with Iran without preconditions. He stated that he would not act on greater sanctions without the help of nations such as Russia and China. He said he would bomb Pakistan if Pakistan was unwilling to kill people he wanted killed. At point he attempted to defend a universal soveriegnty of every government and then stated that US was more important then Pakistan soveriegnty.
Good Jabs: McCain pounded Obama for saying he would blow up Pakistan. Obama pounded McCain for stating that the war in Iraq would be a quick victory. McCain pounded Obama for setting a timeline to leave Iraq without making sure the job was done, comparing the idea to the US leaving Afganistan once the Russians were defeated without ensuring a stable government.
Bad Wording: McCain stumbled on Achmenemijads name before getting it right. Obama said McCain was right several times and deferred some public policy decisions, including what to do in Afghanistan to his Vice Presidential Pick.
Winner on War and Foreign relations: McCain. He came out looking experienced and prepared to lead.
Winner of the Debate: I will go with John McCain because I believe that they tied in the economic debate. McCain needed to go more into why the US fundamentals are sound and why capitalism is good. Obama needed to tell people how in the midst of a shrinking economy he was going to be able to provide even a majority of his proposals on a smaller budget without incurring even more debt. In the two thirds related to foriegn policy and war John McCain was more convincing. He came off more experienced then Obama. Obama also multipled times stated that John McCain was right on many of the issues. John McCain was able to inspire a little with his stories of fallen solidiers, reenlistment cerimonies and personal experiences. He ended saying that he knew how to heal a country after war. Obama's stories were to illustrate someones mistaeks rather then peoples achievements. They came off as bitter counterpoints to McCain's story. Although not a blow out. I think McCain edged past Obama in this one. If people call this one a tie I wouldn't disagree a whole lot. I just McCain ended slightly better then Obama.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Non Energy Bill
Michael requested that I express some thoughts on the current "energy" bill proposed by the House of Representatives and being debated by the Senate Energy Committe. I feel that a better title for the bill would be the "Non-Energy Bill." I will explain. I am under the opinion that all avenues for energy independence need to be pursued including greater access to off shore drilling and ANWAR. In a few days the drilling ban for off-shore areas will expire. Basically all the Congress needs to do to provide an increased access for off-shore drilling is nothing! The current proposed bill will allow drilling in the off-shore areas that we will be able to drill in anyhow. Proclaiming this bill will increase the ability to drill for oil is very misleading.
Furthermore, the bill would discontinue the ability for states to obtain revenue from oil drilling off of there coasts. This means fewer states would be likely to allow the drilling and those that did would charge huge up front costs to cover any "potential" problems that may occur. Basically if Congress did nothing there would be more drilling and a greater decrease in cost, then in they enact this bill.
The bill does contain language concerning alternative fuel sources. However, the disadvantages of the main alternatives proposed, natural gas and biofuel, greatly out weigh the advantages. Biofuels hurt the world's food market. I find it annoying that the same people who want to tax us to feed other countries want to use biofuel that will make that goal all the more expensive. If we do not help other countries with the price of food it will also cause more people to die of starvation. Not the best alternative.
Natural gas is also not a smart alternative. Try this thought experiment. A super majority of the US heats there homes and water using natural gas. The gasoline market has jumped nearly 300% in the last 4 years. Imagine what would happen if the fuel source used to heat homes jumped by 300% in the next four years. This is a terrible idea. Natural gas is a terrible alternative.
The proposed bill does allow for some oil shale development; at least this is an innovative way to get the fuel source we are all already using. Good Job! The bill does very little for any type of new nuclear energy and some for solar energy. In the end it is obvious that the Democrats finally understand that the US people want energy reform, but they are too far left to allow the policies that would make a change. This is ruse to decrease pressure from the public while actually making the process of becoming energy independent more difficult. At least Pres. Bush has promised to veto the bill if it comes to his desk. I would suggest going to the previous link for most references. This was a long writing with few references.
Furthermore, the bill would discontinue the ability for states to obtain revenue from oil drilling off of there coasts. This means fewer states would be likely to allow the drilling and those that did would charge huge up front costs to cover any "potential" problems that may occur. Basically if Congress did nothing there would be more drilling and a greater decrease in cost, then in they enact this bill.
The bill does contain language concerning alternative fuel sources. However, the disadvantages of the main alternatives proposed, natural gas and biofuel, greatly out weigh the advantages. Biofuels hurt the world's food market. I find it annoying that the same people who want to tax us to feed other countries want to use biofuel that will make that goal all the more expensive. If we do not help other countries with the price of food it will also cause more people to die of starvation. Not the best alternative.
Natural gas is also not a smart alternative. Try this thought experiment. A super majority of the US heats there homes and water using natural gas. The gasoline market has jumped nearly 300% in the last 4 years. Imagine what would happen if the fuel source used to heat homes jumped by 300% in the next four years. This is a terrible idea. Natural gas is a terrible alternative.
The proposed bill does allow for some oil shale development; at least this is an innovative way to get the fuel source we are all already using. Good Job! The bill does very little for any type of new nuclear energy and some for solar energy. In the end it is obvious that the Democrats finally understand that the US people want energy reform, but they are too far left to allow the policies that would make a change. This is ruse to decrease pressure from the public while actually making the process of becoming energy independent more difficult. At least Pres. Bush has promised to veto the bill if it comes to his desk. I would suggest going to the previous link for most references. This was a long writing with few references.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Biased Education system
Here are two articles for those who feel that the education system isn't biased. The first concerns a fifth grader who was suspended for wearing at anti-Obama shirt. The second concers UMass student who obtained college credit for campaigning for Obama. There is much more to this story including discussion on the content of the shirt, but I don't have time right now.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Late breaking news reports an assault on the US embassy in Yemen. You can visit this cite for more information. If everyone would remember, this is the same pattern that proceeded the September 11th attack. The attack on the USS Cole should have aroused the sleeping giant before New York was struck. Hopefully the US pays attention and does not elect a defensively weak president in a couple of months.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Whose responsible for the Housing Market Failure?
This weekend the Democratic candidates have been blasting Republicans for causing the current economic troubles. In a recent article Rep. Pelosi said that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about and that lack of regulation caused the problems. However, the congressional records shows differently.
As far back as 2005, Sen John McCain and other Republican Congressmen began speaking out concerning a pending housing crash brought on by corruption inside Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. In his speech on the Congress floor, Sen McCain describe false accounting practice that created criminally misleading earning reports for the two institutions. Sen. McCain further warned that if these two institutions were watched more carefully and the offenders pursued, then the two giants would fall and create tormoil in the market place.
As part of this presentation Sen. McCain devolved a list of Congressmen who recieved campaign contributions from the two institutions in the since 1989. Sen. Obama had only been in the Senate for three years, but he had recieved more money from the two institutions then any other congress people other then Sen. Dodd. (Legistlative Update
American Banker. New York, N.Y.: May 11, 2006. Vol. 171, Iss. 90; pg. 5)
This is a little Post Script. I found an update list of the 25 Congress people who recieved the most campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008. Visit this cite for the entire list.
The top 5?
1. Dodd, Christopher J Senator D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John Senator D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack Senator D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary Senator D-NY$75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E House Represenative D-PA$65,500
As far back as 2005, Sen John McCain and other Republican Congressmen began speaking out concerning a pending housing crash brought on by corruption inside Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. In his speech on the Congress floor, Sen McCain describe false accounting practice that created criminally misleading earning reports for the two institutions. Sen. McCain further warned that if these two institutions were watched more carefully and the offenders pursued, then the two giants would fall and create tormoil in the market place.
As part of this presentation Sen. McCain devolved a list of Congressmen who recieved campaign contributions from the two institutions in the since 1989. Sen. Obama had only been in the Senate for three years, but he had recieved more money from the two institutions then any other congress people other then Sen. Dodd. (Legistlative Update
American Banker. New York, N.Y.: May 11, 2006. Vol. 171, Iss. 90; pg. 5)
This is a little Post Script. I found an update list of the 25 Congress people who recieved the most campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008. Visit this cite for the entire list.
The top 5?
1. Dodd, Christopher J Senator D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John Senator D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack Senator D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary Senator D-NY$75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E House Represenative D-PA$65,500
Monday, September 15, 2008
Other blogs have beaten me to an amazing idea. There are surely people currently reading my post who have not decided who they are going to vote for. I will therefore compare the two candidates policies in different areas. If you want a specific area examined let me know and we will do it.
I thought we would start with health care reform. Here the two candidates have vastly different ideas. I will be taking the policy statements for both candidates straight from there websites. You can find Barack Obama's statements here and John McCain's here. So let us begin.
Sen. Obama's health care policy: the very first bullet point states "Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. " I hope we all understand what he is saying here. He is saying that irregardless of the rules of economics, he will make a government insurance company which will except everyone. I do not know anyone outside of the libertarian party who does not feel a sense of need to make sure that all Americans are insured. Barack Obama is suggesting that a form a discriminatory national healthcare. Everyone pays for it in taxes, but only some get the benefits. Who gets the benefits? The government will decide. How expensive do you think it will be to run a bureaucracy that is supposed to provide healthcare to "46 million" Americans? Where is he going to get that money?
Well how about private insurance companies under Barack Obama? Sen. Obama believes that those Americans who do choose to still go with private insurance companies need not be dismayed. Sen. Obama is going to organize a watchdog group that will review insurance policies to "ensure fairness". Wow! How exactly are you going to pay for that? The last time I checked companies were allowed to make their own policies. If those policies can now only be set by the national government, then are these companies really private? Welcome the end of private health care.
At least one way Sen. Obama has decided to pay for these policies is to make the employers pay for it. That's right all employers will be required to pay for healthcare even if the employees are getting Obama's national healthcare plan. So if you are an employer you will be taxed heavily as an individual and then receive greater taxes on your business. There are more specifics that you kind find at the link provided, but these are the main highlights.
So what is John McCain's plan?
John McCain's plan makes it obvious that he will be focussing on making the private insurance plans work for Americans, instead of a national healthcare plan. His platform recognizes that currently there are problems with coverage and costs. To make health insurance more affordable he will reform the tax code to give higher tax credits for people who are insured. He will also seek for portability. Currently health insurance companies are limited to the scope they can cover individual by geographic boundaries. In other words, you cannot keep an insurance policy form Massachusetts if you move to Wyoming. John McCain wants to stop this. He also wants to make it more possible to leave a company, but maintain your insurance.
He also has a proposal for insuring individuals who cannot afford it because of the expensive diseases they have. John McCain is suggesting a guaranteed access plan through nonprofit organizations. Here I have to interject my personal opinion. I have been advocating this very system for years. Why not allow a individuals to contribute money in the form of a tax deductible charitable donation to nonprofit organizations who then use the contributions to liaison with insurance companies and therefore provide insurance through subsidized premiums and deductibles? No government oversight needed. No wasteful policies, no politics in the decisions. Beautiful idea.
At the end of the day, I believe that McCain wins out big in this area. His plan is feasible and easily established.
I thought we would start with health care reform. Here the two candidates have vastly different ideas. I will be taking the policy statements for both candidates straight from there websites. You can find Barack Obama's statements here and John McCain's here. So let us begin.
Sen. Obama's health care policy: the very first bullet point states "Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. " I hope we all understand what he is saying here. He is saying that irregardless of the rules of economics, he will make a government insurance company which will except everyone. I do not know anyone outside of the libertarian party who does not feel a sense of need to make sure that all Americans are insured. Barack Obama is suggesting that a form a discriminatory national healthcare. Everyone pays for it in taxes, but only some get the benefits. Who gets the benefits? The government will decide. How expensive do you think it will be to run a bureaucracy that is supposed to provide healthcare to "46 million" Americans? Where is he going to get that money?
Well how about private insurance companies under Barack Obama? Sen. Obama believes that those Americans who do choose to still go with private insurance companies need not be dismayed. Sen. Obama is going to organize a watchdog group that will review insurance policies to "ensure fairness". Wow! How exactly are you going to pay for that? The last time I checked companies were allowed to make their own policies. If those policies can now only be set by the national government, then are these companies really private? Welcome the end of private health care.
At least one way Sen. Obama has decided to pay for these policies is to make the employers pay for it. That's right all employers will be required to pay for healthcare even if the employees are getting Obama's national healthcare plan. So if you are an employer you will be taxed heavily as an individual and then receive greater taxes on your business. There are more specifics that you kind find at the link provided, but these are the main highlights.
So what is John McCain's plan?
John McCain's plan makes it obvious that he will be focussing on making the private insurance plans work for Americans, instead of a national healthcare plan. His platform recognizes that currently there are problems with coverage and costs. To make health insurance more affordable he will reform the tax code to give higher tax credits for people who are insured. He will also seek for portability. Currently health insurance companies are limited to the scope they can cover individual by geographic boundaries. In other words, you cannot keep an insurance policy form Massachusetts if you move to Wyoming. John McCain wants to stop this. He also wants to make it more possible to leave a company, but maintain your insurance.
He also has a proposal for insuring individuals who cannot afford it because of the expensive diseases they have. John McCain is suggesting a guaranteed access plan through nonprofit organizations. Here I have to interject my personal opinion. I have been advocating this very system for years. Why not allow a individuals to contribute money in the form of a tax deductible charitable donation to nonprofit organizations who then use the contributions to liaison with insurance companies and therefore provide insurance through subsidized premiums and deductibles? No government oversight needed. No wasteful policies, no politics in the decisions. Beautiful idea.
At the end of the day, I believe that McCain wins out big in this area. His plan is feasible and easily established.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Response to Zpolicy.blogspot.com
When considering the candidates we should consider all of the foreign policy platforms. Sen. Obama has stated that he would meet with countries like Iran who are obviously state sponsors of terrorism without any preconditions. During a this Presidential election, under the guise of a Senate fact finding mission, he spent millions of tax payer dollars to fly threw Europe and the Middle East because he had never gone there before as a representative of the United States. He has had zero experience with foreign policy. None.
The United States has been a leader in world. In the past there have been isolated incidences of perverse behaviors in the US military. We are all familiar with the pictures from Abu Grabi. Isolated incidences should not make a determination on how an entire system works. Hold the individuals responsible who committed the acts. If the action is widespread hold a large part of the entity responsible, but you cannot link a few events to an entire nation.
The idea that the two current candidates have differences of opinion on whether torture should be allowed are absurd. Partisan individuals try to link John McCain with George Bush, but in the areas that really matter they are truly different.
John McCain opposed Pres. Bush's position on torture. If any person is truly endowed with an ability to decide what is or is not torture, surely it would be an individual that no one doubts suffered it himself. In this instance, John McCain has a huge advantage over Barrack Obama. I would not wish torture on anyone, but in this instance having survived it gives John McCain greater ability to understand the problem then Barrack Obama.
The idea that America has really, "Gone it alone" is more of a campaign attack then a reality in my personal opinion. As I recall multiple nations have participated with the US in every international military conflict in the last eight years. Name one military campaign that the US has entered alone in the last eight years. France even elected a new President in 2007 who adamantly supports this current policy. Although, Gordon Brown from Great Britain has endorsed Barrack Obama, he was elected on foreign policy platforms that more closely mirror John McCain. Even the German Chancellor is in the same position.
Finally, telling countries that they are either for us or against us is not disrespecting their sovereignty. If anything it illustrates their ability to decide where they stand, but does make them decide. Some issues cannot be discussed on some infinite time table. Decisions have to be made. Telling other countries that we need their decision now does not diminish their own sovereignty to make the decision.
I myself do not intend to support a candidate whose fpreign policy experience is limited to an expense summer vacation/campaign stunt courtesy of the US taxpayers.
The United States has been a leader in world. In the past there have been isolated incidences of perverse behaviors in the US military. We are all familiar with the pictures from Abu Grabi. Isolated incidences should not make a determination on how an entire system works. Hold the individuals responsible who committed the acts. If the action is widespread hold a large part of the entity responsible, but you cannot link a few events to an entire nation.
The idea that the two current candidates have differences of opinion on whether torture should be allowed are absurd. Partisan individuals try to link John McCain with George Bush, but in the areas that really matter they are truly different.
John McCain opposed Pres. Bush's position on torture. If any person is truly endowed with an ability to decide what is or is not torture, surely it would be an individual that no one doubts suffered it himself. In this instance, John McCain has a huge advantage over Barrack Obama. I would not wish torture on anyone, but in this instance having survived it gives John McCain greater ability to understand the problem then Barrack Obama.
The idea that America has really, "Gone it alone" is more of a campaign attack then a reality in my personal opinion. As I recall multiple nations have participated with the US in every international military conflict in the last eight years. Name one military campaign that the US has entered alone in the last eight years. France even elected a new President in 2007 who adamantly supports this current policy. Although, Gordon Brown from Great Britain has endorsed Barrack Obama, he was elected on foreign policy platforms that more closely mirror John McCain. Even the German Chancellor is in the same position.
Finally, telling countries that they are either for us or against us is not disrespecting their sovereignty. If anything it illustrates their ability to decide where they stand, but does make them decide. Some issues cannot be discussed on some infinite time table. Decisions have to be made. Telling other countries that we need their decision now does not diminish their own sovereignty to make the decision.
I myself do not intend to support a candidate whose fpreign policy experience is limited to an expense summer vacation/campaign stunt courtesy of the US taxpayers.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Polling Results
Real Clear Politics is one of the best sources for accurate polls. They take the average from everyone elses polls and figure out there own average. Go to take a look via the link provided and you can even see the general trend over the last year.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Is calling someone a pig politically correct?
Today the Barack Obama fell to a new low in my book when he described the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Gov. Palin or Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain. To quote, "A pig with lipstick is still a pig." I don't even know what more to say about this. Can you imagine what would happen, the outrage in the news media, if anyone called Barack Obama a pig, or any other animal for that matter. Why, it would be outright degrading. This is a terrible political move by Sen. Barack Obama. The McCain camp said that referring to Gov. Palin as a pig was way out of bounds, while the Obama camp reply was that they were actually talking about Sen. McCain. Is there really a difference? To make matters worse, McCain used the same language when critisizing Sen. Clinton last year. However, he hasn't done it lately.
I have never been the world's strongest proponent of Sen. McCain. I think that he has some huge turn offs, not the least of which is over exaggerating an opponents position for his own political gain. His political tactics are nothing though compared to the onslaught from the media concerning Gov. Palin. Once again, even if Gov. Palin is new, so is Sen. Biden, why are we not being constantly reminded that Sen. Biden was said that Delaware was a slave state. Why do we not hear that he voted to end funding for the war in Iraq when he complained on the floor on the Senate that he wanted greater equipment for the solidiers? Why do we not hear really anything from him lately?
In a previous post I stated that I thought Gov. Palin was a poor choice for a Vice Presidential Candidate. While I stand by my previous comments that Gov. Palin was a poor choice, I am amazed at the outcome. I did not think that the media would choice to focus on the most outrageous claims against Gov. Palin first. They completely destroyed any credibility that they might have previously had with most of the US public. They excited the masses into watching Gov. Palin's stunning address followed by McCain's address which attracked a greater television crowd then even Barack Obama's acceptance speach. The continual extreme attacks from the Democratic candidates against Gov. Palin are not helping their case. In fact, Sen. McCain has taken another lead in the polls.
If the Republican's win this one, it may just be because the opposition blew it. When you have the fartherest left Senator in the Congress and the third fartherest left Senator in Congress on the same ticket, that is a mistake in and of itself.
I have never been the world's strongest proponent of Sen. McCain. I think that he has some huge turn offs, not the least of which is over exaggerating an opponents position for his own political gain. His political tactics are nothing though compared to the onslaught from the media concerning Gov. Palin. Once again, even if Gov. Palin is new, so is Sen. Biden, why are we not being constantly reminded that Sen. Biden was said that Delaware was a slave state. Why do we not hear that he voted to end funding for the war in Iraq when he complained on the floor on the Senate that he wanted greater equipment for the solidiers? Why do we not hear really anything from him lately?
In a previous post I stated that I thought Gov. Palin was a poor choice for a Vice Presidential Candidate. While I stand by my previous comments that Gov. Palin was a poor choice, I am amazed at the outcome. I did not think that the media would choice to focus on the most outrageous claims against Gov. Palin first. They completely destroyed any credibility that they might have previously had with most of the US public. They excited the masses into watching Gov. Palin's stunning address followed by McCain's address which attracked a greater television crowd then even Barack Obama's acceptance speach. The continual extreme attacks from the Democratic candidates against Gov. Palin are not helping their case. In fact, Sen. McCain has taken another lead in the polls.
If the Republican's win this one, it may just be because the opposition blew it. When you have the fartherest left Senator in the Congress and the third fartherest left Senator in Congress on the same ticket, that is a mistake in and of itself.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Felt Cold Lately...Blame it on the Sun!
I think this story should help us all understand global warming a little better. I will post more when I am off work.
Palin's Problem
The attacks on Gov. Palin intensified this weekend with all aspects of her personal life being flashed on most news channels. It is amazing that even a hurricane hitting New Orleans couldn't slow the medias response to Sen. McCain's Vice Presidential pick, considering they still haven't gotten around to fully investigating the Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Of course, Sen. McCain didn't help himself by picking a running mate with a history of prospective issues. How has the media responded in a lopsides way to the different compaigns.
Internet and tv news organizations have run non-stop programming concerning Gov. Palin's family and there individual problems. The same sentence that announces her as the candidate also states that her son and husband are not Republicans. In a breaking story earlier today, every news organization has been quick to announce that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant. The New York Times has actually run three page one stories on these rumors just today.
The Washington Post has published stories connected with as yet unsubstantiated allegations that Gov. Palin misused her authority in an attempt to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a State Trooper. These connections and reports wouldn't be so agrivating if they weren't coming from news organizations that have continually ignored character stories concerning Sen. Obama.
For example you will not find a story in the Washington Post concerning Barack Obama's connections to ACORN, a radically left group. An examination of the history of ACORN is schocking. An article by Stanley Kurtz scrutinizes this relationship. ACORN has been tied to multiple possible voter fraud schemes. Also Sen. Obama's decisions for the dispersion of Federal Gant Money are also questionable. Whenever someone tries to discuss these character issues they are called partisan bigots. The problem isn't that the media is looking at Gov. Palin's flaws. The problem is they aren't also looking at Barack Obama's.
Internet and tv news organizations have run non-stop programming concerning Gov. Palin's family and there individual problems. The same sentence that announces her as the candidate also states that her son and husband are not Republicans. In a breaking story earlier today, every news organization has been quick to announce that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant. The New York Times has actually run three page one stories on these rumors just today.
The Washington Post has published stories connected with as yet unsubstantiated allegations that Gov. Palin misused her authority in an attempt to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a State Trooper. These connections and reports wouldn't be so agrivating if they weren't coming from news organizations that have continually ignored character stories concerning Sen. Obama.
For example you will not find a story in the Washington Post concerning Barack Obama's connections to ACORN, a radically left group. An examination of the history of ACORN is schocking. An article by Stanley Kurtz scrutinizes this relationship. ACORN has been tied to multiple possible voter fraud schemes. Also Sen. Obama's decisions for the dispersion of Federal Gant Money are also questionable. Whenever someone tries to discuss these character issues they are called partisan bigots. The problem isn't that the media is looking at Gov. Palin's flaws. The problem is they aren't also looking at Barack Obama's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
