Wrapping it Up

Well the election is coming to a close. We have one week left and we will see what comes of the last two years of fanangling. Who will win? I am astounded at this point that I still do not think the American public knows the candidates very well. There is a list of surprising developments that shouldn't have taken this long for media coverage to produce. My most recent favorite is Barack Obama's past.

For example:

Did you know that in 2001 he expressed his sorrow that the Supreme Court didn't use it's position to force wealth redistribution? Wow that one would have been important to know sooner! If he hadn't slipped while talking to Joe the Plumber, the media never would have investigated it. Aren't they supposed to do independent investigative research?

This media in this election has left an unsavory flavor in my mouth. During the primaries why were there not more stories on John McCain's flaws? I think the media dropped the ball. I feel the same about thier current handling of Barack Obama's campaign. Biased media. I amazed that with an election that has been going on for more then a year and a half, that bombshells can somehow be coming out one week from the election.

Polls Can be Decieving

When you are listening to poll numbers braodcast through the media, make sure you find out more about the particular poll. What is the margin or error? What is the confidence level within that margin of error? How was the poll conducted? What kind of sample did they use? What is the poll really telling you?

For example:

Real Clear Politics Average shows Obama up by an average of 7.3% with one poll show Obama up nationally by 14% and another showing Obama only up by 1%. If you look closer at the polls you see they are all sampling the entire US population, though they are using different methods with different margins of error and confidence levels. What does that really tell you? It says if you were ask everyone in the US who they support that the research company is confident at whatever level they express (usually expressed in terms like 95% confidence level, if it is under 85% confidence the poll sucks) you will find that the real numbers are within the margin of error (usually expressed as something like +/- 3%).

IBD/TIPP Polls show Obama ahead by only 3.7%* with a margin of error of . Why the big difference? Well for one IBD/TIPP polls different people. They only poll likely voters, or people who are statistically likely to vote this year. In other words, they are confident that if you ask all likely voters that you will find that Obama's lead will be 3.5% above or 3.5% be the declared 3.7% lead.

* New IBD/TIPP Poll shows the lead for Obama down to 1.1% with the same 3.5% margin or error.

So what do these polls mean as to who will win the election? Well not a whole lot since even IBD/TIPP polls show that with a week and a half to go until election day somewhere between 9%-15% of likely voters still don't know who they will vote for.

The latest in Iraq

Onward to victory in Iraq. Lately on the news we have heard either nothing about what is happening in Iraq, or only focussed discussion on the expiration of the UN mandate on Dec. 31st of this year. So what has been happening in Iraq?

This week the US turned over control of another Iraqi province; Babil. This region was once known as "Death's Triangle" because of the insurgent attacks, road side bombs, and suicide bombs. In the last year and a half the number of attacks and deaths have dropped 80%. Strange doesn't that coincide with the troop surge? The coalition plan has always been to turn control of provinces over to the Iraqi government as quickly as possible. Now 12 of the 18 Iraqi provinces have returned to Iraqi control.

So what is happening with the UN mandate? Are the Iraqi's going to just ask us to leave? Would you be surprised if I told you NO? The current negotiations between the Iraqi government and the US government concerning our future relationship with Iraq do not hinge around whether we remain close. They do not even hinge around whether we keep troops there. The negotiations right now are encountering the heaviest resistance regarding whether or not the Iraqi government will have the authority to prosecute US military personnel, or whether those trials will be handle by military tribunals.

The current agreement states that as of June 2009 all US military personnel will be stationed in bases in Iraq, instead of deployed throughout the country in the streets. Evidently the notions that the Iraqis want us to leave are wrong. I'm sure they do not want our tanks driving up and down thier streets. I do not want our tanks driving up and down my streets! I would like to point out that we already have an agreement with Iraq for continued support.

Of those provinces now left under the control of US troops, excluding Iraq, they are all part of a desert region bordering Iran. In other words, Iraq seems very content to let us sit between them and there arch nemesis. We ought to be grateful for this development. It allows us the ability to stop insurgents from recieving weapons from Iran, which has happened with ridiculous abandon. It also gives us cites for bases to spy on Iran. We now have ability to help isolate Iraq as it grows and strengthens.

How are things in Iraq? They seem to be going fairly well to me. That's probably why we haven't heard much about it on the news.

Voter Fraud

The one question we don't want to be asking right now we all need to consider. "How will we know who was elected President?" The polls are really too close to call a clear winner in most of the battleground states, and once again John McCain is closing the gap in the battleground and national polls. Tight races like this one have recently been fraught with bad feelings and difficulty in declaring a winner. One thing that will definately make this one more difficult is a group called ACORN. ACORN is already under investigation in 5 states for voter fraud. In Ohio a teenager declared that ACORN gave him money and cigarettes to illegally register 73 times. It is estimated that nearly 30,000 fraudulent voters have been registered and possibly have already voted in Ohio alone.

In Nevada, Ohio, Missouri and Florida the group has been entering downtown areas and registering homeless people to vote. With recent elections being decided by a few votes this is very disturbing information, at least for Republicans. ACORN is so far left it nearly leaves the scales. It rubs shoulders with Moveon.org and the likes. Acorn actually registered Mickey Mouse to vote. This is not the first election ACORN has attempted to through. In 2006 the group was instrumental in possibly throwing elections in Missouri and Nevada in the Senate race. With investigation looming in all five states and others concerning ACORN's illegal actions I am confused with a couple of things.

1. The Media isn't covering the story completely. In 2006 moved to force Attorney General Gonsalez out of his position. The Democrats alleged that Mr. Gonsalez fired state attorney generals because they wouldn't prosecute voter fraud. The Democrats declared there wasn't sufficient evidence that a group called ACORN had anything to do with voter fraud. The Bush adminstration and Attorney General Gonsalez both acknowledged firing state attorney generals who would no longer prosecute voter fraud effectively. The case that received the most attention was that of David Iglesias of New Mexico.

The adminstration acused Mr. Iglesias of looking the other way while a little group called ACORN committed voter fraud by registering imaginery voters, felons, illegal immigrants and homeless people in New Mexico. The Democrats called the firing illegal and partisan. They alleged that it was focused merely on hurting Democrats. It definately hurt the Democrats more then the Republicans. Have you ever heard of a Far Right group committing national voter fraud? I personally think it is about time that the Congress apologize to Mr. Gonsalez for partisan bull crap.

2. Who was it that was heavily involved with ACORN, spoke at thier conventions and pledged to call them in to help shape the countries agenda? Oh, that's right, community organizer Barack Obama. At least this part of the ridiculousness is starting to appear in the national spotlight. However, it is almost always followed up with, oh McCain talked to ACORN once also. Really, is that the best there is? McCain gave a speech to ACORN that is the defense for ACORN's ridiculous actions and Obama's involvement with the organization? Come on! There is an obvious difference between speaking at a couple of events and promising the organization that they can help shape your administration. Obviously all of these illegal votes will be going to Barack Obama.

Is the election thrown? I don't know for certain but it appears so in at least Ohio. What can we do about it? Well maybe in the future the US public won't throw such a fit when the US Attorney General fires people who are prosecuting voter fraud.

Socialism

The US government, along with many governments in Europe, is looking to nationalize, to differing extents, the banking systems. How did we get here? In reality we are talking about an institution which required financial institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to make loans to people that couldn't afford them. The same institution through corruption, mostly in the Democratic Party, ignored false earning numbers coming out of the financial institutions. Now we are saying, "Why don't we give them control over more financial institutions?"

I can think of a couple of great reasons.

First, where exactly do you think that are going to get the money to pay for these purchases? Your pocket book and mine. Taxes, taxes, taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes to the extent both candidates claim they want to, and then increase the budget so drastically. Wealth redistribution NEVER works. It NEVER has been successful anywhere, at any time. It has ALWAYS led to the eventual extinction of any society dumb enough to try it on a national basis. The same people who argue this is a good way to go will argue that the US military is corrupt enough that they need to be held accountable by a court comprised of people from other countries. Oh, I get it. The US military is corrupt, but the Congress isn't that bad.

Second, isn't the US already in debt? This doesn't make sense. Why would we give control of a financial market to a government entity that cannot balance it's own books? Most times they don't even know where they are at?

Illegal immigrant loans

Here is just a very short article about illegal immigrant who stole identities and then took out mortgages under the social security numbers. HUD estimates there are 5,000,000, such loans at least in the US.

Scary International Events

There are two events I will write more on later.

First, Iran forced a Hungarian plane to land and there are problems breeding in the region.

Second, Kenya has detained a US citizen Jerome Corsi, who is an openly anti-Obama figure. He was scheduled to announce today his findings from research into Barack Obama's past and connections. He was detained shortly before he could make the announcement.

UPDATE

Jerome Corsi was deported from Kenya for "not having a work permit". More later.

Beware of Falling Stocks

A three ring circus and an approval for 700 billion dollars and today the DOW Jones falls below 10,000 points for the first time in 5 years. Do I still think we are over reacting? Yes. First it rebounded over 10,000 points.

Lets look at the chart from before but with more current data. In January of 2002 the stocks also fell well below the 10,000 mark after being well over. Between January and April the market seemed to be on a course for serious depression or recession. However, it pulled out. The recent lemming reaction of the US people to pull their money out of the market is actually leading the American people on a straight course for the cliffs ahead.

Irresponsible individuals including NBC's Jim Cramer appear to refuse to be satisfied until the entire market crashes. It is irresponsible to stand up as an investment individual and tell everyone to take their money out of the markets if they will need it in the next five years because there is no way it will recover. The 2002 market slump lasted almost a year before the market began to climb again. When it finally stopped, the US had hit the highest point ever in the history of the market.

Self-fulfilling prophets and irresponsible individuals need a straight jacket until this is over. The stock market never was meant for individuals with weak constitutions. At a time when so much seems uncertain, there is one thing is stable; it is better to be in the American markets right now then in the other markets in the world. The US dollar hit a 13 month high on the markets. While people here at home at freaking out, the world is saying, the US has a better chance of making it through this well then anybody else.

Senate Bill

Here is a copy of the bill that the Senate passed yesterday, actually this is a summary of the different sections, the real bill is 475 pages long.

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.