When Elephants Fly

10 Hard Truths About War For Veterans Day

2010-11-11T15:05:00.002-08:00

A War can be very expensive, but reports on them do not do justice to just how costly they can be. Here's a nice article that tries to articulate that cost:

http://www.alternet.org/world/148818/10_hard_truths_about_war_for_veterans_day_(and_every_other_day)/

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

A corrective counter-narrative to Bush's 'Decision Points.'

2010-11-11T15:01:00.000-08:00

Russ Baker shedding some light from his investigations into George Bush:
http://www.alternet.org/books/148803/exposing_the_dirty_truth_that_bush's_new_memoir_tries_to_cover_up/

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Bush's Waterboarding Admission Prompts Calls For Criminal Probe

2010-11-11T14:36:00.000-08:00

Dan Froomkin has an article in the Huffington Post talking about how Bush's waterboarding admission (made more prominent with the release of his memoir "Decision Points") has the ACLU calling for a criminal probe. The article can be found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/11/calls-for-criminal-invest_n_782354.html

Some may argue that Bush was "justified" because he was trying to protect the United States from a terrorist attack. Those people should also bear in mind that the United States has criticized other heads of state for engaging in this type of behavior.

A quote from the article:

"The ACLU acknowledges the significance of this request, but it bears emphasis that the former President's acknowledgment that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history," the group wrote in its letter to Holder.

"The admission cannot be ignored. In our system, no one is above the law or beyond its reach, not even a former president. That founding principle of our democracy would mean little if it were ignored with respect to those in whom the public most invests its trust. It would also be profoundly unfair for Mr. Durham to focus his inquiry on low-level officials charged with implementing official policy but to ignore the role of those who authorized or ordered the use of torture."

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

WTF Has Sarah Palin Done So Far?

2010-11-10T15:51:00.000-08:00

In a parody on the "WTF Has Obama Done So Far" web site that went up recently, someone made a corresponding site about Sarah Palin:
http://wtfhassarahpalindonesofar.com

In other "news", the Financial Times is reporting that Bush would have endorsed Obama, if asked: http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

A choice excerpt from the article:

A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain’s campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. “I probably won’t even vote for the guy,” Bush told the group, according to two people present.“I had to endorse him. But I’d have endorsed Obama if they’d asked me.”

Seems incredulous, I know. But Bush and McCain weren't exactly good buddies either. If Bush did express that sentiment, it would likely have been one of the few times I would have agreed with him!

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Republican Deficit Hypocrisy

2010-11-07T20:48:00.000-08:00

Anyone who thinks that Republicans are the "fiscally responsible" party that they claim to be should read Bruce Bartlett's recent article in Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

Beyond the incredibly expensive (and incredibly fiscally irresponsible) Medicare drug benefit that Republican's spearheaded, let's not forget that they steered us into a multi-trillion dollar war that was based on a collection of lies and manipulations.

Republicans are not the part of fiscal responsibility. They may claim they are, but their actions are in direct contradiction to those claims. It always bugs me to see so many American's fall for this nonsense.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Balancing The Equation: The Hypocrisy Variable

2010-11-04T14:15:00.000-07:00

Government exists in part to provide certain basic services to the public at large. For example, basic infrastructure like roads, a military to defend ourselves from foreign threats, etc. To provide services, governments have to spend money. And to spend money, they have to make money. There are two ways that Governments can acquire funds, namely taxing citizens (real income) and borrowing money (which only provide a near-term influx of cash that ultimately needs to be repaid).

The problem we are facing today with the Republican party is that there is a fundamental disconnect. On the one hand, the American public wants to pay less in taxes. I mean who would argue with that? On the other hand, we haven't seen any meaningful suggestions for how to cut spending.

So, to keep the equation balanced, the only thing we can do is effectively take on more debt. Somehow this aspect of the equation is never brought up by the Republican party. They American people expect that the equation will balance itself magically. That somehow the Government will be able to acquire less real income and still be able to spend as much (or maybe it will spend a little less, but not nearly enough to offset what it is making).

Under George W. Bush, Federal spending increased by 54%! And taxes decreased! He took a budget surplus and turned it into a substantial deficit! This is the party that talks about efficient Government? That's simply nonsense. The Republican party has put forth an agenda saying that there should be no cuts in Medicare, Social Security or the military. However, more than 60% (and growing) of the Federal Budget is used to support these causes.

Where are we going to cut? Education? That's great. How we are going to compete in a global economy without preparing our children is a mystery to me.

President Obama refers to Republican policies as bankrupt policies. That makes sense - if we keep this up, we will eventually be bankrupt.

The more fundamental danger with Republican policies is that they appeal to our lower sensibilities. They are like that extra gin and tonic that seems enticing now, but will give you a hangover later. The math isn't complicated, but people just don't want to take the necessary steps to do something about it. No one wants to admit that we need to make difficult decisions to get there. Or perhaps (as I would expect) the politicians understand the dilemma. They are just choosing to ignore it since they are getting more than their fair share now while leaving a wasteland for our children.

I came across a must-read article from Time Magazine that discusses this issue as well:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2029356,00.html

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

What The !#$? has Obama Done So Far?

2010-11-02T13:41:00.000-07:00

Came across the following amusing site:
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

There has been far too much emphasis on what the Obama administration has not been able to accomplish, and far too little on what it has. The challenge we face today in the media (both mainstream and otherwise) is that it is far too easy to cherry pick the facts that support one's case while purposefully choosing to ignore those that don't support it.

Clearly not everything the administration has done would be considered good by everyone. However, expecting that is a pipe dream of epic proportions. I wince every time I hear someone say that they haven't seen much change. For god sakes, it has just been a year and a half. We're not talking dog years or infant years. Change does not happen overnight.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Nice Editorial Piece To Put Perspective On Things

2010-10-31T13:45:00.000-07:00

As humans, we are actually hardwired to make bad choices. That's right. We stink at making good decisions. We frequently let foolish emotion triumph over sound reason. We let recent events erase our memory of the past. We allow our self-absorbed egos to force us down paths that we ultimately know lead to nowhere.

A few sane minds have recently started piping up, most likely far later than they should have, to help restore sanity to our nation. In this vein, Nicholas Kristof has a nice piece in the New York Times entitled "Give Obama a Break". It is definitely worth reading. I've put an excerpt below, though the entire article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/opinion/31kristof.html.

Excerpts below:

Bill Clinton, who was as good a president as we’ve had in modern times, captured Mr. Obama’s challenge: “I’d like to see any of you get behind a locomotive going straight downhill at 200 miles an hour and stop it in 10 seconds,” Mr. Clinton told a crowd in Washington State, according to a Washington Post account.

The criticisms of Mr. Obama from the left often ring true to me, but I also think we elide the political difficulties of getting better legislation past obstructionists in Congress. A “public option” would have improved the health care package in my judgment, but it might also have killed it.

The economic crisis has also distracted from authentic accomplishments. Presidents since Harry Truman have been pushing for health care reform, and it was Mr. Obama who finally achieved it. The economy seemed at risk of another Great Depression when he took office, and that was downgraded to a recession from which we have officially emerged — even though the pain is still biting.

Mr. Obama has also helped engineer a successful auto bailout, a big push for clean energy, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to reduce sex discrimination, tighter tobacco regulations aimed at the 1,000 Americans under age 18 who become smokers each day, and tighter financial regulation including reform of credit card rules.

Above all, Mr. Obama has been stellar in one area crucial to our country’s future: education. Democrats historically have been AWOL on school reform because they are beholden to teacher unions, but Mr. Obama has reframed the debate and made it safe to talk about teaching standards and “bad teachers.” Until Mr. Obama, Democrats barely acknowledged that it was possible for a teacher to be bad.

Mr. Obama used stimulus money to keep teachers from being laid off and to nudge states to reform education so as to benefit children for years to come. His “Race to the Top” focused states on education reform as never before.

He has also revamped and expanded student loans and bolstered support for community colleges, opening a new path to higher education for working-class Americans. Millions more Americans may end up in college.

Presidents in both parties have talked for years about the importance of education, but until now it has been lip service. Improving America’s inner-city schools will be a long slog, but Mr. Obama has done far more than any other president in this area — arguably our single greatest national challenge. In my view, it’s his greatest achievement, and it has been largely ignored.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

How could you have forgotten?

2010-10-30T14:16:00.000-07:00

It has been a ridiculously long time since I last posted on this blog. My initial purpose was to be yet another voice out there trying to dispel many of the lies, distortions, and broken policies of the Republicans who were in political power until 2008. Once President Obama took office, I stopped actively blogging. But I always knew in my heart of hearts that I would have to resume once more.

Because I knew that power does not cede easily. The puppet masters of the Republican party are incredibly wealthy individuals. And with wealth comes the ability to control the media, which in turn can be used to control the hearts and minds of far too many ignorant America citizens who have the legal right to vote.

I normally like to hear other peoples' perspectives. I try to keep an open mind and to consider all options. But when I hear many Republicans speak, I am often appalled at the lack of basic truth, the lack of civility, and the lack of deeper reason in what they say. Not that there isn't a point or that they are completely full of nonsense, but rather they obscure any relevant pieces of information in a cloak of mis-truths.

The sad fact is that far too many Americans are unable to think for themselves. They'd rather have biased "news" commentators think for them. Far too many Americans have a short-term memory. They've forgotten just what a morass we were in not that long ago. And they fail to realize that 8+ years of broken policies cannot simply be rectified in a year and a half.

With that, here's a video that I recently came across. If you are among those Americans who have become dissuaded by the current state of affairs, then I really hope you can spare the next two minutes and forty-two seconds:

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

AIG Bonuses

2009-03-17T02:08:00.000-07:00

News that AIG, which received taxpayer bailout money, is giving over a hundred million dollars in bonuses has caused quite a ruckus. Some are crying foul that taxpayer money is being used to give out bonuses to a company whose crappy decisions caused it to go broke. Others are saying that the Government cannot simply "abrogate" contracts.

Maybe I'm missing something here or maybe my view is too simplistic... but if the Government didn't bail out AIG and the company basically went busto, then they wouldn't have been able to pay out those bonuses in the first place (instead, all of those bonus receiving folks would be standing on the unemployment line right now).

So, all of this talk about "abrograting contracts" seems like hogwash.

Compensation packages in the financial sector are based on a broken model; namely if you make succesful investment (i.e., place the right bets) then you will be rewarded handsomely with your bonuses. On the other hand, if you make moronic choices and bet the farm on the wrong set of horses, you basically lose your job, but you don't have to pay back any of those bonuses.

In any company, you'll have people who are betting on heads and people who are betting on tails. If heads wins, not only do you give bonuses to those people, but you might lose a lot of money on those people who bet tails. And vice versa if tails wins.

So, that encourages traders to take investment positions that generally provide positive returns when things are going well, but which have the risk of blowing up beyond recognition. For all those years when things are going well, traders are making a boatload in bonuses. But when the doomsday switch is flipped, and the traders lose more in one month than they cumulatively earned up until that point, they just lose their jobs, but don't actually have to pay those bonuses back.

For example, imagine that you are betting on the outcome of a roll of a ten thousand sided die. If the die comes up between 1-9,999 you win a thousand dollars each time. If it comes up 10,000 then you lose fifteen million dollars. It won't come up 10,000 very often and for a long time you are coasting on the thousand bucks you get almost every time. Until one day, out of nowhere, WHAM -- you get stung.

And of course, when you consider that a lot of these traders take heavily leveraged positions so that they earn big, but could blow-up even bigger, the damage could easily become catastrophic.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Why the nationalization of banks should and is happening

2009-02-23T11:30:00.000-08:00

Paul Krugman has a nice editorial in today's New York Times regarding the nationalization of banks. Somehow terms like "nationalization" have taken on a negative meaning in today's parlance - when in reality it's partly what we are doing anyway. There is a tendency for people to get so emotionally attached to certain words and phrases that they will often have completely contradictory opinions about same concept presented using different labels. I think we're looking at situation like this.

I'm presently not a big fan of using stimulus money to "bail" out banks, because all that seems to be happening right now is that the bank's shareholders and executive management seem to be getting bailed out. It's a win for them, but a loss for taxpayers. Furthermore, I don't think anyone has a grip on exactly how much money will be needed to really repair the situation. No one knows what these banks are worth.

Normally, when you want to determine how much a business is worth, you look at the value of its assets and subtract that from the value of it's liabilities (i.e., take the difference between what the business has and what it owes). If the liabilities exceed the assets, then the business is considered insolvent.

Unfortunately, right now banks have a fair number "toxic" assets on their balance sheets. These are assets that are likely worth far less now than what the bank might have paid for them. For example, if the bank gave out a loan to someone, then it would have a fixed-income asset since the person would be expected to pay the bank some fixed amount of money, say each month, to repay the loan. If the person to whom the loan was given is no longer in a position to pay it back, then the fixed-income asset associated with the loan is worth a lot less.

Now, when you give out a loan, there's always a chance that someone won't be able to pay it back. They way you deal with that is to determine what that risk is, and alter the terms of the loan accordingly. You would look, for example, at the loan size, the income of the borrower, their credit score, how much money they have in the bank, the collateral they are putting up (e.g., if it's a mortgage, the house being bought is the collateral), and various other factors. These factors would help you determine how to structure the loan -- for example, a riskier loan might be associated with a higher interest rate.

That's a simple case, and even there the pooch was screwed since Banks did a bad job of determining the risk correctly (hence the unexpectedly large numbers of people who can't pay back their loans). Unfortunately, many of the bank's assets are more complex for several reasons. First, they often involve an amalgamation of different fixed-income assets. Second, those assets might themselves be more complex -- e.g., having their value derived from other assets. Third, and perhaps the most important, the underlying risks associated with those assets are not well understood. If I don't know anything about you, then it's hard for me to determine how risky it would be to give you a loan. (And many mortgages were given out with dubious information, forged documents, and blatantly false statements about the borrower's financial situation.)

The result is a mess.

Some of these assets might have value. After all, despite the record number of foreclosures, there are still many people out their who are able to make their monthly mortgage payments. There may be others who have hit a temporary rough patch (e.g., getting laid off), but who may be able to begin payments again. Also, if the collateral on the loan was a house, it's not like the house has zero value should it be seized by the bank in a foreclosure. It's worth something.

At the end of the day, though, trying to value these assets is complex. Without being able to value them, there's no real way to tell what the bank's financial position is. Now, would you "invest" money in a venture if you don't know what its financial position is? Probably not. If you did, you'd better get some damn good terms on that investment (much like a bank would demand higher interest rates from riskier loan applicants).

Getting back to the original message, the fact is that trying to keep these banks private and invest money in them, without having a sense of their financial picture and without getting some amazing terms on the investment, is a risky proposition. For the reasons I described above, trying to get a clear sense of the financial picture is likely not going to happen. So, all you can do is demand great terms.

However, think about that for a moment - what kinds of terms can we demand for our investment? Typical terms include increased ownership (e.g., owning a larger stake for your investment), control over decision making (so that funds are being spent in a way that you believe is appropriate rather than being spent on corporate jets and executive bonuses), and so on. Now, think about that one step further. The investor here is the government. So what we are talking about is ultimately, the Government getting a larger ownership stake in a bank and being allowed to guide the bank's operations. Yes, folks, it's nationalization.

So, when I hear some random senator (GOP or otherwise) balk at the idea of nationalization of banks, I can't help but to think that they are either stupid or that they have a hidden agenda. We can sugarcoat the language and call it something else like pre-privatization or whatever makes people feel better. But let's not kid ourselves here. I think the situation is bleak, and we need to stop beating around bush, and call it what it is so that we can deal with it.

As bleak as it is, the situation is still not hopeless. America is still a propserous country. Lots of people still have jobs and most people are still able to make their monthly payments. The toxic assets on a bank's balance sheet still have value. But I don't think we are doing ourselves any favors by allowing superficial concerns to get in the way of the rather treacherous road to recovery.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

The Bush Recession

2009-02-17T13:07:00.000-08:00

Steve Rosenbaum at the Huffington Post wrote a nice piece that explains the policies of the Bush administration that led to our current recession.

I've pasted the text below. My take is that is that the last eight years promoted an environment of unchecked greed. I believe there is plenty of blame to pass around. I blame not only the bankers, loan agents, and CEOs, but also those citizens who took out loans they couldn't afford or who took out home equity lines of credit to buy plasma screen TVs rather than investing more in their own education. Granted there was a lot of misleading going on.

The thing is that greed begets greed. When you have a CEO who takes out more than his fair share of th pie, then that prompts those under him to do the same - for fear that they'll be left out. So, things don't trickle down. Instead, there's a clog. And you end up with a deeper division of wealth in which those at the upper end of the spectrum have an even greater proportion of wealth and a greater number of people find themselves at the lower end, having an even harder time trying to make ends meet.

Don't get me wrong. The US is not the country with the greatest division of wealth out there. Countries like India are worse. So too are places like Africa and Latin America. But therein lies the problem. Countries with the greatest divisions of wealth coincide with those that are considered third world.

I mean do we really want to have the US become a third-world country?? Is that what the end goal is of our government? Sometimes I feel it is. There has been too much focus on bailing out the rich and giving them a greater share of the pie than they deserve, while squeezing out the rest of the population. Finally, we've reached a critical breaking point. One too many straws, and the camel's back has gone "crack"...

I don't know what the solution is to this mess. I suspect that it will involve both near term and long term measures. It won't be easy. Ultimately, though, we need to create a fundamental shift in the consciousness of society. We need to move away from unabashed greed. We need to focus more effort on fundamentally improving education. We need to get back to a mentality of striving to be the best rather than being "content" with being second best. Ultimately, we live in a meritocracy - and that's something that the information age has brought about. No longer are people going to be content buying US products because they were made here -- especially when better products can be bought abroad. Have you looked around you in a parking lot lately? Ever wonder why you see so many foreign cars?

One of the first signs that the world has shifted should have been clear in the story of Google. Here was a company that entered the search engine space, which was already crowded, with only a modicum of capital and no real effort spent on marketing. What they offered was a simple interface and what was at the time the best technology out there. That won out. They are now the dominant players in their space. In contrast, a while back that would never have happened. For example, Microsoft has long peddled inferior products, and have used their market share and essentially monopoly-like muscle to gain profits. The tables have largely turned.

In the information age, people are no longer dazzled by fancy graphics. They are no longer victim to one company's dominance. Instead, they are interested in buying the best possible products. And that's what our economy ultimately needs to do to garner success. Economics is, at its heart, a simple matter of balancing production with consumption. If one is out of whack, then the see-saw will come crashing down. We've exceeded production - but only of crap - and now have a "liquidity" crisis since people aren't interested in consuming it.

It's time we get back on track. Towards not accepting mediocrity. Towards producing worthwhile products, and not consuming more than we actually produce.

... OK, that was a real tangent. As you can see, I have a lot of thoughts on the issue. So, without further adieu, here's the HuffPo article I mentioned earlier. Ultimately, I think it's important to keep in mind that the effects of the last eight years will take at least as long to deal with. Rebuilding after a catastrophe takes a long time. I hope President Obama has the courage to make decisions that lead to longer-term benefits, even if it won't be clear to the average American that those benefits stemmed from his policy choices.

When Barack Obama took office, it was clearly with a vision of a bi-partisan (or in his mind - 'post partisan') administration. This was clearly naive. Perhaps voters want it, and perhaps there are some enlightened politicians who can see the forest for the trees, but for the large majority - the Democratic win in 2008 is little more than a call for the Republicans to regroup and prepare for a full frontal assault in 2012.

If this wasn't clear before the vote on the Stimulus package, it should be clear now.

Already Republican operatives are drafting commercials for the midterm elections. They'll play like this: "Since Barack Obama took office, XX Americans have lost their jobs, XX Americans have lost their homes, and XX Americans have filed for bankruptcy. In light of the failed programs of the Obama administration, it's time to re-elect Republicans on a platform of tax reform, smaller government, and less handouts to the poor and underprivileged."

These commercials will work, because we all know that however successful the stimulus package is, there will be months, or years of economic pain before we start to see the positive effects of these investments.

So, what to do about this?

The answer is, we must name our pain. We must begin to refer to the current recession as the "Bush Recession." We must talk about the difficult, complex, long-term efforts we'll need to all engage in order to reverse the toxic economic environment created by the "Bush Recession."

The Bush Recession didn't happen overnight -- it took 8 years of careful, purposeful, willful actions to create this cycle of economic devastation.

I understand why Obama isn't focused on blaming the Bush administration. He's right to look forward, rather than back. There's way too much to do to spend any cycles placing blame. At the same time, if we don't name our pain, then we're likely to find ourselves fighting off right wing pundits in 2 years, and 4, who try to re-write history and hold the Obama administration responsible for the very things they're trying to fix.

So, with that in mind, let's catalog the drivers that have created the Bush Recession, and make sure we agree that these collective actions happened long before the Obama administration was in the White House.

First, the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. During the 8 years the Bush administration was in charge, we saw a dramatic expansion in available credit to borrowers who where not able to quality for conventional mortgages. This boom in new buyers drove up housing prices, creating a bubble of newfound wealth in the equity of homes, and creating a cycle of borrowing against newly inflated home equity. This bubble was evident to economists and consumers alike, yet in the absence of any legislation or government controls - the trend continued to balloon.

Second, Iraq. The cost of our dramatic increase in military spending provided a huge drain on the Federal Budget, as services that were heretofore part of the military budget became privatized and outsourced. Companies like Blackwater and Halliburton received huge military contracts to provide services - often without bids or oversight. Now, seven years later, we're uncovering fraud, waste, and violations of human rights that reflect both the size of the contracts and the Government's basic lack of ability to oversee or administer these programs. The elixir of privatization and deregulation created an environment that was ripe for fraud and misuse. In hindsight, is this any surprise?

Third, abandonment of a US economic vision. For 8 years the Bush administration focused on security and fear, while any vision of our economic future got put on hold. Gasoline taxes, emission standards or innovation in our core sectors were all either ignored or frowned upon.

Fourth, the environment. As George Bush dragged his heals on any environmental science, things like Kyoto were left unsigned. As former Vice President Al Gore raised the nation's awareness of Global Warming, the Bush Administration sought to minimize and obfuscate the science around climate change. As a result, government funding for new energy was back-burnered, and industries that count on the Government to legislate change and create a level playing field continued to build and produce gas guzzling trucks and automobiles. While world governments have used gas taxes to drive both conservation and innovation, the Bush administration essentially subsidized fossil fuel burning automobiles. The result, our energy industries are desperately behind, and our automotive industry is almost a decade behind in thinking about alternative energy.

Fifth, Wall Street and Banking. For 8 years there has been a dramatic expansion in the services and fast consolidation of what had been separate and in some cases regulated industries. As banking, brokerage, insurance, and financial services companies acquired and merged - the speed of these transactions far exceeded the regulatory ability or resources (not by accident) resulting in such things as credit default swaps that now even seasoned wall-streeters say were hard to understand.

The Bush Recession isn't the result of a single bad decision, or even actions out of our control. For 8 years we've allowed a handful of private industries to operate without oversight or review, with a focus on short term gains, as environmental and world economic issues have loomed large.

The Obama administration will face all the known issues that were the underpinning of the Bush Recession, as well as the need to manage and respond to the emerging crisis. So to suggest that a mere 24 months from the start of his administration, Obama and his Cabinet should be able to show enough progress to push back a full on frontal assault from the Republicans is beyond optimistic, it is impossible. The Republicans have made it clear by voting en-mass against the Stimulus Plan that they are positioning their party to run against Obama - and to essentially do what they can to blunt any potential progress or improvement in the conditions for average Americans that might be held up as a success for the Administration. This kind of partisan politics comes at the expense of average Americans and the country itself. To suggest that after spending 8 years building the largest government, the least oversight, and the largest deficit in history, they will run in 2010 on a platform that is against Stimulus and 'small government' is a clue about just how short a memory the Republican's think average Americans have for the condition of the economy.

We shouldn't let this happen.

It is the Bush Recession. We're deep in the teeth of it now. And we'll need to fight to regain economic stability and future prosperity that once seemed like an American birthright. The Bush Recession didn't happen overnight, and it won't be fixed overnight either.

Republicans should take responsibility for the economic conditions they brought on the country. And that means being part of the solution, rather than standing on the sidelines and looking for a 'Rovian' way to misdirect American anger in a cynical attempt to regain power.
Let's call it what it is -- "The Bush Recession."
!

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Bipartisanship Shmipartisanship

2009-02-16T17:19:00.000-08:00

I think President Obama got a major reality check during his experience with passing the stimulus package. I don't think he realized just how small-minded and petty the GOP faction of the congress could be.

And to that I say... screw them. Don't elect any of these morons to office again. They are all generally well off, and so they don't really care about the major problems this country is facing. PROBLEMS THEY CAUSED! Problems that resulted from fictitious wars that ate our budget, from business deregulation that fueled greed, from excessive tax cuts that didn't quite trickle down, and from lack of spending on critical needs like education that has resulted in a society of morons -- who can't understand why someone on a $50,000 a year salary shouldn't be taking out a $500,000 a year mortgage, no matter how attractive the loan broker claims the terms are.

The GOP jokers are going around talking about further tax cuts -- and then they claim that the stimulus plan is robbing a generation? Come on now...

Now having said that, I still believe that action (even sub-optimal action) is superior to inaction in this case. The country is in the midst of a shitstorm, and we need to take bold measures to address it. It is sad - truly sad - that GOP'ers would rather see the country go down in flames just so that they could hold on to their empty ideals.

At the same time, I've always believed that when someone's back is to a wall, when they have lost sense of reason, and when they have absolutely nothing to lose -- that's when you should be concerned about what they'll do. And when those people believe that they are standing up for fundamental principles (whether justified or not), then their actions can be downright scary and devastating. Let's think about that -- who else do we know with those characteristics? Remember the Iraq war? We went in there thinking we were going to shock and awe them -- and in the end, only we were shocked and awed. When someone has nothing to lose, then they fight with a fiercefulness that is powerful.

That's today's GOP also. They were damaged during the last election. They are feeling the pressure of losing even more seats next election. They have "principles" they are trying to uphold. So make no mistake - they will take any steps they can to regain footing.

So, I suggest taking an approach that tries to engage them in the debate - but taking the polite and firm stance that this is a courtesy you don't need to extend. Ultimately, this country does not need half solutions just like Sarah Palin's daughter was not half pregnant. We need to act boldly, swiftly, and optimally. We need to spend every taxpayer dollar in a way that can generate economic growth, especially in the medium to long term.

Mr. Obama - I believe in you and your ability to address the problems in this country. I'm sure you realize just how deep those problems are and how much effort will be required to fix them. In the process of trying to take the higher road - in the process of trying to fuel bipartisanship - all I ask is that you don't sacrifice the betterment of this country and its people through policy choices that are suboptimal. More than ever, this country needs you (even though a little less than half the country may not realize it) - so don't let us down!

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

GOP Opposes Pay Limits On Bailed-Out Bankers

2009-02-06T13:54:00.001-08:00

Well - it has been a really long time since I last posted. Things have been really busy - and it was time to make up for all the procrastinating and blogging I did during the campaign. It was certainly nice to revel in the profound and transformational victory of President Obama. Now that the dust is settling, he is perhaps getting a full glimpse of the clusterf*ck that he has walked into. I mean the Bush administration messed up big, real big.

I just saw an article on Huffpo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/gop-opposes-pay-limits-on_n_164544.html

It says that the GOP opposes pay limits to bailed out bankers. They claim that it is "un-American" to tell a business how to run. WTF?? I'm not sure what planet they're from or maybe they've taken one-too-many hits from Michael Phelps's bong. When you are giving a business some serious cash -- really throwing it a lifeline - then you have every right to demand that the money be spent appropriately. The purpose of stimulus money is to actually stimulate the economy. And for that to happen, banks need to stop hoarding cash and start making investments in projects that can provide longer-term positive returns on investment (for example, investing in business that a compelling value proposition or lending money to homeowners or potential homeowners who are actually capable of paying it back). The last thing these executives deserve is a fat paycheck after making a slew of moronic decisions that ultimately ran their business into the ground.

One thing I'm sick of is when someone makes a fallacious argument to support a cause - knowing full well that their arguments are nonsense. Lawyers often do this when they are defend clients who they know full well are guilty of some wrongdoing. Politicians do this when they support a particular choice not for the reasons they give, but rather because they were "subsidized" by some lobbyist group or because they are simply looking out for a friend. It would refreshing if the GOP simply said "You know what? I'm against bailout-mandated pay limits on executives because that executive is a friend of mine. I'm just looking out for his best interest not yours." They'd still assh*les in my opinion, but at least they'd be honest.

There is nothing uncommon about making a stipulation regarding an investment. When a venture capital firm makes an investment in a start-up, they often have a long list of requirements for the allocation of those funds, and usually seed the board of directors with principals from the firm to ensure that the funds are being spent appropriately. And so when the company wants to purchase a slew of Aeron chairs, it thinks twice about making that request.

I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect the same for these banks. Hell, if executives are complaining that they are not getting paid enough, then I suggest we scrap the whole "bailout" plan. Let these banks fail. They deserve it. Now that's capitalism, baby! And that's the most "American" solution.

If anything the bailout money should be used towards better aims and more useful economic stimulus that can bring sustained rewards. For example, it would probably cost less to recapitalize a new set of banks with clean balance sheets. Because these banks's balance sheets are clean, they would be able to figure out the net-worth of their assets, compare that to their liabilities, and actually invest the money that's coming towards projects that can bring positive returns and longer-term economic growth.

Alternatively, stimulus money can be used to increase tax credits for energy-saving initiatives. For example, arrange for the installation of solar panels for any home owner with no up-front cost - and reap a percentage of the savings. The returns on such an investment would be positive in the long run and it would reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.

In general, I think the problem with this whole stimulus notion as it is currently being promulgated is that we are addressing the symptoms rather than the cause. Investment banks engendered a culture of greed that has resulted in them losing their shirts. We can give them new shirts, but that doesn't mean they'll be less greedy. American automakers mostly make crappier cars compared to their foreign counterparts, and given how much we rely on our automobiles, no dose of patriotism would cause me to consider getting a less reliable car. We can subsidize the automaker's operations so they have a few more months to live, but that doesn't mean they'll start making better cars.

Now I realize that there are a vast number of complexities, and that I'm largely oversimplifying matters. Be that as it may, I think it should be clear that not a single dime of the stimulus money should go to any one person or entity without a plan that the return on the investment will be positive and that it will lead to a longer-term fixing of our economy.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Something "Fishy" in Alaska?

2008-11-07T09:57:00.000-08:00

Shannyn Moore from the Huffington post wrote an interesting article today. I don't know if it will get much mainstream media attention considering Obama's pending press conference and the national interest in his cabinet choices, but this story definitely deserves to be heard.

Basically, there are two serious issuess:

(1) The percentage turnout in Alaska was way lower this year than in 2004 -- which is bizarre considering the historic nature of the election, and the fact that one of Alaska's own on the VP ticket. (Note that voter turnout in across the rest of America was up across the board.)

(2) There was a serious discrepancy between the polls and final outcome (not only in the Presidential race, but also in the other races -- which is really why this issue is important).

With a hotly contested senate race and house race that are still too close to call, this matter is a serious one. If Republican Senator Stevens, who officially became a convicted felon in the midst of the campaign, retains his seat, and then is then expelled by Congress (which will almost certainly happen), there will be a special election -- and you betcha that Sarah Palin will likely grab the chance to run for Senator (and given her overwhelming popularity in her home state, is the odds on favorite to take it down).

Having her catapulted back on the national stage would, in my opinion, be terrible. We are hearing increasing reports of her lack of awareness and readiness. Further, she demonstrated a knack for inciting hatred and division -- and that's the last thing this country needs.

Ultimately, though, the core issue here is Democracy. Every legitimately casted vote should be counted. Voters waited in long lines to have their say, and their voices should be heard.

Without further adieu, here's the article:

Something stinks. Not just an ordinary low tide smell. Not like something you'd blame on the dog. It smells like an infection. For me to plug my nose, I'd have to overlook some curious facts.

In Alaska, more people voted for George W. Bush in 2004 than for Sarah Palin on Tuesday despite an identical 61-36 margin of victory. Yes. Only four years ago 54,304 Alaskans got off their sofas and voted for Bush, but decided to sit home and not vote for Palin in 2008. In turn, I have to ignore the 30,520 Alaskans who felt progressive enough in 2004 to vote for John Kerry, but weren't inspired to vote for Barack Obama. I would have to glance past the 1,700% increase in the Democratic caucus in February, the 20,991 newly registered voters, and the three largest political rallies in Alaska's history. I would also have to forget the people I stood in a long line with to early vote. It would be helpful not to know every other presidential election since Alaska began keeping records has had a larger turn out than the one we just had with our own Governor on the ticket. Try not to remember 12.4% more Alaskans showed up for the August primary as compared to four years ago, before the Palin nomination. Don't think about the Lower 49's record voter turn out this year either. Try to delete the memory file, though difficult, that 80% of us approved of Sarah Palin just two months ago.

Something stinks. You don't care? Obama won. Yes. He. Did! Free at Last! Wait. Democracy demands all of the votes be counted...if you can find them.

In the balance hangs the fate of Alaska's Senate and House seats. We still don't know if we have elected the now convicted felon Ted Stevens, or Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. We still don't know if Don Young and his million dollar legal problems will defeat former State Representative Ethan Berkowitz and his dreams of Washington DC. Alaska hasn't had Democrat representation in Congress since Mike Gravel lost his senate seat in 1980.

Four years ago, 313,592 out of 474,740 registered voters in Alaska participated in the election-a 66% turnout. Taking into account 49,000 outstanding ballots, on Tuesday 272,633 out of 495,731 registered Alaskans showed up at the polls; a turnout of 54.9%. That's a decrease of more than 11% in voter turnout even though passions ran high for and against Barack Obama, as well as for and against Sarah Palin! This year, early voters set a new record. As of last Thursday, with 4 days left to vote early, 15,000 Alaskans showed up-shattering the old record set in 2004 by 28%! Consider the most popular governor in history-and now the most polarizing-was on the Republican ticket. Consider the historic nature of this race; the first African American presidential candidate EVER! The second woman to ever make a presidential ticket; and she's one of our own. Despite that, we're supposed to believe that overall participation DECREASED by 11%. Not only that, but this historic election both nationally and for Alaska HAD THE LOWEST ALASKA TURNOUT FOR A PRESIDENTIAL RACE EVER!!! That makes sense. REALLY??? Something stinks.

But wait, there's more...

Pre election polls had both Mark Begich-D and Ethan Berkowitz-D solidly beating incumbents Senator Ted Stevens and Congressman Don Young by at least 6-10 points. Stevens is currently ahead by 3,353 votes with 49,000 ballots left to count. Berkowitz, however, is behind by 16,887 votes; a 51-43 margin.

Are we to believe Don Young came from an 8 point average polling deficit to win by 8 points-a whopping 16 point turnaround??? Remember how historic the pundits thought Hillary Clinton's come from behind New Hampshire Primary victory was? She trailed Barack Obama by 9% in the pre primary polls and ended up winning by 2 points. It was called the most "stunning comeback in political history." On Election Night, Don Young topped Hillary Clinton's startling and unprecedented comeback.

Furthermore, there were nearly three thousand Alaskans, (2,783) that voted yet left the hotly contested congressional race blank. In the highly publicized senate race, complete with a nationally covered trial that ended with seven felony convictions for the incumbent, 1,392 Alaskans submitted a ballot and failed to register a vote in the senate race. I'm not sure statistically what that means, but it strikes me as odd that well over a thousand Alaskans would wait in long lines and not cast a vote in either the senate race or the congressional race-especially since there was only one ballot measure. In addition, this particular election had an extra high degree of local interest with Governor Palin on the national stage.

McCain-Palin was ahead in Alaska pre election polling by as much as 55-40. The Haysresearch Poll that came out Sunday indicated that gap had closed to 2.7 points! That poll was certainly consistent with Palin's reverse meteoric fall in popularity within the state of Alaska. In that same Haysresearch Poll released on November 2, Question 2 addressed Governor Palin's positive-negative rating. 11% of Alaskans surveyed said their opinion of Palin had become more positive while 37% indicated they were more negative towards Palin. Yesterday's vote contradicts those polls. McCain-Palin won Alaska 61-36! A 25 POINT SPREAD!!! An identical point spread as the 2004 Election.

Alaska has certainly had our share of election hanky panky. Check out this link to our 2004 election results. There are 40 districts in Alaska. The Anchorage area districts run from District 17-District 32. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and pick any district from 17-32. Pay particular attention to the 3rd column labeled % turnout. Hit the back arrow and select another district. There are more precincts with voter turnout over 100% than under 100%. In other words, many more people voted in Anchorage area precincts than there were registered voters. Clearly, this is not possible.

In 2006, the Democrats filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Division of Elections to release public records needed to verify the 2004 election results. The Democrats also sought to have the Alaska Division of Elections release the raw data for the 2006 election. The State requested several deadline extensions and eventually refused to release the "central tabulator data file" taken from the Diebold-supplied computer used to run the "GEMS" (Global Election Management Software) application. A lawsuit was filed in Superior Court seeking release of the records. The Court eventually forced the State to release the 2004 database. The software was found to contain hundreds of edits after the 2004 election, including as late as July of 2006, prior to the release of the data.

With all that history, and the bizarre anomalies in polling and voting and reports from the field of ballots not being scanned on-site due to broken machines, could this election have been stolen?

The world is watching Alaska's US Senate race. When President-Elect Barack Obama is sworn in on January 20, he will be greeted by a Senate with at least 57 Democrats-three shy of a filibuster-proof majority. And, there are still three hotly contested US Senate races that are too close to call; Georgia, Minnesota and Alaska. Just when we thought we were out of the national spotlight...

I've always said if Democracy was a religion, voting would be the sacrament. I'm wondering if someone stole the body and blood of this election. I'm wondering if the wine isn't poisoned. Take a few whiffs. Breathe deeply. See if you don't come to the same conclusion. Where are the votes? Something stinks at the Alaska Division of Elections.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Oh What a Night

2008-11-05T02:18:00.000-08:00

It is hard to believe that we are finally here. That senator Obama is now President Elect Obama. That the same country, which voted in George W. Bush, has now chosen to vote in a skinny black man, with a funny name, and a truly unique story into the Oval Office.

Tonight will go down as a defining moment in history. A moment when we can all be proud of what our country has achieved, and of what it can achieve.

There are those who probably never thought they'd see such a moment in their lives. And there are others who not only kept the hope alive at the right times, but let that hope thrive. What started out as a spark has emerged into a wildfire, and I for one am thrilled to be a part of it.

Members of the Democratic party scored great victories tonight. A few Republicans did the same. But ultimately, the greatest victory falls within the hands of the American people. It is inspiring to be able to look at a President who is truly a roll model, and someone you can tell your children to aspire to be like.

All of that aside, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. The hardest part of the battle is just beginning. We have a short time to prove that the change we hoped for can indeed pay dividends, and that it will take the country in the direction it needs to go. This task will not be easy. Our country is in a far weaker state than we were eight years ago. Not many comprehend the extent of this weakness, but it is profound.

We need to lay the foundations for America's recovery. To set the expectations that no matter how great the person who occupies the Oval office, the overall burden to fix this country's ailments also falls on each one of us; whether we're on Wall Street or Main Street.

To President Elect Obama, I'm proud not only of what you've accomplished, but of the spark you've managed to light in so many of us. I am personally eager to be one more element in your quest to change the way Washington works.

After two years of tireless campaigning on your part, and just a couple of months of my screaming out to get my voice heard, I feel a sense of hope and inspiration that I haven't felt in so long. That sentiment was one I was unsure I'd ever feel again -- and just like it was hard to imagine that we would have been in a society where those hopes were dashed for eight years, it is now a little hard to come to the realization that a terrible era in this country's history his come to an end.

Tonight has been a long night for so many of us. But we will be able to close our eyes and drift off to sleep with a sense of peace and well being that we have not felt in so long. And waking up sufficiently rested, we will forge ahead and play our respective roles in making America great again.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Finally here and an Open Letter to Barack Obama

2008-11-04T11:09:00.000-08:00

We're finally here. My otherwise relatively calm demeanor is partially besieged by a sense of anxiety and apprehension. This is it. We'll finally know whether America is a ultimately a Democracy or whether I should consider looking for residence elsewhere.

And now, an open letter to Barack Obama:

To Senator Obama, I want to say thank you.

While I've always been intellectually curious and have spent time thinking about important issues, at no other time in my life have I felt so engaged in the political process. You taught me that good things are worth fighting for, that we all have a voice, and that ultimately the collection of our voices can have a profound effect on this country.

At no other time have I so voraciously read every news article, feverishly sought out every media clip, or passionately expressed my thoughts about our future President.

At times this process has been glorious (typically after listing to one of your speeches). I've seen folks from all walks of life come together. I've been inspired by your message of unity and of hope. I've been impressed by the consistency and thoroughness of your plans to tackle critical problems ranging from the economy to energy to health care. During these times, especially after eight years of failed Bush policies, America needs to heal and to regain its footing, and I truly believe you are the best person for that job.

At other times times, this process has been disheartening. Especially when I've listened to John McCain and Sarah Palin try to sell their vision of America based on empty promises, lies and fear. If they truly believed that they offered a compelling future for this country, then why would they resort to such tactics? Nothing was more evident of this than when I watched John McCain during his last rally in Arizona. In his home state, among a rather paltry crowd, he spoke vociferously. No matter what your ailment, he claimed he could fix it -- just like the quintessential snake oil salesman. But his promises were empty. They were not backed by his policy choices, and if anything those choices would worsen the situation for most Americans.

And not that far away, Sarah Palin was engaged in similar tactics. Calling you a terrorist, a socialist, and a whole slew of other derogatory terms. It was unbearable to hear such nonsense and dishonesty spew out of one person's mouth, let alone a person running for Vice President and whose running mate was old enough that he may not make it through the next four years.

Throughout all of this Senator Obama, I have admired your decision to consistently take the high road. It is a stance that is not only the right one to take, but also the one that requires the most courage. It demonstrates your overarching belief in America and its people. That ultimately, the masses can overcome small mindedness and bigotry; that we can choose hope over fear, and unity over division.

It is hard to believe that you have been at this process for two years -- having every one of your moves and decisions scrutinized -- losing your privacy and, quite frankly, putting your life on the line every time you go out there. My own strong interest in the election has not been for nearly as long, and still I feel restless and anxious, and yearning for the next couple of hours to pass so that the fruits of your labors can become evident.

You have inspired not only a generation, but an entire society. You made those who idly sat by and watched as politics "happened to them" decide to actually stand up and do something. You made every day Americans like me feel like they were engaged in the political process.

Even though I may never get a chance to say thank you in person, I feel like at some level I know you. It may be in part because your presence on the national stage has reminded us of what should be ingrained in our heads by now: El Pluribus Unum -- "Out of Many, One". Or it may simply be that your successes thus far epitomize the American dream -- that if you are willing to work hard and persevere, then you can achieve great success in your endeavors -- and that dream is one that resonates in all of us. Or it could be that the tapestry of your own experiences contain threads that I can personally relate to and that others can as well.

If the dust settles tonight, and you do not emerge victorious, I will be truly saddened. Because I know the only way that can happen now is if the forces of dishonesty overcame the virtues of truth; or if the specter of evil overcame the righteousness of the good. For the sake of our country, for the sake of democracy, and for the sake our children's future, America needs you -- even if there are small-minded folks out there who don't realize it.

America is forever better off because it got to know you these past two years. You have inspired us, and engaged us in the well being of our country. Those values are priceless. Ultimately, regardless of what happens, I want you to know that I will forever be grateful for what you have done. So, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you.

Sincerely,
...

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Barack Obama's Best Speeches

2008-11-04T00:20:00.000-08:00

With election day finally here, I wanted to post some of my favorite speeches of Barack Obama during this election. If you are among the 1 in 10 who are undecided, please take a look for yourself. (Though it is hard to imagine that so many people are still undecided!)

Winning in Iowa:

Victory speech in South Carolina on clinching the Democratic nomination

Speech in Berlin:

Race speech:

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Election Fraud Tolerated

2008-11-03T23:09:00.000-08:00

Article from the Huffington Post:

State elections officials have identified the person responsible for a phony election flier that told Republicans to vote on Tuesday and Democrats to vote a day later.

State Board of Elections Secretary Nancy Rodrigues said Monday the flier bearing the Virginia seal and the elections board logo was a joke that got out of control. The flier was distributed early last week across Hampton Roads. State police confirmed it also was distributed by e-mail.

State officials declined to name the person who created the flier or a second person who began distributing it.

While distribution of false information to voters is a misdemeanor, state police spokeswoman Corinne Geller says no charges would be filed.

How the heck can Americans tolerate this? This election makes me feel like I live in a third-world country where wide-scale election fraud is commonplace. Election fraud of this sort should be a felony offense, and they should throw a book at this guy.

Further, Secretary Rodrigues should be fired for being so apathetic about the matter.

Some advice to America from the Daily Kos: don't tolerate this crap. Call the Virginia Board of Election and tell them not only that it is intolerable for being flippant about election fraud, but that if they fail to express the gravity around voter fraud you will start a petition to put pressure on getting the whole board fired.

Virginia Board of Elections
Suite 101, 200 North 9th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-3485
Telephone: 804 864-8901 Toll Free: 800 552-9745 FAX: 804 371-0194
Board Members:

Chairman: Jean Cunningham
Vice-Chair: Harold Pyon
Secretary: Nancy Rodrigues

The Case for McCain -- NOT

2008-11-03T14:42:00.001-08:00

While traversing the roads of cyberspace, I've seen a few people make their case for John McCain. What disturbs me is that their case is often misguided or based on faulty logic.

Here are a few reasons why people claim they are voting for McCain together with why I feel that the vote is being made for the wrong reasons:

Myth: McCain's military experience makes him more qualified on national security and foreign policy matters.

First, let's get a grip on McCain's military experience. John McCain graduated near the bottom of his class from military school. In his early military career, he developed a reputation for crashing planes. In fact, any other soldier would have been ordered out with such a record. However, McCain was granted special privileges because of his father's military status, and allowed to continue on. John McCain spent less than twenty hours in combat before his plane crashed in Vietnam (the fifth plane McCain crashed). Yes, McCain did serve on the military, but he was far from a good soldier. It's like this: would you trust a doctor to operate on you if you found out he graduated near the bottom of his class, had minimal experience in the operating room, and recently killed five patients? Probably not.

Myth: Barack Obama will raise your taxes.

This lie that has been repeatedly peddled by McCain-Palin. Senator Obama's tax plan is pretty clear cut and available for anyone to read. If you actually examine the plan, you'll realize that most Americans actually pay less under Obama's plan than under McCain's plan! I cringe every time McCain-Palin claim to be looking out for the working class, when in reality they will take tax dollars away from the working class and hand them to the uber-wealthy. For our economy to get back on track, it's important to give the working class some breathing room.

Adjusting for inflation, wages of typical Americans have not gone up, and yet our actual cost of living has. Americans have responded to this issue in several ways:

Working more hours
More dual-income families
Increased debt (via both credit cards and home equity lines of credit)

The problem is that there is no more room. Working class Americans have been squeezed and re-squeezed. It is harder for people to make ends meet. That's why I prefer Senator Obama's tax plan.

Think about it. If you give an extra $10,000 to a wealthy American, what happens? Well, they likely take most of it and buy some stocks, bonds, and throw what remains into a money market account. Maybe they'll spend a bit of it, but probably not since they already have a lot of money to spend. These options don't do much to stimulate the economy. Wealthy Americans, on average, tend to save a greater percentage of their income. After all, there is only so much you can spend money on.

Now consider what happens when you take that same $10,000 and give a $100 each to a 100 families that are struggling financially. They will likely use that $100 to purchase basic items like groceries, make rent or mortgage payments, or help pay off some of that credit card debt. In short, the money actually ends up in circulation. It's quite simple. Economics is about consumption and production. To have a growing economy, both need to happen in greater degrees. Giving a tax break to working class Americans promotes a growing economy; giving a bigger tax break to the uber wealthy only leads America down the path of becoming a third-world nation in which all the wealth is concentrated among a few elite members of society, while everyone else is living in poverty.

And that leads to the next myth.

Myth: Obama is a Socialist and wants to spread the wealth around

This statement is beyond nonsensical. When you work out the percentages in the tax plans, we're talking about a difference of a few percent between Obama and Bush. Further, John McCain voted for a $700,000,000,000 economic rescue package that will nationalize the financial sector. McCain is also a proponent of spending $300,000,000,000 buying out mortgages -- that seems pretty socialist to me.

Again, it's pretty simple. If you left things completely unchecked, those who are wealthy and in power would basically rob the rest of the country blind. That's what happened these past eight years. Tell me, if the economy was so great, why is it that many average Americans are unable to afford basic needs like food, rent, and medical coverage? It's because the money never trickled down like Bush and McCain claimed it would.

If I had to describe Senator Obama's plan economic plan, it would be quite simple: capitalism with a human face. That's what's missing now that wasn't missing in the past. Not that long ago, you could work hard at a company for 30 years, retire, and receive a gold watch and a pension that would allow you to live comfortably. The gold watch and pension are not privileges -- they are rights. When you worked for that company for 30+ years, you were paying into the system all that time. The promise was that the money you put in would be returned to you when you needed it.

Unfortunately, that concept is now a pipe dream. Corporations have gotten incredibly greedy -- executives will not hesitate for a moment to outsource your job, seize your pension, and distribute your hard-earned cash among the other executives who will use it buy Dom Perignion and Russian caviar. Meanwhile you won't be able to afford to buy even basic groceries. Look, there's nothing wrong with a society in which those who work the hardest reap the biggest rewards. But there is something wrong in a society that's ruthless it tramples over other peoples' dignity and basic well being to do so.

Senator Obama has correctly assessed that for capitalism to work, the human side of the equation must also be protected. Even Alan Greenspan made the case that he didn't account for the excessive greed and dishonesty that has caused our economic downfall.

Not exactly a Myth, but a Misconception: John McCain has more experience.

There is no doubt that John McCain is much older and the quintessential Washington insider. But let's not forget that what we're ultimately interested in is the next President's decision making capabilities and judgment. The premise is that more experience leads to better decision making and judgment. But that's not always the case.

Look at John McCain's erratic behavior during the financial crisis, or his selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate. Since McCain is 70+ years old and has had multiple bouts with cancer, the least we could have expected him to do is spend some time vetting his running mate. There is a very realistic chance that McCain could die in the next few years. Remember, people typically retire at age 65, not look for a career change. McCain spent all of a couple of hours talking to Palin. How would you feel if your company hired a CEO that it only spent a couple of hours interviewing?

While Sarah Palin has her charms and good looks, they don't qualify her for President. She hasn't spent any serious time thinking about the big problems America faces and how to address them. All she has been able to do so far is get briefed on the issues by her handlers, and then try to parrot those talking points. When someone asks her a question that go beyond those talking points, she looks like a deer in the headlights.

Ultimately, it's a mistake to vote for someone just because you think it'll be fun to have a beer with them. Too many Americans made that mistake with Bush -- and look where it got us. The brink of economic disaster, a huge budget deficit, an unfathomably large national debt, and in the middle of two wars neither of which we are winning (because the terms of a "victory" were never exactly defined).

Myth: It's all about small-town values and morals -- and that's what John McCain and Sarah Palin are all about.

John McCain, by his own admission, cheated on his first wife, divorced her and married an heiress. John McCain probably has more personal wealth than some entire small towns! Sarah Palin's own daughter got knocked-up out of wedlock. She paraded about talking about working class America, all while wearing clothes that cost $150,000.00. I don't know too many working class Americans that can afford such clothing. Heck, Palin's wardrobe alone probably exceeds the net worth of most working class Americans several times over.

McCain and Palin have been bandying about this election -- saying one thing while practicing another. They aren't looking out for your best interests, but just your vote. And they will say whatever they need in order to get it.

How can Americans stand any more of this?

I hope you join me in voting for Barack Obama. This election will be close. For Senator Obama to win, not only must he gather the votes that represent the will of the people, but he must also overcome all the dishonest tactics that the McCain-Palin campaign are levying. To ensure Barack's victory, not only must he win, but we can't even allow it to be close. Even if you don't live in a swing state, it will be incredibly important to vote. The more votes Barack Obama has, the harder it will be for McCain to get away with vote fraud.

Make no mistake. John McCain has demonstrated time and again that he is willing to go to any length to win this election. For John McCain, this election has never been about you or about America -- it has always been about John McCain. Please don't let him get away with it.

This election is not just about the direction our country needs to take, but also about preserving the fundamental fabric of Democracy from which America was woven.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

A Democracy?

2008-11-03T10:24:00.000-08:00

I started this blog in the wake of the Republican National Convention -- largely because I was so appalled at the prospect of President Palin - err McCain... From the onset I have been a fan of Senator Barack Obama. I truly, fundamentally, deeply believe that he is the person this country needs so desperately right now.

Senator Obama is, in the words of General Colin Powell, a "transformational" figure -- someone who comes along once in a generation (if we're lucky) and changes the way things work for the better. I believe that a majority Americans share this sentiment in one way, shape, or form. There is only remaining challenge he needs to overcome to become President: the simple fact that America is just not a democracy.

In a democracy, elected officials are supposed to carry out the wishes of the people. If the majority of the people share a given sentiment, elected officials should align themselves around that sentiment. It is the guiding principle that our founding fathers set forth, and it is the invisible hand that has lifted us in our times of need, and pushed us into prosperity.

But we Americans have lost our way. We are no better than the countries that we have looked at from outside and shaken our heads at. We are no better than those whom we have cast judgments on. We have become our own worst nightmare.

It may not be something we fully realize. We express hatred for Al-Qaeda because they killed three thousand of our men, women, and children on 9/11. Yet, we don't have nearly a fraction of that hatred towards George Bush who killed more than four thousand soldiers by ushering them into a Iraq to fight a war on made up premises.

We scratch our heads at the Kenyan election that was clearly rigged, and yet we seem to accept the 2000 and 2004 elections -- both of which have overwhelming evidence of foul play.

It has to stop. And now is the time to stop it.

We cannot let John McCain and the Republicans steal this election. They have been behind in every single major poll since the end of September. Not one poll has put John McCain ahead. Not one! The will of the people is for Barack Obama to be our next President.

If, after the smoke clears, the election officials say that more electoral votes fell towards McCain than for Obama, I won't believe for a second that this result reflected the will of the American people. We simply could not have been so wrong so often. I, for one, will not let my voice be drowned out by uber-wealthy Republican elite. I hope that the American people refuse to accept any outcome of this election that does not place Senator Obama in the White House.

To stay quiet this time would be to admit that America is no longer a Democracy.

Some further reading/watching:

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Rigging Election McPalin Style

2008-11-02T01:23:00.000-07:00

Some of you may think that my previous post about McCain-Palin trying to steal the election is some type of nutty conspiracy theory. I can assure you that it is not.

For starters, here's a study of discrepancies from the 2004 Presidential Election.:
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPoll.pdf

If you recall, Kerry was leading in the exit poll numbers and (even was leading in polls up until that point), but ended up losing the election. There are a vast number of theories that were peddled to try to explain away what happened. These ranged from a resurgence of uber-conservatives who came out of the woodworks to vote primarily because of the Gay Marriage issue (and who voted for Bush in the process) to biases in exit polling procedures, etc. Unfortunately, neither of these theories (nor many of the others that have been suggested) are actually plausible. In general, the exit poll numbers only seemed to show discrepancies compared to the actual tallies in critical swing states, and in pretty much all cases those discrepancies favored George W. Bush.

How could such voter fraud have happened? Well, here's one explanation:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6600#more-6600

There are also other explanations like the systematic disenfranchising of voters.

I truly worry about what will happen in this election. In much the same way that the Obama team is finding multiple paths to 270 electoral votes, the McCain team is finding multiple paths towards explaining how they were able to pull off an "upset" even though all the polls have them way down.

They'll cite things like the Bradley effect, they'll claim the polls were closer than the pundits believed, they'll pile lawsuit atop of lawsuit claiming that various votes cast for Senator Obama were fraudulent.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

How John McCain Plans to Steal this Election

2008-10-25T08:54:00.000-07:00

Election day is right around the corner. Early voting has already started. By all accounts, John McCain and Sarah Palin have spent the last few weeks literally grasping at straws – trying to find some angle to garner more votes. They’ve tried screaming, kicking, and lying, but to no avail. Their only options now are cheating and stealing.

Make no mistake – John McCain is ambitious to an unhealthy degree; he has put himself above his country numerous times, and now he will go a step further. He will put his own greed and ambition ahead of the very fabric on which this country was built: democracy.

How will he do it? Well, here’s the plan in reverse order:

The fifth prong of John McCain’s plan is to literally steal votes from the voting machines themselves. You might wonder how this is possible. Well, the new breed of electronic voting machines (the ones that everyone has been raving about) lacks a rather important feature: the ability to store a physical audit trail. You see, when you push the button for Obama, the computer records your vote electronically – and poof just like that, there is no shred of physical evidence remaining to prove who you voted for. There is no hanging chad, no pencil mark, no filled in circle. Nothing, nada, zip. So, whose to say that when you push “Obama”, the computer doesn’t just record a vote for McCain? Of course, physical ballots aren’t perfect either. It is even within the realm of possibility to conveniently misplace a box or two or three. I can especially imagine that boxes containing ballots from heavily Democratic-leaning districts might vanish into the ether between the time the polls close and the time they are transported to the location at which they will be counted.
Of course, trying to literally change ballots after they have been cast is not always so easy to do. Therefore, while I expect to see this happen, it will happen only selectively. Primarily, in heavy Republican districts, votes will be switched from Obama to McCain. No one will question the final results since the district was Republican anyway (though we all know that even among many Republicans, Barack Obama has found quite a few fans). The other tactic we will see, and the fourth prong of John McCain’s attempt to steal this election, is the systematic disenfranchisement of voters this election. The idea here is to place far too few and far too poor voting machines in Democrat-leading districts. Also, expect to see some rather peculiar interpretations of convicted felon lists (given the voting restrictions placed on convicted felons). If there’s a felon named John Smith, and your name is John Smith, you might be given a hard time if it looks like you’re going to vote for Obama – even though John Smith is a common name. Given the large African American support for Senator Obama (and the Democratic party in general), good luck trying to vote if, by some coincidence, you happen to have the same name as a felon. Another disenfranchisement tactic will be to send threatening letters to people claiming that voting can have negative repercussions. For example, if you are a student who has some unpaid parking tickets, you might be told that if you vote, you will be caught and be forced to pay those tickets. That’s hogwash, but it won’t stop people from trying to trick you anyway.
Prong number three is a bit more insidious. Here expect McCain, with the help of George W. Bush (or rather some of his henchmen like Karl Rove), might manufacturer a major event that will put national security back in the spotlight. It could be a major event like finding Osama Bin Laden to bombing Iran. I wouldn’t even put it past Rove and his henchman to manufacture a terrorist act. More likely, though, they might break news that they’ve caught some major Al-Qaeda figure (not Bin Laden, but someone high up). Of course, even though they say he is high up, you’ll have to wonder why it is that no one ever mentioned his name until now. The media will pick up the story, attach a newfound importance to it, and poof – just like that – no one will be concerned about the disastrous state of the economy or the fact that their 401ks have dwindled. Instead, national security will be the focus, which will result in a bump for McCain (even though he doesn’t really deserve it).
Now, the above-mentioned tactic is all around making the election close enough that McCain can steal it without having to rob too many people of their votes. Still, for the above tactics to hold weight, the McCain campaign must create a plausible explanation for how they did much better in the actual election than they did in the polls. Here they will trump up two words that have become oft-recited, but poorly understood this election: “Bradley effect.” The effect is named after Tom Bradley, the black candidate who lost the California Gubernatorial race even though he was supposedly leading in the polls. The premise being that people might openly say they are voting for a black candidate just to sound politically correct, when in reality they plan to vote differently. I bet you never heard of the Bradley effect until this election. Well, what’s funny is that not even Bradley himself was a victim of this so-called effect. Actually, even though Bradley had a lead in early polls, the race was actually neck in neck in the most recent poll taken just before election day. So, there is no evidence to suggest that Bradley suffered from closet racism. However, even though there is little evidence for the Bradley effect, McCain and his henchman are planting the seeds now as a plausible explanation for how they were able to win the election. Without being able to cite this effect, surely no one would believe that McCain legitimately won the election.
The initial prong in the McCain-Palin attempt to steal the election will be the continued hammering of bolder and bolder lies, together with some creative polling. The hope is to create a perception that the gap is closing. So, McCain and Palin will continue to say some pretty ludicrous things. And they’ll have a following among a loud minority – no matter what your cause, there are always some nutjobs out there who will support it. Get some media coverage and do some creative panning across the crowd and you can make it seem bigger than it is. People will think McCain-Palin are gaining momentum. Now, this strategy will be complemented with some creative polling to support this claimed momentum. We have already seen the Associated Press release a poll claiming that the election is a statistical dead heat. Of course, when you look at their methodology, they sampled from a vastly disproportionate number of people who consider themselves Evangelicals or Christian Fundamentalists. And a poll taken from a biased sample will produce misleading results. Have you noticed that this poll is the only one that shows such a close race? The others have shown a much bigger gap. The fact is that polling is an approximation – you ask a small number of people who they will vote for and then you extrapolate what the final outcome will be. Given that, if you look across a few hundred polls, there will polls on both extremes – some that heavily support Obama and some that suggest the election is incredibly close or that McCain is up. If you cherry pick among these, you can pretty much convey any sentiment you wish.

So there you have it – John McCain and Sarah Palin’s strategy for the next week and a half. Pretty despicable, isn’t it? Are you helpless? NO!

Here’s what you can do:

First, awareness is key – just by you knowing that this possibility is in place will make it harder for McCain-Palin and their henchpeople to execute these plans. Be on the lookout for this strategy, as subtle as it is. If you have a voice, make it heard. You don’t have to be in the media to make your voice heard. Start a blog, or post a comment to a blog, or to a news article. Send a letter to your local paper. There are a myriad of ways to make sure that your voice is not silenced.
Second, VOTE! If this election isn’t close, McCain and Palin have no chance. They are hoping that it will be close enough that they don’t have to steal too many votes to make it happen. VOTE! Don’t let anyone convince you that you don’t have the right to vote. Don’t let anyone trick you into thinking that voting has some negative repercussion down the line. Nothing bad will happen to you if you vote.
Third, tell everyone else to VOTE! Don’t let others get duped into these same myths.

Now, how do I know all of these plans? Well, truth be told, I don’t have a crystal ball. But I can look at the past – at the tactics employed by George W. Bush in the last two elections. I can reasonably expect that John McCain will try more of the same.

For Barack Obama to win, he can’t just eek out a victory. That won’t do. Instead he needs to blow McCain out of the water – to win by a tremendous landslide. Only then will it be impossible for John McCain to steal this election. While it may not feel like it, the choice is in your hands. Yes, you only have one vote. We all do. But there are tens of millions of us. If we band together and support Barack Obama, then we can usher in a new era in America. An era that returns to core values like Democracy and Unity, but that carries those values forward into the future – into a world that is better not just for us, but for our children.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Republicans for Obama

2008-10-23T13:29:00.000-07:00

I thought this was an amazing video. It points to why this presidential campaign has really engaged so many people. Senator Obama's message has been unity, of hope, of engaging in a new kind of politics based on taking the higher road, and ultimately of taking each one of who is so different, but finding issues where we agree. This message has resonated in the hearts, minds, and conscience of tens of millions of Americans. For many of us, it has helped to draw us to our higher selves and to look beyond the petty. For others, the effect has been opposite. And to me that's the ultimate sign of greatness. History has shown that when people are presented with someone of such greatness, there will be those petty ones who despise him because the great figure reminds the petty of all that they are not. It happened with Gandhi, Lincoln, and many others (and, yes, let's not forget Jesus!).

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Chicago Tribune Endorsement Comment

2008-10-21T01:27:00.000-07:00

In response to the Chicago Tribune's recent endorsement of Senator Obama (the first Democrat to receive a Chicago Tribune endorsement, the following response was posted to the Chicago Tribune web site:

I am extremely surprised and disappointed that a main part of the editorial endorsing Barack Obama was John McCain's picking Sarah Palin as a running mate. The Tribune views her as ill-prepared and lacking experience. She has far more executive experience than Obama, who has no executive experience and little governmental experience. His plans for this country are socialistic and dangerous ultimately to the free-market economy that we all have prospered from. There has been no real vetting of Obama's experience and more time has been spent exploring Palin and Joe the Plumber than spent researching and reviewing Obama's past, his associations, his credentials and his fitness for office.

—Keith Donaldson, Buffalo Grove

Here's my reply

To Keith Donaldson: Your comment here sounds like a parroting of a McCain talking points memo. Let's break this apart:

1. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin should play an important factor in how favorably we view his candidacy. McCain is vying to become the oldest person to ever assume the office of President. McCain is 72 years old, and has had multiple bouts with cancer. McCain's own father died at 70. Given that, there is a very good chance he will either die or somehow become incapacitated while in office, and be forced to hand the reins over to Sarah Palin. So, it is entirely reasonable for anyone to account for the Palin factor in evaluating McCain's candidacy.
Since Palin's selection, extremist right-wingers have been bandying about "executive experience". Let's think about why one might generally even care. There are two aspects. First, with regard to experience, you'd have to consider how admirably the person performed in their prior role. Second, you'd have to determine whether that experience can be parlayed into their newer role, and help their ability to make sound judgments and decisions. Let's look at the first point. In the case of Sarah Palin, she left the town of Wasilla 20 million dollars in debt during her tenure as mayor. That's an unbelievably bad screw up considering the town only has a few thousand people. During her very brief time as Governor of Alaska, she was found guilty, by a committee consisting of both Republicans and Democrats, of abusing her power. Not good. Now, let's think about the second point. It has become clear in the handful of media interviews that Palin has conducted that she has spent little, if any time, thinking about issues on a national scale. She was unable to describe a Supreme Court case other than Roe vs. Wade; she could not name any newspapers or magazines she reads (which is concerning because it's hard to imagine an effective leader who does not pay attention to current events); and overall, she came across as either trying to parrot a talking point she was asked to memorize or as spouting complete nonsense.
You have accused Barack Obama of being a socialist. Do you even know what that word actually means? John McCain is talking non stop about spending several hundred billion dollars buying out bad mortgages. Further nationalizing the home real estate market? If that's not socialist, then I'm not sure what is.
You say that Barack Obama is dangerous to the free market economy that we all prosper from. Have you been reading the news lately? Or better yet, have you looked at your most recent 401(k) or brokerage account statement? (And If you have neither a 401(k) nor a brokerage account, I am quite certain you have not prospered much.) The economy has been falling apart because of this philosophy of unabashed de-regulation. As much as John McCain tries to distance himself from George Bush, ultimately, McCain voted for these policies, and has called himself "fundamentally a deregulator". Only now that the economy is collapsing has he changed his tune. Under Senator Obama's tax plan, unless you make more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes go up at all -- in fact, you will be taxed less under Senator Obama's plan in this case than you would under John McCain's plan.
You say that there has been no vetting of Obama. This statement is equally absurd. He has been running for President for two years. During that time, John McCain, Karl Rove and other Republican cronies have spent more money than you will make in ten lifetimes trying to uncover something legitimately damaging about Obama. Although Hillary Clinton now supports Obama, I'm sure she did the same during the primaries. And what have they uncovered in two years? Pretty much nothing. So, they resort to trying to play up the importance of relationships that are tenuous at best. John McCain and Sarah Palin keep asking "What do we know about Obama?" The fact that they are still asking this question instead of providing a truthful answer to it is proof positive that they have no meaningful dirt.

Be glad that Obama is focusing on the issues, because there is more dirt on McCain-Palin and far more skeletons than in the entire Arlington National Cemetery. Not the least of which is John McCain's affair, his friendship with G. Gordon Liddy, his being one of the Keating 5, his choice of William Timmons for leading his transition team (Timmons was previously a lobbyist for Saddam Hussein). There's also Sarah Palin and her husband being a member of a political party that wants Alaska to break apart from the rest of the United States (not exactly Patriotic, is it?), and her daughter who got knocked up out of wedlock. The list goes on and on.

The new breed of Republicans are good at giving their brainwashed stool pigeons a set of talking points to back up their moronic policies and idiotic behavior. But when you take even a few minutes to think about those points, you begin to find that they are pretty weak. And if you care to do any research of your own, you begin to notice that most of the talking points are based on boldfaced lies.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

The Powell Endorsement

2008-10-19T13:54:00.000-07:00

If you have been within earshot of the news today, then by now you certainly know that Colin Powell expressed his endorsement for Senator Barack Obama this morning. He articulated his case using a choice of words that is both profound, deeply moving, and pretty much spot on.

Powell, who is a revered and highly respected Republican figure, served as a Secretary of State under George W. Bush, was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under Bush senior, and was a national security advisor to Ronald Reagan. Recently John McCain exclaimed that General Powell is someone he admires as much as anyone else in the world. McCain has even considered tapping General Powell as a Vice Presidential running mate (and truth be told, if John McCain did, and if he was the same John McCain of years past, I wouldn't be appalled at the idea of a McCain presidency like I am right now).

It will be noteworthy to see whether this particular endorsement will be a needle mover in terms of garnering votes. I think that it will be. McCain's campaign these past few weeks has been taking an increasingly rightward direction. And I believe that there are a fair number of moderate Republicans who feel increasingly uncomfortable with this direction (I believe that John McCain himself also shares this sentiment, but at this point he is too knee deep and is allowing his seemingly uncontrollable greed and ambition to trump his reputation, honor, and whatever dignity he has left).

Collin Powell represents a tremendously respected voice for these moderate Republicans. General Powell's endorsement says that it is OK for moderate Republicans to shed the now sullied moniker of "Republican" and instead vote for the person this country needs at this time.

With regard to this decision, another relevant voter segment comprises those who are unsure whether foreign policy and national security concerns should weigh more heavily than domestic policy and economic concerns in their voting decision. Those who weigh foreign policy more heavily have a tendency towards McCain, whereas those with deeper interests in domestic policy and the economy lean towards Obama. I don't agree with this stance since Republican administrations haven't demonstrated to me that they exercise better judgment in foreign relations. Further, Obama has bolstered the foreign policy aspects of his ticket by choosing Joe Biden, who is the chairman of the Senate's powerful Foreign Relations committee. In short, Joe Biden is better equipped to deal with foreign relations issues than John McCain and Sarah Palin combined (even if you do count being able to see Russia from your window as legitimate foreign policy experience).

All of that withstanding, there are still folks out there who might question the Obama-Biden ticket when it comes to foreign policy. In that regard, General Powell's endorsement speaks volumes. As I mentioned above, every Republican President during the last three decades has sought General Powell's advice primarily on foreign policy and national security matters. His endorsement should alleviate the concerns of at least some of these skeptics.

Although Senator Obama has been leading in the polls, this election isn't over until it's over. Two weeks in politics is a lifetime. Every single vote matters this election. Even if that vote does not ultimately decide the winner, it does mark an opportunity for Americans to unite around a common purpose, a common direction, and a common leader. The times are too precarious for us not to be united.

Without further ado, here is General Powell's endorsement:

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Herald Ledger (Lexington, Kentucky) Editorial

2008-10-19T01:32:00.000-07:00

The Herald Ledger of Lexington, Kentucky posted an editorial that echoed many of my sentiments, so I have reposted excerpts from it below. First, here is a high-level summary of key points from the article:

McCain claims experience, but experience is meaningless without good judgment and temperament, both of which McCain has failed to display (and both of which have become hallmarks of Obama's candidacy).
McCain is no longer the maverick he could once claim to be; he has repeatedly abandoned positions on tax reform, immigration, and the environment that could, once upon a time, have earned him that nickname. Instead, he is offering up more of the same.
McCain's behavior has been erratic at best -- especially surrounding the financial crisis when he tried to thrust himself into the spotlight, but actually didn't provide any concrete value.
McCain's VP choice was poor. He chose a candidate purely to garner votes rather than because he felt she could lead the country in the event something happened to him. This is especially concerning given McCain's old age and his previous bouts with cancer.
McCain claims that he will bring about change, and yet in the areas of economic and foreign policy (two areas that are in the hearts and minds of Americans), he has vigorously supported George Bush.

Now, without further ado, here are direct excerpts from the article itself:

Even if this country were not in dire need of a new direction, Sen. Barack Obama would make a better president than Sen. John McCain.
McCain's one advantage, experience, is of little use without judgment and temperament. On both counts, Obama has shown himself to be better qualified.
Obama has been composed, consistent and honorable through a long and tricky campaign, which he has led almost flawlessly.
..........
McCain, meanwhile, has abandoned stands that once earned him respect as a principled maverick within the Republican Party. He has done about-faces on immigration and the Bush tax cuts, the first ever during wartime, which he once opposed but now wants to expand. He drowned out his own enlightened voice on global warming with chants of "Drill, baby, drill." After fighting influence-peddling in Congress, he handed his campaign over to corporate lobbyists to manage.
..........
With McCain, voters have no idea what they'd be getting, other than a president who promises to hold out for victory in a war in which no surrender papers can ever be signed because the enemy will always change shapes.
Despite his relative youth, Obama, at 47 (three years older than John F. Kennedy when he became president) has shown himself to be a more reliable leader than McCain.
..........
Compare their responses to the financial rescue negotiations: McCain thrust himself into the spotlight, threatening to cancel a debate and rushing to Washington where he had nothing to offer except a distraction. The talks, coincidentally, broke down that day.
Obama, on the other hand, was sensitive to the need to insulate the negotiations from presidential politics. He listened to his bipartisan advisers, including some who steered the vibrant economy of the Clinton years. He reassured the public that the country would weather the crisis and counseled patience and calm. He was, in a word, presidential. In the end, both candidates voted for the plan.
..........
And then there's Sarah Palin. The Alaska governor is great at firing up conservative crowds and gave McCain's campaign a shot in the arm. But, for all her charms, she is starkly unqualified to be president. Her mastery of the challenges go no deeper than reciting talking points.
McCain, 72, is the oldest person to ever run for president and has had cancer four times. Yet, barely knowing her and with little time for consideration, he put Palin in line to be president should he win.
Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, would be prepared to step into the presidency. The larger point: The contrast in running mates is just one example of Obama's steadier leadership.
And this country does desperately need new leadership. We're in a mess. It's not just a large federal budget surplus that evaporated in the last eight years. U.S. standing is as diminished as its credit rating. We can never lead the world until we regain our economic footing and the world's respect.
..........
McCain promises change but still supports the calamitous fiscal and foreign policies of President Bush.
The United States can't afford any more Iraqs, an unnecessary war of which McCain still heartily approves.
..........
On Nov. 4, voters won't be picking someone with whom to have a beer or the person they would most likely sit next to in church. They're hiring a leader for the world's toughest job.
..........
McCain is the past. Obama is the future. Voters should make him our next president.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Chicago Tribune Endorses Obama

2008-10-18T06:53:00.001-07:00

For the first time in its history, the Chicago Tribune has decided to endorse a Democratic party candidate. I think this action speaks volumes. The Republican party of old has drastically lost its way. Its only vestiges are old-schoolers who have become so mired in the Republican label that they no longer realize that label now carries a different same meaning. At the other extreme, the Republicans gladly expanded their base by recruiting uber-conservatives -- whose vote carries with it a social message rather than a political one. The fiscal Republicans and the social Republicans have little else in common other than a meaningless moniker. Yet, they worked together and voted the same way so that they could have power in their numbers.

Only now the differences between these two have become starkly realized -- as we witness John McCain clinging desperately to his flailing ambitions, and Sarah Palin inciting fear and anger into the hearts of Americans.

These two political machines, the fiscal Republicans and the social Republicans, have taken on lives of their own. And I can't help to think that when the former see the latter, they realize the monster that they helped to create.

With that, here are some excerpts from the Tribune's endorsement below:

Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.

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

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.

We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.

It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.

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

We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.

We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.

He worked to expand the number of charter schools in Illinois--not popular with some Democratic constituencies.

He took up ethics reform in the U.S. Senate--not popular with Washington politicians.

His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a "University of Chicago Democrat"--a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets.

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

Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.

He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

More debate thoughts

2008-10-16T13:45:00.000-07:00

Last night's debate was a "must win" for John McCain, and in my opinion, he lost by a large margin. Obviously, I have been an Obama supporter for some time, so you have to take my sentiment with a grain of salt.

To begin with, McCain just seemed all over the place in debate. He would make a misleading statement about Obama's policies, Obama would clarify his position, and them McCain would repeat his statement. For example, Obama is pretty clear that most Americans get a tax break under his plan. But McCain kept grimacing into the camera and repeating "he's going to raise your taxes".

I thought one funny moment during the debate was when McCain asked Obama how much Joe the Plumber was going to get fined. And Obama responded with with 0. It was definitely a senior moment for McCain who was so busy trying to make a point, that he didn't realize that under Obama's plan, small businesses are not subject to the same mandates as big businesses.

McCain's healthcare plan is also alarming. Under his plan, there is a risk of people losing even the coverage that they get under their employers. And what's worse is that he plans to reduce regulations, which allows insurance companies to operate in jurisdictions that benefit them (in much the same way that credit card companies have done). During McCain's speech at the Republican convention, he claimed that he wanted me to be able to talk directly to my doctor without any overhead. The thing is, there is overhead already -- and it's called my insurance company. They can decide, at their whim, whether or not to cover me. And more so, since covering me costs them money, their best interests are not aligned with my best interests. Given that John McCain has had multiple bouts with cancer, you would think that he might care. But this man comes from extreme wealth. He can pay for his treatments without giving it a moment of thought.

For someone who claims not to be a popular person in the Senate, McCain sure struck me as someone who is interested in saying whatever he thought was more popular. Cut taxes? Sure! Spend more money in Iraq? Sure! Spend money buying out bad mortgages? Sure! Help special needs children? Sure! Erase the federal deficit by the end of his first term? Sure!

I mean come on! You can't cut taxes, spend, and then expect the deficit to disappear. It makes no sense. It is also not clear how such a plan will fuel long-term growth.

America's prosperity has come in part from our ability to innovate in key areas of science and technology. And we are rapidly falling behind in those areas. Furthermore, we are not investing in improving education so that we gain back our edge in those areas. There is only so long that America can rest on her laurels of the accomplishments of years past.

I was also struck by McCain's attempt to say he is not Bush. You can tell he rehearsed that line a hundred times over and was chomping at the bit to be able to say it. The thing is, he has supported Bush 90% of the time. And more so, he did that on key economic issues. He is only claiming that he wants change because saying he supports Bush policies will not get him elected. And make no mistake, up until recently, he was saying that he supported those policies.

Bush gave the wealthy individuals huge tax breaks. McCain wants to give them even more. Bush gave oil companies and other companies who are raking in record profits huge tax breaks. McCain wants to give them more. Bush voted repeatedly for deregulation, and McCain voted with him. Up until recently, McCain even said that he was fundamentally a de-regulator. He has only modified his stance in the wake of the economic crisis.

McCain also had the gall to call Obama's campaigns negative! I mean even Fox News and Karl Rove disagree with that! The funny part was that as an example of negativity, McCain said that Obama ran an ad that attacked his healthcare plan. This is not negative campaigning. Candidates should be pointing out what they think are shortcomings in their opponent's plans. What is an issue is when candidates engage in unfounded personal attacks. And McCain has been doing so in a matter that is so reprehensible that even numerous Republicans have come out of the woodwork and shaken their heads -- they can't believe this man is somehow one of their own.

There have been four debates between Democrats and Republicans, and the polls overwhelmingly show that the Democrats have won each one. But to me, it's still not over until it's over. Obama has demonstrated time and again that he is the better candidate. He has a cohesive plan, that will can help America get back to times of prosperity. Obama is quite well spoken. (And isn't it funny how the Republicans are trying to twist that into a bad thing? I mean come on people! Don't you want a President who can articulate important issues clearly? The fact that John McCain tries to hammer on Obama's eloquence is a sign that they don't have much else to hammer on -- I mean if the best you can come up with is that your opponent is articulate... well, then that doesn't bode well for you).

It is hard to imagine that there are still voters on the fence in this election. I can only imagine that it has more to do with Obama's skin color, and some people's reluctance to vote for a half-black / half-white man. But you know what? If you were drowning on a boat, and black man threw you a life vest, would you refuse it? Hardly. Yet, that's what's happening in our country right now. Obama is offering a life-vest, and it would be foolish not to take it.

For all their talk about Democrats being elitist, etc., McCain has campaigned on the premise that most Americans are dumb and superficial. His policies have been inconsistent and he hopes you don't notice. He picks an extremist candidate for Vice President, and hopes you vote for her just because she is a woman. He offers plans that can't work and don't even benefit you unless you are wealthy, and hopes you think they will. He includes hidden gotchas in his health care, tax, and other plans, and hopes that you won't read the fine print.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has campaigned under the premise that Americans are intelligent and have the ability to make reasoned choices about the issues so long as they are presented with the pertinent information. He takes complex issues, dissects them, and presents you with the nuances. He is not afraid to applaud you for good ideas even if you have a different ideology. In much the same way, he is able to explain to you he disagrees with you, without having to resort to attacking you personally.

Now, I still believe there are some Americans out there who are, quite frankly, dumb. They will note vote with their conscience and instead would rather see this country in peril.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Autism vs. Down Syndrome

2008-10-15T22:18:00.000-07:00

I have lots of thoughts on the debate, but won't go into them now. But was it just me or did John McCain have a senior moment when said Sarah Palin's baby had Autism? I thought her baby had down syndrome.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Obama's best speeches

2008-10-15T16:34:00.000-07:00

Jed Report video: Republicans express disapproval for John McCain

2008-10-15T15:40:00.001-07:00

Check out the following video from the JedReport where a whole slew of well-known Republicans are expressing their disapproval for John McCain:

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

The trained seals

2008-10-14T22:56:00.000-07:00

Following this election has made me realize that far too many Republicans behave like brainwashed trained seals. As long as their party leaders claim to put their actions under the moniker of "Republicanism" or "Conservatism", the trained seals clap their hands, nod their heads, cheer like there is no tomorrow, and worship their leaders. The trained seals do so regardless of what actions their party leaders have actually taken. The trained seals do so regardless of how moronic their party leaders' actions are.

And ultimately, the trained seals clap and nod their heads regardless of how non-Republican their party leaders' actions are.

John McCain has made an unbelievable number of bonehead moves in this campaign. From selecting Sarah Palin (and putting this country at great risk) to incessant waffling and inability to commit to the positions he believes in, all the way to proposing policies that do not exactly espouse the Republican ethos (like proposing a buy-out of bad mortgage debt -- in a move that really benefits the financial companies and makes a bad situation far worse by adding to America's massive debt load).

John McCain has denigrated the election process, by trying to turn it into a WWF battle royale rather than an opportunity for American voters to make an informed choice about the person who will lead one of the most powerful and prosperous countries on earth (though in all honesty, we are now on some seriously shaky ground because of eight years worth of bonehead policies).

It is hard to have faith in the people of this country when you see the trained Republican seals. I do, however, sense this tide is starting to turn. McCain has finally made one too many bonehead moves. And many Republicans are starting to come to their senses. They have finally realized that John McCain simply cannot, should not, must not be allowed to win the election. Republicans need to distance themselves from McCain as fast as humanly possible. They need to reinvent their party and their message, and really cater to a base that fundamentally believes in this message. Forget about the Presidential election -- McCain might potentially destroy the Republican party as it currently stands. If other Republicans don't act fast, they could be among the casualties of the maverick's reckless behavior.

Below I have reprinted an article from the Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/15/0143/2878/176/630358) that mentions a substantial number of well-known Republicans who believe that John McCain has lost his way. Some have gone as far as to endorse Barack Obama. Other's have just denounced McCain. Others still seem to find some comfort in their trained seal role, though one gets the sense that they are starting to feel disoriented.

David Frum (Mon Oct 13):
http://frum.nationalreview.com/...
David "axis of evil" Frum gets his "I told you so" ready at the National Review and rebukes his critics who complain that he isn't cheerleading for McCain enough. He concludes: "Perhaps it is our job at NRO is tell our readers only what they want to hear, without much regard to whether it is true. Perhaps it is our duty just to keep smiling and to insist that everything is dandy - that John McCain's economic policies make sense, that his selection of Sarah Palin was an act of statesmanship, that she herself is the second coming of Anna Schwartz, and that nobody but an over-educated snob would ever suggest otherwise."

Michelle Malkin (Mon Oct 13):
http://michellemalkin.com/...
Michelle Malkin expresses her disappointment in McCain after learning that "John McCain had no problem calling ACORN members his friends during his ill-fated illegal alien shamnesty crusade." She concludes, "We're Screwed '08."

Rep. Ray LaHood (Mon Oct 13):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Rep. LaHood, who has represented Illinois' 18th district for seven terms and is retiring in January, told WBBM Radio that Palin should control the racially-charged heckling at her rallies: "Look it. This doesn't befit the office that she's running for. And frankly, people don't like it."

Matthew Dowd Tuesday (Oct 14):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Matthew Dowd, a prominent political consultant and chief strategist for George W. Bush's reelection campaign eviscerated John McCain on Tuesday for his choice of Sarah Palin as vice president.
Dowd proclaimed that, in his heart of hearts, McCain knew he put the country at risk with his VP choice and that he would "have to live" with that fact for the rest of his career.

Mickey Edwards (Mon Oct 13):
http://www.politicalbase.com/...
Republican Mickey Edwards, formerly a congressman from Oklahoma, distances himself from McCain, saying "today, thanks to a campaign apparently managed by Moe, Curly, and Larry, he comes across as erratic (Obama's word, but it fits), impulsive, befuddled, and ill-tempered, and apparently unable to utter any words other than 'surge' and 'earmarks.'" Edwards also plays the blame game very explicitly: "If Obama gets a big win, it will be McCain himself, and the Three Stooges calling the shots at his headquarters who will deserve whatever blame is attached for transforming a viable and energetic Obama campaign into a steamroller grinding the Republican Party into the ground."

Joshua Trevino (Fri Oct 10):
http://joshuatrevino.com/...
Joshua Trevino, co-founder of RedState.com, wrote on his blog: "In the end, I couldn't do it...I opened it fully intending to vote for John McCain...Do I believe in John McCain? Not as much as I used to. Do I believe in Sarah Palin? Despite my early enthusiasm for her, now not at all. Do I believe in the national Republican Party? Not in the slightest -- even though I see no meaningful alternative to it. So, my choice for President in 2008, scrawled in my ballot as an act of futile protest, is Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana."

Christopher Buckley (Fri Oct 10):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
Christopher Buckley, son of National Review founder William F. Buckley, and columnist for the National Review himself, endorsed Barack Obama, saying "this campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic."

Andrew Sullivan (Oct 6)
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...
http://www.republicansforobama.org/...
This is not America. And it's a chilling preview of how Putin-like a Palin-McCain administration would be.

Erick Erickson (Mon Oct 13):
http://www.redstate.com/...
Erick Erickson, "editor in chief" of RedState.com, is giving up on McCain: "With only a few weeks left until election day, let's be blunt: McCain-Palin '08 does not seem to be making headway against the polling." He suggests that McCain needs to choose between himself and senate/house Republicans, and suggests that his readers focus on downballot races: "The Republican numbers in the House and Senate can be salvaged, but in the next few weeks there must be a realistic assessment from the McCain campaign regarding winning his own race versus helping Congressional Republicans mitigate their losses."

Norm Coleman (Fri Oct 10):
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/...
Coleman bails on McCain rally: "[Norm] Coleman told reporters that he would not be appearing at a planned rally with McCain this afternoon. Could it be McCain's sliding polling numbers in Minnesota? His attacks on Obama?"

Ed Rollins (Mon Oct 13):
http://www.cnn.com/...
Rollins, who managed Reagan's 1984 campaign: "And while chaos and disarray reigned supreme in Sen. Barack Obama's opponents' campaigns, the steady, disciplined and strategically driven Obama campaign marches forward toward likely victory."

Bill Kristol (Mon Oct 13):
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Kristol: "It's time for John McCain to fire his campaign. He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama's."

Lee Terry (Mon Oct 13):
http://www.independent.co.uk/...
In Nebraska, a Republican representative, Lee Terry, ran a newspaper ad featuring support from a woman who called herself an "Obama-Terry voter."

Tom Ellis (Sun Oct 12):
http://www.latimes.com/...
Tom Ellis, GOP chairman in Butler County, Ohio, a key Republican stronghold in 2004, said there had been "some slippage" for McCain in recent weeks. He said Republicans were finding it "hard to penetrate" the torrent of bad economic news and deliver an effective pitch to independents. And the Arizona senator's attacks on Obama's past links to former radical William Ayers, he said, "do not garner him any advantage" with swing voters. "There's a sense of frustration at this point," Ellis said. "What I hear is people are expecting more of the Republican ticket. They've got to speak directly to the economic issues. People want to hear specific solutions from Sen. McCain."

Michelle Laxalt (Thu Oct 9):
http://www.youtube.com/...
Republican Laxalt slams the McCain campaign's tactics.

Roger Stone (Sun Oct 12):
http://www.miamiherald.com/...
Roger Stone, a longtime McCain supporter, said the state party and the national campaign bear almost equal blame. ''This effort lacks coordination and a cooperative spirit and it's showing,'' Stone said. "But it's more than mechanics. The campaign has no consistent message.''

George LeMieux (Sun Oct 12):
http://www.miamiherald.com/...
George LeMieux, Crist's former campaign manager and staff chief, said McCain erred in not choosing Crist as running mate. ''If Gov. Crist was the vice presidential nominee, John McCain would be winning Florida,'' he said.

Charlie Crist (Sun Oct 12):
http://www.miamiherald.com/...
"Saturday, he skipped a McCain football rally and instead went to Disney World."

Sen. Lincoln Chaffee, R (RI) (Oct 9)
http://www.mlive.com/...
Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican U.S. senator from Rhode Island, is throwing his support behind Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, saying he is disillusioned with Republican John McCain.

"Sen. Obama is the first Democrat I've ever voted for," Chafee said during a stop in Grand Rapids this morning.

Perry Diaz (Wed Oct 8):
http://www.filipinosforobama.org/...
Perry Diaz, chairman of the National Federation of Filipino-American Republicans, resigned from his post and withdrew his endorsement, saying "I endorsed McCain before the California primary believing that he was the right man for the job. I was wrong. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate and his decision a few days ago to resort to personal attacks on Obama's character and integrity run counter to my personal beliefs and core values. I have lost my respect for McCain and I believe that a McCain/Palin administration would only worsen the economic situation in the country."

David Brooks (Wed Oct 8):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
David Brooks rips apart McCain's pick for VP, saying "Sarah Palin represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party."

George Will (Wed Oct 8):
http://www.chron.com/...
George Will laments McCain's campaign and quotes an Orioles manager: "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" His takeaway? "Obama in a romp in November? Don't be surprised"

Lilibet Hagel (Tue Oct 7):
http://www.youtube.com/...
Lilibet Hagel, wife of Republican senator Chuck Hagel, appeared with Susan Eisenhower to endorse Barack Obama, saying that this election is "not about fighting phantom issues churned out by a top-notch slander machine. Most importantly it is not about distracting the public - you and me - with whatever slurs someone thinks will stick."

William Milliken (Fri Oct 10):
http://www.mlive.com/...
Former Republican Governor of Michigan William Milliken, who endorsed McCain during the primaries, said: "He is not the McCain I endorsed; he keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me. I'm disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues."

Bill Kristol (Sun Oct 12):
http://www.youtube.com/...
On FOX News Sunday, Kristol said the McCain campaign was "stupid...pathetic...flailing."

Patrick Ruffini (Sat Oct 11):
http://www.thenextright.com/...
Conservative columnist Patrick Ruffini argues that the RNC needs to give up on McCain and try to save Republican house and senate seats, and that "McCain should start explicitly making the argument for divided government, with him as the only hope of preserving it. This is unlikely to be a voting issue at the Presidential level, but we need to get the idea percolating that we are about to elect Obama with unchecked, unlimited power." That is, Ruffini wants to sacrifice McCain to save congressional Republicans.

Mitt Romney (Sat Oct 11):
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Mitt Romney said McCain, who has offered scattershot proposals on the economy, should present a broad vision of how he would lead the country through the economic crisis. "I'm talking about standing above the tactical alternatives that are being considered," Romney said, "and establish an economic vision that is able to convince the American people that he really knows how to strengthen the economy."

Robert A. Gleason Jr. (Sat Oct 11):
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Robert A. Gleason Jr., the Republican chairman in Pennsylvania, said he was concerned that Mr. McCain's increasingly aggressive tone was not working with moderate voters and women in the important southeastern part of a state that is at the top of Mr. McCain's must-win list.

Gov. Tommy Thompson (Sat Oct 11):
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Former Republican Governor of Wisconsin, said it would be difficult for Mr. McCain to win in his state but not impossible, particularly if he campaigned in conservative Democratic parts of the state. Asked if he was happy with Mr. McCain's campaign, Mr. Thompson replied, "No," and he added, "I don't know who is."

Saul Anuzis (Sat Oct 11):
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Saul Anuzis, the Republican chairman in Michigan, said "I think you're seeing a turning point, you're starting to feel real frustration because we are running out of time. Our message, the campaign's message, isn't connecting."

Bob Eleveld (Fri Oct 10):
http://www.mlive.com/...
Bob Eleveld, former Kent County Republican chairman who led McCain's West Michigan campaign in 2000, said: "I'm not supporting either of them [McCain or Obama] at this point. I think the straight talk is gone."

Michigan GOP (Thu Oct 9):
http://www.michiganliberal.com/...
The Michigan GOP is in disarray, and said the following about those jumping ship in an email they sent to local supporters: "In the meantime, there have been several individuals, including some disgruntled former employees, who have tried to take advantage of the situation by stealing cell phones, and other electronic equipment, as well as substantial amounts of collateral materials. In at least one instance there was an employee who vandalized their victory center on the way out the door."

National Review Editorial Board (Thu Oct 9):
http://article.nationalreview.com/...
"We never thought we would defend the Frank-Dodd legislation, which we bitterly opposed last summer. But it looks downright prudent compared to what McCain has proposed. McCain's plan is a full bailout for lenders."

Kathleen Parker (Fri Sep 26):
http://article.nationalreview.com/...
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker wrote in the National Review that Sarah Palin is "out of her league" and should step down for the good of her country.

Wick Allison (Mon Sep 22):
http://www.statesman.com/...
Wick Allison, former publisher of the National Review and current editor-in-chief of D magazine, endorses Obama and writes "I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses. But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history."

WSJ Editorial Board (Fri Sep 19):
http://online.wsj.com/...
In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000.

Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy (Wed Sep 3):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Noonan and Murphy get caught on an open mic griping about the choice of Sarah Palin. Noonan says "The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullsh** about narratives. Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and that's not what they're good at, they blow it." Murphy adds that the choice was "cynical" and "gimmicky."

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

The Wednesday debate pivot that will end McCain's campaign (Daily Kos reprint)

2008-10-10T14:45:00.000-07:00

Well written post from the Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/10/15427/137/900/626591

I generally agree, except for when it says that the John McCain of 2000 would have done X. I'm not sure sure. McCain has had a history of putting himself first -- it has only gotten worse in recent times, but he was far from perfect in the past.

The Wednesday debate pivot that will end McCain's campaign

by ReEnergizer

Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:36:08 PM PDT

Far be it for me to advise the Obama campaign on what to say at Wednesday's debate--they've got that well-covered, obviously--there is one response, one salvo that will sink the S.S. McCain for good. That is Obama's rebuttal to a McCain statement like:

Senator Obama was friendly with a domestic terrorist named William Ayers. And that goes to Senator Obama's judgment. I think it's fair to ask the question, and I think we all owe it to ourselves to ask the question: just who is Barack Obama?

And that is Barack's opening to put an end to the disgraceful McCain campaign. What he should say is below the fold.

==================================================================

"While our economy continues to crumble as the result of 8 years of Bush/Republican policies, John McCain wants you to focus on my relationship with a man who did despicable things when I was 8 years old. Never mind that the charity board that William Ayers and I sat on was started by Walter Annenberg, a former ambassador and friend of Ronald Reagan. Never mind that there were plenty of Republicans on the same board. Never mind that the lead prosecutor against William Ayers' group finds this whole line of attack ridiculous. Never mind that I have denounced the acts of the Weather Underground in no uncertain terms.

"I think America has gotten to know me pretty well over the last two years. They have seen that I know how to stay calm and focused during a crisis, like what we've experienced the last four weeks. They know that I keep my composure when attacked with the types of smears used against John McCain by Karl Rove in 2000. They know that my campaign is about ideas and solutions, not fear. And they know that I don't attack first, but that if I am attacked, I respond quickly and forcefully.

"The better question is: who is John McCain? Because the John McCain of 2008 is not the John McCain of 2000 that so many people, including Joe Biden and I, admired.

"The John McCain of 2000 would have sought to lead a united people through a difficult crisis. The John McCain of 2008 seeks to divide us by appealing to our hatred and fear.

"The John McCain of 2000 was smeared by the despicable lies of Karl Rove and George W. Bush. The John McCain of 2008 hired Rove's and Bush's disciples to do the same to me.

"The John McCain of 2000 would have confronted people in his crowds who shouted things like "Kill him!" or "terrorist!" and thrown them out. The John McCain of 2008 says nothing.

"The John McCain of 2000 would have selected the most qualified person to be his vice-president, someone who could step into the job on Day 1 if, heaven forbid, it was needed. The John McCain of 2008 put politics, not competence, first.

"The John McCain of 2000 would have been a source of calm and reassurance to a frightened people during a difficult time. The John McCain of 2008 has been erratic, changing his positions and strategy on a daily basis to score poltical points.

"And finally, the John McCain of 2000 would never--NEVER--have sacrificed his honor to win an election. But the John McCain of 2008 has. I don't know about you, but I am saddened by that. And I think the American people are as well."

UPDATE

Rec List? Thank you! Several commentors have suggested sending this on to the Obama campaign. I confess that I have no idea how to do that, although I have done some oppo research for them on energy issues. That has followed a chain of command that probably wouldn't work for this. My assumption is that they have key people that check in on DKos peridocally, as this site is an amazing source of good ideas and news. But if any of you know how to get this into the hands of the campaign, please do so, by all means...

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Quick Debate Thoughts

2008-10-08T14:37:00.000-07:00

It has been a busy day, but I wanted to take a quick moment to note my thoughts on last night's debate.

What struck me the most in the debate has been Obama's consistency; his policies are thought through and work well together. McCain on the other hand is all over the place. He claims to want change and to put an end to deficit spending (in which we are borrowing from countries like China, and will leave our children the burden to repay those debts), but at the same time he advocates huge tax cuts to the wealthy and continuing to throw 10+ billion dollars a month into Iraq. He also wants to buy up bad mortgage debt obligations, which not only increases spending, but only serves to help the financial institutions that hold those notes (many of whom committed fraud in the first place by issuing them).

McCain is trying to come up with a answers to garner votes, but when you take a closer look, his policies not only contradict each other, but also contradict what he claims to stand for. It's funny that at the end of the debate McCain called for the need of a steady hand during these times, when he has been the poster child for erratic behavior. To be quite blunt, last night McCain came off as a cranky old man: "Get off my lawn!" If McCain is already losing his stability, how can we possibly expect him to be the steady hand our country needs in January when the real work begins?

It is clear to me that Senator Obama should be our next President. Not only did he present himself well, but his positions reflected a clear understanding of the issues and how those policies will fit together into a broader plan for the United States in the years ahead.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

National Security the Republicans

2008-10-06T11:18:00.000-07:00

I came across the following passage in an article I read recently:

Tom Coates, 47, is a construction worker caught between a father who is a strong Republican and a brother who is a strong Democrat. They are talking a lot right now about the election.

He leans toward McCain primarily because of national security matters. Under a McCain administration, he said, "our enemies will fear us and continue to fear us." But he is terribly worried about health care and sees the problems his parents are having navigating the health-care system.

This type of reasoning about national security worries me. What makes you think that McCain or Bush are better at handling national security matters? Because they say so? Let's consider the track record. The biggest terrorist attack on US soil happened under the watch of George W. Bush.

It's quite simple folks. If you are a good "anti-terrorism" President, then there should be no terrorism to speak of. Would you call someone a good security guard at a bank if the biggest robbery to hit the bank happened under their watch? No. That would be nonsense. Would you call your local police department effective if there were a big rash of burglaries in your neighborhood? No. That would also be nonsense.

The same reasoning can and should be applied to Bush and McCain. They haven't done anything to make us safe. If anything the threat of terrorism has gotten worse in recent times. After we invaded Iraq on fictitious terms, what happened? Well, other than us flushing trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and so on, down the toilet, we also empowered Al-Qaeda.

In fact, Al-Qaeda recruiting has gone up considerably in the last few years. When you make someone fear you, that does not necessarily make you any safer. If anything, you now have to deal with the threat of retaliation. Let's consider the people in whom we would be inducing fear. These people believe that they have been fundamentally wronged. They believe that not only is God on their side, but that they are on God's side. They are driven by principle. They feel that their back is to the wall and that they have nothing to lose. And finally, they are willing to die for their cause.

And let me tell you that when are dealing with an enemy like that, trying to induce fear in them is probably the worse thing that you can do, because if they snap, they'll take out you and anyone standing near you in a heartbeat.

Maybe Yoda was right on the mark when he said:

Fear is the path to the dark side: fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering

So when John McCain jokes about bombing Iran or making North Korea extinct, I am hardly laughing. These countries may be small, but that doesn't make them any less capable of causing serious damage. Ask yourself -- would you want yourself or anyone in your family to be a casualty of John McCain's idiotic posturing?

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Back to Blogging...

2008-09-29T13:42:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers (all seven of you):

In light of the recent economic crisis, I decided to suspend my blog so that I could throw my hat into the ring and help the bailout effort. :-)

Seriously - it has been a busy last couple of weeks at work, which left little time for writing. I am still pretty mired in deadlines, but feel like procrastinating a bit, so thought I'd write a quick post on the recent Drama queen antics of John McCain.

McCain as you know claimed that he would be putting his campaign on hold so that he could help with the bailout efforts and suggested that if a bailout plan was not agreed to by Friday, then he would skip out on the Presidential debates. Of course, he failed to keep his word even on that matter and showed up to the debate even though no bailout agreement was reached (mind you, I have evidence that he planned to be at the debate no matter what -- but I'll get to that later).

Over these past few weeks, John McCain has been more erratic than a senile schizophrenic on speed. His most recent antics raise an important question: did John McCain sincerely believe he was going to be improving matters by going to Washington to "help" with reaching a bailout agreement or was he jockeying and posturing for media attention? This question is serious in light of the situation America is in right now. If McCain went to Washington as an elaborate media stunt at such a grave time, it would go to show that he is not fundamentally interested in improving the nation's situation, but is instead interested in improving his own situation. And that is not what I would look for in a Presidential candidate.

Let me mention a few points that have me concerned about John McCain's sincerity:

McCain is not a member of the Senate banking committee.
McCain, by his own admission, does not know much about Economics
McCain, by his own admission, did not even read Paulson's original bailout plan (which was only three pages long mind you):

Even members of Congress were annoyed that John McCain was trying to come in and pretend to be the superhero. What did McCain do during his visit to Washington? Well, apparently he rarely showed up to Capitol Hill -- holed up in his apartment instead. And during one of his few excursions out he decided to help the local economy by enjoying dinner at a fancy restaurant.

Although no agreement had been reached with regard to the bailout plan, McCain came to the debate anyway (perhaps he realized that people saw through his charade). In fact, McCain had every intention of showing up to the debate. How do I know this? Well, McCain actually already posted advertisements online claiming he had won the debate several hours before he even publicly said he was going to participate in the first place. That's pretty impressive. Maybe he has a time machine. But the time machine much be broken because according to several polls, Obama came out ahead in the debate.

McCain has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment. He has repeatedly demonstrated poor decision making. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he puts his own interests far ahead of America's interests. And ultimately, he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unfit to be our commander and chief.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Response to MJBlogger, Obama, Taxes, and Ideology

2008-09-24T10:30:00.000-07:00

MJBlogger left a comment to my post on debate advice.

Rather than try to fit a meaningful response within the constraints of the comment response field, I thought I would provide a more extensive reply. I'll be quoting from his comment in my own response.

WEF: I think your post here suffers from the same problem that Dems face when trying to understand how W. got elected twice. You simply miss the fact that there is an enormous sector of the American population that does not agree with the Democrats on the issues (hard to believe I know) and you could put Mickey Mouse on the Republican ticket and we still wouldn't pull the lever for a Democrat!

I partially agree, though I don't think this is saying much. You can take any statement, no matter how ludicrous, and find someone out there who believes it. There are people who think the earth is flat and that the moon is made of cottage cheese. No matter what you say to these people and no matter what evidence you put in front of them, they will continue to hold strong in these beliefs. Having said that, I believe that many people's negative opinions about the Democrats are based on misinformation and lies.

I further believe that if one were to do a "blind" taste test where you remove a candidate's party affiliation and simply present people with a description of a candidate's policies and ask them to score both how closely they agree with those policies and how much those policies actually matter to them, then there would be fewer Republicans out there. And I believe that if you went a step further and helped people correctly reason about which issues matter more in their daily lives, then there would be even fewer Republicans. (For example, people might rank abortion as an important political issue that they care about -- even though in practice making your voting decision based on this issue is pretty futile. Consider that George Bush has been in office 8 years and Roe v. Wade is still on the books. And quite frankly, I don't think any Republican will actually do anything about abortion because they will no longer have it as an issue they can leverage in future elections.)

Consider also that there are a fair number of people who have been misinformed by Republican smear tactics into thinking that Barack Obama is a Muslim and that he was sworn in on the Koran. You and I both know that's false. Not only is Obama a Christian, but he probably knows scripture better than John McCain and George Bush combined. And Obama better espouses Christian values. John McCain is a divorcee and adulterer; these aren't exactly the qualities that come to mind when you think of a good Christian.

So, while I agree that there are people who will stubbornly vote the Republican party line, I believe that there are many people out there who are voting that direction because they have been lied to repeatedly.

Your boy is as socialist as they come. He proposes billions in tax increases and trillions in new spending -- what does that mean in the long run -- he's really going to raise taxes on all of us, he just can't tell you that up front. The other question I have is when the heck are Americans going to realize that corporations do not pay taxes! Raise the corporate tax rate (as The One proposes) and they simply raise the price of their goods -- they are responsible to shareholders and have to deliver a profit, usually equal to or higher than previous profits to keep their jobs. The One hides his tax on the middle class by laundering it through the corporations. I just don't get how people repeatedly fall for that BS.

Wow - your comment contains a lot of loaded language that is designed only to induce fear rather than to illuminate. This trait seems to common among many Republicans I have encountered. For some reason, they are incapable of trying to make their point using sound language and so they resort to scare tactics. I have always felt that if you need to resort to strong language, lies, and fear to make your point, then it's probably because you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

OK - let's get back to the comment. First, Barack Obama is absolutely not a socialist. Far from it. He believes in fostering a society in which someone with a drive to succeed should not be hindered from doing so regardless of their socioeconomic background. And this isn't some new fangled fancy latte drinking belief. This belief is in the very fabric of America. Our nation was built on this belief and we have come to call it the American dream. I don't see how giving anyone with the right desires and work ethic a framework on which to achieve their dreams is considered socialist.

The problem with things today is that the current administration has effectively been trying to kill the American dream. They give huge tax breaks to the rich, and put an increasing burden on the middle class and the poor. If you are not already wealthy, then succeeding in this type of environment is tantamount to winning the lottery. The Republican administration is good at polarizing America -- they want us to believe that we are really two different countries. That each half has its own ideology that is diametrically opposed to the culture and social values of the other.

But that's nonsense. Yes, people have differences. However, we also have a lot in common. For example, we would like to see our children succeed, we would like a dignified retirement for ourselves, and we would generally like to avoid having to work harder than ever only to find that our well being today is far less certain than the well being of our forefathers. Rather than trying to conquer this country by dividing it, doesn't it make more sense to find common ground and actually build this nation from a position of unity? Again, this isn't some new fangled, latte drinking, belief. It is the belief on which our nation was founded and called the United States of America. And it is these beliefs that Barack Obama espouses. Thinking differently as the Republicans have done is tantamount to ensuring our failure.

You seem to think that corporations are going to respond to all of this by raising prices to increase their profitability. Hang on a second. I can say with extreme confidence that if a corporation could increase its profitability by raising prices, then it would already be doing so today. So, I don't think there is room to raise prices. If they did, then American consumption would go down. Let me digress for a moment and talk about consumption.

Right now the American people are pretty tapped out. The true cost of living has increased, but wages have not increased enough to compensate. How have Americans historically handled this? There have been four ways:

First, we did away with the idea of a single-income household. It is increasingly harder to make ends meet with just one income, so many more women have entered the workforce. Do you realize, for example, that in this country's most prestigious medical schools more than half the students are women? (Not that long ago, it was quite the opposite -- so much so that the word Doctor evoked the image of a grey-haired white man.)
Of course, the cost of living kept going up, so Americans then turned to their next option: work more. The average American works significantly more today than his or her parents did.
But, still the cost of living went up. What else could American's do? Well, now we started to see an increase in credit card adoption. Credit was cheap, and it allowed you to finance that new television set.
Of course, the credit card market became increasingly predatory, and Americans could no longer keep up with their minimum payments. So, they resorted to their next option: they tapped into their homes. Home equity lines of credits sprung up everywhere. At first it was a good gig. They could use the value of their home as collateral against a low-interest loan. And here we started to enter in the perfect storm that has become the real estate greed market. Banks were incentivized to give out more loans because they could sell those loans off to other organizations, which then inflated home prices, and made equity lines an even more attractive proposition. It was a vicious cycle that would ultimately lead to Americans not being able to keep up with their loans (many of which should never have been given to them in the first place). As a result, the housing market has imploded. And with it so too has the ability to tap into a second mortgage.

So, what are Americans left with? Well, unless we pass legislation to legalize polygamy so we can have quadruple income families, or unless we convince the sun to move slower and condition our bodies to need less sleep so that there are more hours in the day for people to work, or unless we somehow convince people to keep handing us money that we can't afford to repay, we have no choice but to cut back how much we consume and spend. (By the way, many Republicans I talk to vehemently believe that people should have either cut their consumption or found a way to make more money before resorting to credit and loans and such. On this point I generally agree -- I don't have sympathy for someone using a credit card to buy a Plasma screen TV on an installment plan today only to complain about being dead broke a year from now -- but I also believe the original system was basically mismanaged, and shouldn't have lent the poor sap the cash in the first place. Unfortunately, the system was set up for catastrophic failure.)

Where does that leave us? Well, I don't think companies can afford to raise prices, because I don't think Americans can afford to pay more. So, the only way for a company to reasonably increase its profit margins would be to operate more efficiently. (And by that I don't mean lay people off because that only provides a fictitious and temporary type of efficiency; instead they may have to trim some of the fat off of excessive CEO salaries and multi-million dollar bonuses. They may also work harder to improve their business processes, and streamline them. A large part of that can be accomplished through the effective use of technology. I don't have all the answers, because we are in quite a mess right now. But I do believe that there are Americans who are bright, determined, and focused enough to come up with the solutions if given the opportunity to do so.)

You also claim that Obama will increase taxes. That is hogwash. His tax plan is clear and responsible. Most Americans will pay less under Obama's plan than they will under McCain's plan. And McCain's plan also includes some hidden zingers like taxing employer provided health insurance. I don't think people fully realize just how devastating that hidden tax is. Almost for that reason alone, they shouldn't vote McCain. Now in an effort to put fear into people's hearts (which many Republicans seem fond of doing), you claim that he is really not going to follow through with his plans.

Let's take a step back here and objectively consider who is more likely to be flip-flopping. Look at McCain's plan. First, he says he will cut everyone's taxes, and provide massive breaks to the uber-wealthy. However, McCain's tax cuts are not accompanied by cuts in Federal spending. McCain is looking to spend even more -- he wants to dump more money into Iraq, Afghanistan, and a whole bunch of other causes. Where is that money coming from? Simple. He is going to borrow it. Who will he borrow it from? Countries like China (who Bush has already borrowed a lot from). What happens now? Well, the more we borrow, the less likely people are to lend us money (in much the same way a bank is less likely to give you money if you already have a lot of outstanding loans). Also, under the Republican administration, the US has been good at pissing off other countries. We can pretend to be all macho, but it's generally not a good idea to piss off the people who lend you money. They'll either break your legs or cut you off. And as much we like to believe in our strength, we are in a far more precarious position than people realize, and it would be easy for another country to side-swipe our feet and leave us crippled for quite some time.

So the only way to sustain McCain's plan is to keep borrowing (at increasingly expensive rates). If we keep doing that, we'll be in the same boat as those people who barely make minimum wage but buy Plasma screen TVs. We'll soon be broke. Since many Republicans would argue that those people should have curbed their consumption, isn't it reasonable to think that as a country America should also curb consumption as well? Again, I don't have all the answers, but I think that looking at things objectively, it's hard (if not impossible) to take McCain's plan seriously.

This post is already long enough, and I'd quite frankly be surprised if anyone gets this far. So, I'll pretty much stop here, but do want to end on a crucial note. There are many important issues at stake here. And there is a lot to consider, understand, and reflect on. It is clear to me that John McCain is building his campaign around empty promises that will just be generally impossible to keep. Because of excessive misinformation campaigns, many Americans will not be able to look past the smoke and mirrors to realize that McCain's plan is shallow, and that by diving into it head first, we are simply going to crack our skulls. One too many times we have been tricked by such short term thinking only to find that it puts us on a treacherous path that is bound to cause irreparable harm and damage. I can only pray that enough Americans will come to realize McCain's folly and help get America back on track by voting for Barack Obama.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

McCain and Veterans Rights

2008-09-22T08:41:00.000-07:00

John McCain has repeatedly referenced his time in Vietnam as a reason people should consider him an honorable candidate. Since he has held that door open for some time, and make a repeated example out of it, I think it is fair to ask how honorable his actions have been with regard to veterans affairs since he came back from Vietnam.

For those Veterans, I would urge you to examine John McCain's position on Veteran's rights. You might be surprised:

McCain has repeatedly voted against extra funding for veteran's hospitals and veteran's medical aid.
McCain voted against the Webb amendment which provides for adequate rest periods between deployments in Iraq.
McCain voted against releasing POW records, including those of people still missing and whose families desire closure.
McCain failed to support the 21st century GI bill.
McCain failed to support legislation that ensures hospitalized veterans are allowed to vote.

Now, you may wonder why on earth John McCain would be interested in suppressing a Veteran's right to vote.

Well, when you consider that troops deployed overseas are supporting Barack Obama by a 6 to 1 ratio, I think you begin to understand why. Now, consider that for a moment. 6 to 1. If anything that speaks volumes about the extent to which the men and women serving this country actually have faith in John McCain's support.

Yes, McCain was a veteran. But now that he has taken care of himself financially by marrying into a wealthy family, perhaps he no longer sees the need to provide for veterans. Is that how you would treat your brothers and sisters? It's clear that John McCain's actions are not aligned with his hollow words and empty rhetoric.

Now, while I can't say that I support every war this country has fought, I can say that I have tremendous respect for Veterans; they have gone into harms way to keep me safe. And for that I am indebted to them. For all they have done, we owe these men and women at least a modicum of basic benefits and rights. And for that, I think we owe it to them not to elect John McCain into office given how little he has done for them.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Debate Advice

2008-09-21T23:46:00.000-07:00

Came across the following article from the Wall Street Journal on candidate preparations for the debate. The following quote from the article struck me:

Here is some of what the advisers are telling their candidates, based on interviews with both campaigns:

To Sen. McCain: Don't be so "brutally honest" that you spell out what you don't know, such as the imploding economy. Don't let early jitters make you come off as "testy." Those superstitious tokens? Make sure they are handy so you aren't thrown if you can't find them. Don't overuse your favorite semantic crutch, "My friends."

To Sen. Obama: Don't be so thorough on giving pros and cons that you come off as the law professor you once were. Don't try sarcastic humor that can seem flip, as during one appearance when you said determining when life begins is "above my pay grade." Don't be so objective, or Zen-like, that you don't show your passion.

To Sen. Biden: Don't talk too much; it often is your effort to fill silence that can get you into trouble, such as last week when you praised Sen. Hillary Clinton and then went on to add that she would have been a better vice-presidential pick.

To Gov. Palin: Don't memorize talking points so that you give rote answers rather than showing your own personality and grasp of issues. Don't say that you can see Russia from parts of Alaska, which you did in your first media interview, which was spoofed by Tina Fey playing you on "Saturday Night Live."

So, basically the advice by the advisers to the candidates can be summarized as follows:

To Obama/Biden: Be careful about letting people realize just how much you know because they might think you are too smart.
To McCain/Palin: Be careful about letting people realize just how little you know because they will realize that you are basically out of touch.

I don't know about you, but that scares me. How weak a ticket is McCain-Palin when their own advisors think they basically don't know enough. And how strong a ticket is Obama-Biden when the main negative feedback of their advisors is that they are incredibly knowledgeable.

Maybe this won't make a difference in real life since the trends indicate that many voters will be basing their choice on far more superficial reasons. But I hope that for those of you planning to make a decision based on issues of importance will come to realize how much a a farce the McCain-Palin ticket is.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Reflection and the Campaign

2008-09-21T15:03:00.001-07:00

It has been said that what we say about others is often a deeper reflection of what we actually believe about ourselves. I’m not sure if this principle has a well-known name (if you are aware of one, please let me know), but I believe that we are starting to see this concept vividly in the presidential election.

John McCain’s slogan is “Country First” and he has repeatedly claimed that Barack Obama is more interested in his personal advancement, rather than in the advancement of America. Now, ironically, if you look at John McCain’s own actions over time, he has demonstrated a blatant penchant for selfishly guarding his own interests. In other words, when John McCain implies that Barack Obama is not “country first” I believe that John McCain is actually exposing his own sentiments (perhaps subconsciously). Let’s look at a few examples.

First, John McCain has repeatedly switched his positions (see my previous posts) in response to public opinion. This excessive waffling is an indication that he is positioning himself to say what he needs to in order to get elected rather than actually expressing his true beliefs. Further, the fact that he needs to waffle might be a deeper sign that he is wrong (and out of touch) repeatedly on the issues, and therefore needs to backtrack when it becomes clear that he is way off base.

Second, John McCain picked Sarah Palin for Vice President. He clearly picked her to pick up two voter segments: disgruntled female Hillary supporters and ultra-right wing conservatives. McCain didn’t pick Palin because she is aligned with him on critical issues or because she brings relevant expertise to the table that he lacks. Instead, he picked her to get more votes. For the task of actually running this country, or being second in charge, few would consider Palin to be the strongest choice.

By picking a candidate because of her popular appeal rather than her ability to run this country, John McCain put the advancement of his own political career ahead of the well being of this country. In McCain’s case, this choice is egregiously precarious because of his old age. (If elected, McCain would be the oldest person to take the office of President, and there is a realistic chance he will not survive to see the end of his tenure on the job.)

Third, McCain has a personal history of putting himself first before the well being of those closest to him. For example, by his own admission John McCain cheated on his first wife. He then proceeded to divorce her and one month later married a wealthy heiress (Cindy McCain). He clearly sensed an opportunity for his own personal advancement by leveraging Cindy McCain’s wealth to launch a political career. If he can betray the trust of his own wife, then he is clearly capable of betraying the trust of the American people.

Now, having said all this, I'm not passing judgment. We are all guilty of being selfish at times. However, John McCain has opened the issue up by citing the pledge "Country First" and by repeatedly attacking his opponent on those grounds. Second, we owe it to this country to actually hold our choice for commander and chief to a higher standard than we hold ourselves.

So next time John McCain mouths off negatively about his opponent, it’s important to ask yourself whether John McCain’s statements are a more accurate reflection of himself. You’ll be quite surprised at what you’ll find.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

To Sarah Palin: It's better to say nothing if you have nothing useful to say

2008-09-19T18:01:00.001-07:00

CNN article:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/18/palins-transparency-proposal-already-exists-in-dc/

I mean you really just can't make this stuff up.

Palin's transparency proposal already exists in D.C.
Posted: 02:10 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby
Sarah Palin says she will bring the same kind of transparency she brought to Alaska to Washington, D.C..

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (CNN) – Sarah Palin likes to tell voters around the country about how she “put the government checkbook online” in Alaska. On Thursday, Palin suggested she would take that same proposal to Washington.

“We’re going to do a few new things also,” she said at a rally in Cedar Rapids. “For instance, as Alaska’s governor, I put the government’s checkbook online so that people can see where their money’s going. We’ll bring that kind of transparency, that responsibility, and accountability back. We’re going to bring that back to D.C.”

There’s just one problem with proposing to put the federal checkbook online – somebody’s already done it. His name is Barack Obama.

Watch: Palin says 'Obama hasn't lifted a finger'

In 2006 and 2007, Obama teamed up with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn to pass the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, also known as “Google for Government.” The act created a free, searchable web site – USASpending.gov — that discloses to the public all federal grants, contracts, loans and insurance payments.

In June of this year, Obama and Coburn introduced new Senate legislation to expand the information available online to include details on earmarks, competitive bidding, criminal activities, audit disputes and other government information.

Palin might also have noted that her running mate, John McCain, was an original co-sponsor of the 2006 transparency bill that became law.

UPDATE: A campaign spokesperson insisted that Palin was referring not to that specific proposal, but rather to "that kind of transparency in general."

It's funny - even McCain and Palin think Obama is right... C'mon people, can you at least come up with one original idea on your own that actually benefits the American People instead of stealing from Obama?

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Taxes and Whether McCain is For You or For Himself

2008-09-19T17:27:00.000-07:00

While I make my daily rounds on the Internet looking for relevant news on the Presidential campaign, I'm surprised by some of the nonsensical comments some readers post in response to various articles. I would guess that it is highly likely that some of these comments are being made by people funded by John McCain. So, I wanted to provide some clarifications on the underlying issues. Some of this content is mentioned in previous blogs posts, but I thought it would be helpful to have it all in one place.

First, unless you are making $600,000+ a year, you will not really be paying more in taxes under Barack Obama compared to John McCain. The following web site allows you to determine your tax bill under each candidate: http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/details.html

Second, McCain also has an additional hidden tax that he doesn't like to talk about. Namely, he will tax the benefits you receive from an employer-funded health plan. So, if you have any additional medical attention or have a special needs child, you can expect to be paying more. I'm not prepared to ignore a couple of trillion dollars.

Third, McCain has proven time and again that he will say what he needs to dupe you into voting for him, but his actual actions may not have your best interests in mind. Remember, McCain is a man who doesn't know how many houses he owns, and whose wife wears $300,000+ earrings.

Look at McCain in action:
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=2arf1Fvuu5Y
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=G6bc82h4vWA
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=xrEN58gcxIs
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0a6aGa1CoE

(I'm including the links explicitly so it is easy for you to copy and paste them into your own emails and blogs -- or into any comments you post to news articles -- as proof positive that John McCain will say whatever he needs to in order to get elected. Each video largely speaks for itself.)

It is hard to imagine anyone who thinks John McCain has any integrity after watching these. The straight talk express has derailed!

I think it's time we voted true leaders into the White House who have demonstrated a commitment to excellence and who can maintain America's leadership position. Barack Obama was raised by a single white woman who supported the family with food stamps. He worked hard and managed to obtain a top-notch education with little in the way of financial resources. He went on to Harvard Law School where he made the prestigious Harvard Law Review. Oh and by the way, he spent considerable time before then working to provide rights to individuals like you and me.

John McCain, on the other hand, graduated near the bottom of his class, and cheated on his first wife when he came back from Vietnam. (He then proceeded to marry his wealthy mistress one month after he divorced his first wife.) I don't understand how anyone who considers themselves part of the "religious right" can even contemplate voting for an admitted adulterer and divorcee. This is at best a contradiction.

This race is only close because of race. But truth be told, America is drowning. And the only person who can offer us a life-jacket happens to be half-black. If you cannot get past that, then you are not only daft, but you deserve whatever peril comes your way. And trust me, John McCain does not care that you are drowning. He is worth millions of dollars and probably only has a couple of years before senile dementia takes over (and if you have seen him recently, it's conceivable that he is already be halfway there), so I'm sure John McCain will be doing quite fine.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

As the Waffle Burns Part II

2008-09-18T10:07:00.002-07:00

Folks, you just can't make this stuff up. Here are two more examples of McCain switching his stance within a short time.

First, watch McCain change his stance with regard to the AIG Bailout.

Now, watch him flip-flop on the issue of regulation.

I suppose that when John McCain claims he is for change, that really means that he is for changing his stance whenever it is convenient. We don't need a president to have 20/20 hindsight, but rather one who has 20/20 foresight. Obama has demonstrated time and again that he understands key issues, ranging from our foreign policy to the economy.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

A Conservative for Obama

2008-09-18T10:07:00.001-07:00

I thought the following article was worthwhile reading. I would try to summarize, except it is short enough and well written enough that there is no need for me.

A Conservative for Obama

My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead the country.

Leading Off By Wick Allison, Editor In Chief

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.

Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

Write to wicka@dmagazine.com.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

As the Waffle Burns

2008-09-18T10:07:00.000-07:00

Following the election these past couple of weeks has been gut wrenching at times. While trying to get a better sense of where candidates stand and somewhat more importantly where the American people stand, there were a few things that didn't quite jive (these all relate to the McCain Campaign).

John McCain has taken several stances recently:

He unequivocally claimed that he is against deregulation of the financial markets
He unequivocally claimed that he is against the idea of CEOs receiving multi-million dollar golden parachutes when they are dismissed from their jobs (or otherwise "strongly encouraged" to resign)
He unequivocally claimed that he is against pork barrel spending

And yet, think about who John McCain's top advisors are.

Phil Gramm (McCain's economic advisor) spearheaded the legislation that deregulated credit default swaps -- the very financial instrument whose abuse lead to the downfall of three of the big 5 Wall Street investment banks (and by all accounts, the carnage is not over since the remaining two seem to be actively engaged in merger talks because of their precarious financial position)
Carly Fiornia (Another top McCain advisor who up until recently was stumping for him) is a poster child for CEO golden parachutes. During her tenure as CEO of HP, the company's market value was literally cut in half, and Carly laid off about 7,000+ workers. She also attempted to merge the company with Compaq, which proved to be a debacle. For all this, when Carly was terminated, HP gave her a 20+ million dollar severance package (several times her annual base salary).
Finally, Sarah Palin... where to begin... Alaska received the highest per capita in earmark dollars. Further, despite her claims about refusing money for the bridge to nowhere, it has become increasingly clear that Palin actually flip-flopped. She initially wanted the funding, but only changed her mind when it was clear that even Congress had enough.

On three issues, McCain claims to take one stance and yet the advisors he relies on espouse the opposite view. I used to have respect for McCain a number of years back, but to me it is becoming clear that it's not "Country First" but "John McCain First". He repeatedly says one thing, even though his actions reveal another.

I believe that Americans who vote for him based on his existing stances will only be disappointed in the end. At the same time, I also believe that there are many Americans who will see through this charade. I can only pray that there enough of them in this country and that they make a sound choice this November.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Kicking them while they are down...

2008-09-17T11:31:00.000-07:00

I came across the following article, which exposes an issue that I think is beyond despicable.

Here's the quick summary:

Republicans are using foreclosure lists to keep people who lived at those places from voting.
The idea is that they send a mail to the foreclosed address with a "do not forward" stamp. If the mail gets returned, then they use that as a basis to challenge the authenticity of the voter's registration status.
The premise is that most people whose homes have been foreclosed will likely be voting for Barack Obama, and by disenfranchising them, the McCain campaign hopes to get a bit of an edge. With nearly 10,000 foreclosures PER DAY nationwide, that's a lot of votes to make disappear.
None of this actually has any legal weight, mind you -- since a foreclosure does not equate to a legal address change, and second since people can still vote at their old precinct within 60 days of losing their home. But that won't stop the Republicans.

Republican friendly disenfranchisement tactics were used in Florida in 2000 and 2004, and also in Ohio in 2004. The Republicans have realized that they cannot win this election without lying, cheating, and stealing. This latest act is disgraceful on so many levels. Republican policies (especially those deregulation policies spearheaded by McCain's top economic adviser Phil Gramm) lead to the housing meltdown, and now that people are down, they are literally being kicked and spit on. Does the Republican party really care about the well being of the American people? I think not...

Obama campaign files suit over “voter-foreclosure” plans
By Ed Brayton 9/16/08 12:46 PM

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Michigan over the Michigan GOP’s plan to use foreclosure lists to challenge voters at the polls, as first reported by the Michigan Messenger.

Bob Bauer, general counsel for the Obama campaign, and Mark Brewer, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, announced the lawsuit in a conference call with reporters this afternoon. It was filed on behalf of the campaign, the party and three Michigan residents who have had their houses foreclosed upon in recent months.

Bauer called the GOP plan to use foreclosure lists “a new and especially repellent version of caging.” Caging is a technique of challenging voters where they take lists of addresses, mail to them with a “do not forward” marking and if for whatever reason those mailings are returned, they use this as a basis for claiming that the voter no longer lives at the address at which they are registered.

Bauer noted that using foreclosure lists to challenge a voter’s address is “false and illegal” for several reasons. First, because getting a foreclosure notice is not evidence that the person’s address has changed. In Michigan, homeowners have the opportunity to redeem the foreclosure even after a sheriff’s sale has occurred, which means they can stay in the home for many months after a foreclosure notice has been sent. Second, because under Michigan law a person can vote at their old precinct if they lost their home within 60 days of the election.

Brewer noted that in July alone 11,000 Michigan residents received foreclosure notices. The McCain campaign, he argued, “wants to add insult to injury” by denying those residents their right to vote. “The right to vote is one of our most fundamental rights as Americans,” said Brewer, “To try to strip our fellow citizens of their right to vote is un-American and unconscionable.”

Last week, James Carabelli, chairman of the Macomb County GOP, told the Messenger’s Eartha Melzer in a phone interview: “We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses.” The Michigan Republican Party has denied that Carabelli made the statements that the Michigan Messenger reported, but Bauer said that the complaint includes quotes from Republican operatives in Ohio and other states saying much the same thing Carabelli said and defending the legitimacy of using foreclosure lists and voter caging techniques.

Bauer also said that they expect that the lawsuit will allow them to subpoena emails and memos from the state and local GOP officials that will prove that they had obtained foreclosure lists and were planning to use them for this purpose.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

A Candidate They Can Relate To

2008-09-16T22:44:00.000-07:00

In recent times, Americans have shown a propensity to vote for a candidate they can relate to rather than one who will make decisions that are for the betterment of this country. We saw this with Bush junior and even with Bill Clinton (his shining moment came when he played the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show).

McCain's bump in the polls recently has been largely due to the extent to which people feel they relate to Sarah Palin. She is the ultimate "reality TV show" candidate; Palin makes the average American think that they too could be Vice President. And unfortunately, how well you relate to a candidate says nothing about how effectively that candidate will perform their job. If I need to hire a plumber to fix a leaky faucet,I'm going to choose someone who I think can do the job, not the person I best relate to. While this is common sense, for some reason in the context of a President election, many Americans throw common sense out the window.

People also cannot evaluate issues appropriately. They will vote for a President who they think will protect them from terrorism over a candidate with sound economic policies even though the likelihood of a terrorist act is generally extremely small, whereas economic turbulence is commonplace. (Not to mention that people might think the Republicans are the experts on national security, even though the biggest terrorist act that targeted the US happened under the watch of a Republican President, and the level of recruiting for Al-Qaeda increased considerably in response to the American "preemptive" strike on Iraq.)

Barack Obama's plan strikes me as one that wants America to take a leadership position. He correctly observes that if we fail to invest in certain areas, like education, and if we continue the current plan of deficit spending by increasing our debt to other countries, then it is only a matter of time before we are surpassed as an economic superpower by countries like China.

So, I don't believe that ultimately, many Americans vote by carefully considering the issues and the long-term repercussions of a particular candidate's platforms. And I also don't believe that many Americans fully comprehend the ramifications of a particular candidate's plan for this country.

I can only hope that enough Americans will vote sensibly enough come November.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Recent Obama Speech on the Economy

2008-09-16T16:31:00.000-07:00

The following recent speech by Barack Obama on the economy is worth checking out:

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Poker, position, and politics

2008-09-16T12:16:00.001-07:00

In the game of poker, the concept of position is very critical. Betting typically happens in a counterclockwise fashion, and the last person to act in a given betting round generally has a sizeable advantage. There are several reasons:

Acting last allows you to see what your opponents do first, giving you more information on which to base your decision.
Most of the time nobody has a strong hand. In fact, the very nature of a strong hand in poker dictates that such a hand does not come up very often. In these situations, position matters more because the person who is last to act might pick up the pot by betting or raising, and causing an opponent to fold when neither person really had much of anything.
Position matters more when you are playing big-bet poker (such as No Limit Texas hold'em, which has gained popularity on television)
Position matters more when stacks are deep (i.e., when people are playing with a considerable sum of money relative to the blinds and antes).

In fact, position matters so much, that you are correct to play much weaker starting hands when you get to act last (in contrast, you need to be much more selective when acting first).

What does this have to do with politics? Well, I believe it explains why John McCain picked up momentum recently. He acted last in two important scenarios. First, he made his vice presidential pick known only after Barack Obama announced his. Second, he used the power of position at the Republican National Convention, which took place after the Democratic one.

From the perspective of trying to win an election, Sarah Palin has undoubtedly been a good pick. She might not be the most qualified person for the job or even the person who best complements John McCain. She is almost definitely not a good choice for betterment of the American people. But she's a young, generally attractive woman and gave the Republican party a little lift after its spirits were sagging. Furthermore, she has attracted disgruntled Clinton voters (though ironically enough she probably has radically different views that are probably anathema for many of these voters). Had Obama known that McCain would pick Palin, then Obama himself might have more strongly considered picking Hillary Clinton to neutralize the Palin effect (though, truth be told, from the perspective of the core issues of substance, I believe that Joe Biden was also an excellent pick).

The Republican Party also held an advantage in that their convention was held after the Democratic one. While the Democrats demonstrated tremendous diplomacy and honor in their convention, the Republicans were downright nasty in theirs. I believe that this nastiness stemmed from desperation. Recognizing that they were behind in the polls and that any semblance of trying to run an honorable campaign was failing miserably (since they didn't have any real substance to stand on) -- they turned the campaign into a WWF battle royale.

By acting last they managed to set the tone. To borrow another poker expression, it looks to me like the Republicans are on "tilt". They have lost all sense of reality, and are behaving maniacally in hopes to get lucky. The thing with tilt is that unless you get really, really lucky, it's a surefire recipe to go broke. When someone goes on tilt in poker and starts betting and raising every hand, the best way to counter them is to be a bit patient until you pick up a reasonable hand, and then let them hand all their chips to you. More often that not, this strategy will work. It only takes one hand to make that happen.

I believe that we are starting to see that hand with the economy. Despite what John McCain's rose colored glasses will tell you, we are witnessing serious economic disaster. The casualties include Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Country Wide Loans, among others. These are no small casualties. Up until a few months ago, you would never, in a million years, have though that all of these companies would wind up "busto" (another poker term) so quickly. None of this is due to "variance" (a poker term for "bad luck"). Instead, it is due to bad policies and bad plays by the current administration.

The same Republican mindset that created these problems cannot possibly fix them. Instead, they just plan to make things worse for most Americans. John McCain will increase the tax burden on the middle class, while giving huge breaks to his cronies. (No wonder his wife can afford to buy yet another pair of $300,000 earrings and no wonder he lost track of how many houses he owns.)

The key to being a long term winner in poker is to observe your opponent's tendencies, find their weaknesses, and then make correct decisions in light of those weaknesses without letting emotions induced by variance cloud your judgment.

So, please don't get fooled by the smoke and mirrors. The last eight years have been bad enough and I don't think we can afford even a few more months, let alone years! I hope that you can make a correct decision at the polls.

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

A picture is worth a thousand words, but a You Tube Video is priceless!

2008-09-16T10:39:00.000-07:00

Here are some YouTube videos where you get to see John McCain in true form. Please pass these along to anyone you know, especially if they live in any of the following states (Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia) and are even considering voting for the him:

http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=2arf1Fvuu5Y
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=G6bc82h4vWA

I mean these are pretty ridiculous... If you come across any more, let me know!

Comments, Criticisms, Flames, Words of Encouragement, etc., always Welcome!

Record-breaking Fund Raising Month for Barack Obama

2008-09-14T22:00:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post has an article on how Barack Obama has had a record-breaking month in terms of online donations, and in the process garnered 500,000 new donors (making the total number of donors to the campaign 2.5 million).

This confirms something that I have suspected, but which the media left out: namely, the rather capricious choice Sarah Palin on the ticket has done as much to energize Americans who do not want four more years of McBush as it has Republicans.

Superficial issues aside, I would like to have faith the Americans will realize that that the economy should be the focal point of this campaign. Few realize that under Obama most Americans will be paying less in taxes than under McBush.

Second, few realize that McBush also plans to tax employee provided health care benefits you get. That means at least thousands more per family down the drain. And if you have a "special needs child" or a pre-existing condition that impacts your insurance premiums, expect to be financially slammed as a result.

Many middle class Americans are duped into thinking that they should vote for McBush because they agree with him on social issues like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Prayer in Schools, etc. But these people fail to realize they will be in the poor house if McBush gets into office (and McBush won't do diddly squat to address the above social issues -- in the same way that his predecessor abandoned social causes in favor of making his cronies more rich).

At least 2.5 million people out there understand these issues, and I hope that far more do when it's time to vote. Remember: it's the economy stupid! And remember that if you are not as wealthy as John McCain (or rather Cindy McCain and her $300,000 pair of earings), you will certainly be in a world of financial hurt if you vote for him.

Palin says Obama to Regret Not Picking Clinton

2008-09-13T08:15:00.001-07:00

Sarah Palin believes that Obama regrets not picking Clinton for Vice President.

As I've said before, while Clinton is no doubt a highly qualified candidate for Vice President (or even President!), that does not mean that an Obama-Clinton ticket would have been better than the Obama-Biden ticket. There are numerous considerations that go into the decision of whom to select for Vice President . John McCain doesn’t understand this concept because he prefers to gamble and shoot from the hip and pick a VP candidate who is no more qualified than you or I to be VP. John McCain also prefers to lie and cheat. So, why should we entrust him with the care of our country? If John McCain truly cared about America, he would have picked a VP candidate with some substance rather than a pretty face who could attract superficial votes, but who is ultimately not capable of doing the job and who is most certainly bad for this country.

A Page from the Old Republican Playbook

2008-09-12T13:57:00.000-07:00

John McCain appeared on The View and it appears as though he was given a hard time because he has been lying recently.

McCain is employing the age old Republican tactic:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
- Joseph Goebbels

Well, I'm not exactly sure that following Joseph Goebbels's example is where this country should be headed. Napoleon Bonaparte also has been quoted as saying that "History is just a set of lies agreed upon." And look where it got him...

This is not the same John McCain of a few years back. McCain has lost his sense of honor and decency -- he is not out there promoting the ideals that can make this country great again, but instead saying whatever it is he can to dupe the American people into voting for him. This campaign has become disgraceful and makes American the laughing stock of the world.

There was one particularly amusing tidbit from the article:

"About health care," McCain said, referring to his own comments. Obama "chooses his words very carefully. He shouldn't have said it."

Wait - do you mean to tell me that John McCain does not choose his words carefully? Just what we need - a President whose mouth writes checks that his country can't cash. (Yeah, yeah - I know. I just couldn't resist! John McCain can bring out the worst in all of us. :-))

Palin's ABC interview - Oh My God

2008-09-12T00:31:00.000-07:00

I just caught the first in the series of interviews that Charlie Gibson is conducting with Sarah Palin -- and, whoa! If it was ever more clear that she should not be vice president...

Some choice tidbits:

When asked whether she had ever left the country prior to this year, the only places she traveled were to Canada and Mexico. Huh? This is unacceptable for our nation's leaders.
When asked about her national security experience, the she just rambled on about... energy! What does energy have to do with national security? Well, Charlie Gibson asked just that and Palin's reply was that energy was the foundation of national security. I think I'm a reasonably intelligent person, and I'm still trying to figure that one out.
When asked her thoughts on the Bush Doctrine, she basically stumbled until it became clear that she had no clue what the Bush Doctrine was.
When asked whether she was ready to be Vice President or even President, she claimed not to have any doubt in her mind whatsoever. Her mouth said yes, but I've got to wonder if she really believes that given that up until recently she didn't even know what was involved in being Vice President.

I'm not sure what's more scary -- someone who is clearly unqualified to be Vice President or someone who is deluded into thinking they are. In general, Palin just seemed really uncomfortable the whole time and watching the thing made me feel uncomfortable too.

And what's scary is that this interview should have been the softball for her. She was sequestered and prepped by McCain advisors for quite some time leading up to this event. None of the questions here were beyond what one would normally expect in this type of interview (in fact, there are a lot of questions that Gibson could have asked that would have been much more difficult, but he refrained).

Now, I'm sure there will be those out there who claim more love for Palin because they were able to "relate" to her. But for god sakes people, this is not about choosing a candidate you relate to -- this is about choosing someone who exceeds you in multiple dimensions. It's not OK if Palin is unaware of what the Bush Doctrine just because you were unaware of it also.

Here's another way to put it. Suppose that you have a leaky faucet and need to hire a plumber. Would you rather hire a plumber who you relate to (but who doesn't know a thing about your pipes) or a plumber who actually knows how to fix your faucet? Granted the job of vice president is not the same as the job of plumber. But America has a number of leaky faucets that need desperately to be repaired, and it's time we actually hired the right person for the job.

Sarah Palin claims that she is an outsider who wants to bring about "change" in Washington. But how can you bring about change if you are completely ignorant of what your predecessors did? I mean if McCain and Palin are going to steal the Obama-Biden platform, at least have the basic knowledge to back up your claims.

When you are the leader of the free world, of the most powerful country on earth, then you have some major responsibilities underneath you. This is not a job for an average or even slightly above average person to tackle. This job is one that demands the utmost excellence and command of a wide array of topics. The fact that I personally feel I could have done a better job on that interview scares me.

So, come on people, why don't we pick candidates who embody excellence in every way, shape, or form?

The sincerest form of flattery

2008-09-11T13:43:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden pays Hillary a sincere compliment, saying that she is as qualified (if not more) to be Vice President, and the media promulgated by the McCain campaign interprets it wrong. Maybe McCain is becoming forgetful given his old age and health problems. It is clear that neither he nor Palin has anything useful to say on issues of substance to this campaign, so they are just trying to bark in all directions hoping that Americans will get distracted. The mainstream media is falling for these antics hook, line, and sinker. Let's not make the same mistakes of the past eight years. The economy has taken a major tumble and we have spent 3+ trillion dollars in Iraq (taxpayer money that is lining the pockets of rich oil executives and other McCain cronies).

Do I think Hillary Clinton is qualified to be Vice President? Absolutely! Do I think she's qualified to be President? Absolutely! Do I think she was the right choice for Obama? Not necessarily.
Obama went through an extensive vetting process, with a committee of intelligent people. Ultimately, the Vice President's job is not to be a lone gun, but rather to form a team with the President. Obama felt that he and Biden would make a better team. Perhaps Biden's own policies are more in line with his own. Or perhaps Biden bring something to the table that Obama does not already have, and that Clinton could not have provided for some or other reason. Perhaps the Republicans would have had even more fodder if Obama selected Hillary given all that went down during the Democratic Primaries.

All that aside, I believe Biden was a solid choice. Could choosing Clinton have worked gloriously? Perhaps. Could choosing Clinton have backfired gloriously? I truly believe that is also possible. Obama had no inclination to take a gamble with this country. We need leaders who can make sound decisions rather than play roulette with our futures.

Unfortunately for me - there is a certain mystique in this country about the "maverick" or the "gambler" or the "cowboy". And that mystique might appeal to many American voters. While there is certainly something intriguing about these personas, let us not forget that they engage in unnecessarily risky behavior. If you are a shoot-from-the-hip gambler, then in the long run you are destined to go broke.

This country is heading quickly towards the poor house, and a John McCain Presidency all but ensures that we get there. Don't play Russian roulette with America - choose a solid leader for this country!

The Cocky Wacko

2008-09-11T11:35:00.000-07:00

Amusingly, the AP has reported that a former Rhode Island Republican Senator called Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin a "a cocky wacko". While his choice of words are evocative, I think the sentiment is clear. For the last few days the media, promulgated by McCain and Palin ,has created a three-ring circus that focuses away from the issues of substance and towards superficial, but hair raising, sound bites that they feel will appeal to the mainstream.

If anything, the choice of Sarah Palin and the classless antics of the Republicans have been a blessing in disguise. They have galvanized Democrats across the country, myself included, and I believe that the masses have gotten to the point where enough is enough. If anything, more Democrats will show up to the polls.

While Sarah Palin does indeed have her share of accomplishments, there is no way she is qualified to be second in charge. And given McCain's old age and health problems, there is a very realistic chance he may not make it through the next few years. Any actuarial table will confirm this last sentiment. I believe that there are far more qualified women out there who could be better Vice Presidents (and Presidents!).

To me the choice of Sarah Palin is an insult to all women out there. John McCain seems to think that women are superficial enough to vote for him just because of the additional X chromosome, instead of because they are in agreement on core policies and issues. If you survey most Americans, you'll find that they actually espouse the beliefs associated with the Democratic party (unfortunately, though, most Americans don't actually realize that!). The Republicans have tried to do the following:

Find the small number of issues where there might be disagreement and created a perception that those issues are more important in the political process than they actually are.
Lie about the ramifications of the existing Democratic positions (e.g., McCain has misled people about Obama's actual tax plan and about the notion that he will spend less than Obama when the Iraq war alone has already cost us more than 3+ trillion dollars).

I hope that Americans can see past the smoke and mirrors, and vote not based on lies and misinformation, but instead based on what the candidates actually represent (rather than what their opponents or a biased media might say they represent).

We are already starting to see the hoopla behind Sarah Palin subside, and I believe that it won't be long before the novelty wears off completely.

Obama vs. McCain on taxes

2008-09-10T22:11:00.000-07:00

There is a very nice web site that calculates your tax cut under the Obama plan versus the McCain plan. The bottom line is that unless you make more than $600,000 a year, your taxes will not go up under the Obama plan. Since only 1% of the population makes that kind of money, I'd say most of us are safe.

Granted the McCain plan continues to give cuts to the upper echelon. Interestingly, McCain himself would stand to receive the greatest benefit from his own tax cut.

Washington Post Article on Taxes

2008-09-10T22:01:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post recently published an article that describes the tax policies of the candidates.

It is refreshing to see a news article that actually discusses a meaningful issue. With all the barking that McCain and Palin have been doing, they have managed to divert attention away from core issues. It's about time the media stepped up to the plate and provide Americans with the information they need to make informed decisions.

Personally, I don't buy McCain's tax cut promises. (Does the phrase "Read my lips - no new taxes!" sound familiar?) Ultimately, if McCain wants to increase government spending, especially in Iraq, but wants to decrease taxes, then how is planning to pay for his policies? If the Fed starts printing more money, the upshot will be an increase in inflation and an overall weakening of the dollar, which will costs Americans far more than any benefit they would receive from a tax cut.

While I am not thrilled about any potential tax increases under Obama, these only apply to a small percentage of the population and I believe he is being the more responsible candidate. While McCain and Palin are barking what they think people want to hear in order to get elected, Obama is out putting forth a concrete plan that actually serves the needs of the American population.

Pigs and Lipstick

2008-09-10T14:07:00.000-07:00

I'm appalled that with the short time we have left before the general election takes place, the media has decided to eschew important issues in favor of discussing pigs and lipstick. For anyone who has been living under a rock, Barack Obama mentioned in a speech referring to the current administration and its policies that: "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."

John McCain went up in arms claiming that Obama made a veiled reference to Sarah Palin, calling her a pig. But that is pretty much complete nonsense.

John McCain, don't you know that "lipstick on a pig" is a common idiomatic expression in English? Well you should know because you used it yourself:

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig,"

Yes Folks -- John McCain used that same line in reference to Hillary Clinton's health plan.

Though I suppose that when you get to be as old as John McCain is then you start to forget a few things, like the number of houses you own (some more evidence of McCain's senile dementia)

Maybe we're too harsh in saying that McCain is liar or that he is a master of twisting the facts -- perhaps he's just extremely forgetful.

So, while the media has nothing better to do than to salivate over a story involving pigs and lipstick, I would doubt that Obama intended to call Palin a pig, though to be honest, I think it's a fitting analogy given all the pork in Alaska (for those who don't know, Alaska ranks #1 in Pork Barrel spending).

""You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."

The Republican Party - Hang on a Second!

2008-09-10T13:36:00.000-07:00

When you consider the official Republican platform, it is clear to some at least what they consider their main party line to be. Their stance has raised some questions in my head, and here they are in particular order:

The republican party would have you believe that there is no way you should ever vote for a Democrat if you are pro-life. Hang on a second! Why is Abortion actually a national political campaign issue? Is a candidate's stance really going to make a difference in our lives? George Bush has been in office eight years, he's had a Republican congress for most of that time. He's got supreme court justices in his back pocket (remember that it was the Supreme court that effectively elected George Bush into office in 2000). And there hasn't been a lick of tangible difference in overturning Roe versus Wade or anything of that sort. Personally, I'm generally pro-life, but I don't see why that should play a consideration in who I vote for. Instead, I think it's better to focus on issues that are relevant to me like the economy. To me abortion is just an issue that the Republicans trumped up and set on the national stage in order to divide us.
The republican ticket is espousing "family values" -- Hang on a second! Didn't, John McCain, by his own admission, cheat on his first wife? He divorced her, and very shortly thereafter married Cindy McCain (who was already wealthy at the time of their marriage and provided the financial backing to fuel John McCain's career). I can't see how any self-respecting member of the religious right (i.e., the group that is an integral part of the Republican Party base) can actually vote for an adulterer in good conscience. Furthermore, Sarah Palin's own daughter got pregnant out of wedlock. I'm not passing judgment here, but just saying that it's ironic for Republicans to make an issue out of family values when the families of the upper echelon of the Republican party don't exactly have a squeaky clean history.
The Republican party would have you believe that they are better at providing national security. Hang on a second! The biggest terrorist act to hit the US happened on whose watch? It was under a Republican president! And I thought it was funny how the Republicans credited the troop surge in Iraq with helping to find and dismantle newly formed Al-Qaeda cells. Hang on a second! There was no serious Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq until after we invaded. Once we invaded Iraq, it fueled so much anti-American sentiment that Al-Qaeda recruiting went through the roof and it became a larger organization. If your mother, father, and daughter were blown up by American soldiers, wouldn't you have some animosity towards America? Al-Qaeda came to the forefront and became the looming threat it is today during the Republican Administration. So tell me again, on what basis is the Republican party taking credit for being the expert on national security? I think the Republican track record demonstrates more proficiency in engendering national insecurity. It seems that if we want to be safer, we should try to stop doing the kind of nonsense that makes people abroad hate us. And outside the US, people hate George W. Bush and the Republicans. Tell me, did you feel particularly unsafe when Bill Clinton was President? And do you feel more unsafe right now with Bush as President? There's more! If Osama Bin Laden was believed to be in Afghanistan, why did we invade Iraq? Most people seem to think that somehow Saddam Hussein was connected with Osama Bin Laden. That simply isn't true. In fact, George W. Bush has a closer connection with Bin Laden than Saddam probably ever did (some of W's early failed companies were actually invested in by the Saudi Royal Family...). Paraphrasing our next president: "John McCain claims he'll follow Osama bin Laden into the gates of Hell - but he won't even follow him into the cave where he lives!"
The republican party would have you believe that the liberals are only about taxing and spending. Hang on a second. How much did the Iraq war cost us??? How much money did we spend there? Over three trillion dollars! Let us also not forget that the death toll among US soldiers in Iraq exceeds the number of people who died on 9/11. Furthermore, 150,000+ law-abiding civilians were killed as well. And let's not forget the medical technology that saved so many -- forcing them to come home without arms or legs, suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. We cannot turn our backs on these people who valiantly served our country, even if it was for a fictitious case. They will have to be cared for and it will not be cheap to do so. In the meanwhile, the Republicans were so distracted trying to pull the wool over our eyes about non-existent WMDs in Iraq that they let the nation suffer. The economic meltdown, the mortgage crisis, Katrina -- we were so concerned with spending money abroad, giving money hand over fist to companies like Haliburton (which, by the way, Dick Cheney was the CEO of) that we completely ignored issues at home. Make no mistake -- these actions come at a cost. And who is footing the bill? The same people who fill the coffers of the US Government: namely the taxpayer. Why should my hard earned tax dollars be used to line the pockets or rich oil executives and other McCain cronies when we have greater domestic issues to deal with?
The republican party would have you believe that the current healthcare system is fine. John McCain said that he is all about allowing patients to talk directly to their doctors rather than having a bureaucrat interfere in the mix. And that does sound compelling initially. Hang on a second! I already talk to a bureaucrat when it comes to my healthcare: namely my insurance company! And they're the worst kind of bureaucrat. They are disincentivized from giving me care because to do so would cost them money. And so the reality is that only the wealthiest of the wealthy (i.e., those who the Republican Party calls its "base") will be able to obtain healthcare (since they can afford it out of pocket), while the rest of us who rely on insurance companies could get royally screwed. You should see the movie "Sicko" to get a better sense of what's going on here. Do you realize that the inmates at the Guantanomo Bay prison, which houses the worst of the worst terrorists actually get better healthcare than good law-biding American citizens do?

I think the message is clear. The current administration run by the Republican party is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. They have conjured up politically immaterial differences where none truly exist. They are trying to change the United States of American into the Divided States of America. Remember, our nation's greatness was built on the very notion that United We Stand and that Divided We Shall Fall. The Republicans will say whatever they can to get elected - so that they can optimize society for the wealthiest of the wealthy at the expense of the great individuals of lesser financial means who built this nation brick by brick.

I hope you join me in voting for Barack Obama and Joe Biden - two talented and gifted leaders who can lead America to greatness in the 21st century. We are at an important juncture in our history -- let's not make the same mistakes we did these part eight years. So, the next time the Republican party tries to pull the wool over your eyes - it's time to stand up and say: Hang on a second!

The Inaugural "When Elephants Fly Blog Posting"

2008-09-10T11:08:00.000-07:00

Enough is enough. I've been following the 2008 Presidential campaign quite closely. Whether it's through refreshing the Drudge Report and devouring its articles, or seeing the most popular items on Google News, or scouring the liberal media -- such as the Huffington Post. For myself and I'm sure others like me, this election has consumed me at times when I probably have other things to be doing.

I am disgusted at the Republicans. I am disgusted by the current administration. I am disgusted by the media. And most of all, I am disgusted by the overwhelming number of Americans who seem to be hell bent on repeating the same mistakes we made in the last two elections.

We are at a critical time in our great country's history. I believe in the power of America - a place that was once the beacon of hope for many. A place where freedom is supposed to ring and that can welcome those tired and hungry masses, and offer them a place to achieve great dreams. Unfortunately, the direction our country is taking right now is quite the opposite. We are addressing the needs of the elite few and sacrificing those of the many. We are repeatedly borrowing against our future, and setting ourselves up for such untold collateral damage that it may never be possible to recover fully.

I believe that this direction can largely be blamed on our government today - especially with the current administration. Like many Americans, I can no longer sit on the sidelines and take it. It is time for us to act; to make our voices hear and to infuse this country with a fundamental sense of hope and renewed sense of energy that has been missing for so long.

I will be blogging my thoughts on many of these issues. For those of you who visit this blog and feel that what I am saying resonates within your core -- I encourage you to take these words, or snippets of them, and emblazon them wherever you travel, whether it be on physical back roads of our heartland or whether it be on the vast expanse of the information superhighway. What I am after here is the deeper truth, rather than the web of lies we are often fed by the media and government, and to get to the heart of matters. And while I can claim some degree of credit for the words I use to describe that truth, I can certainly take no ownership of the truth itself.

Therefore, I encourage you to take these words and post them wherever you visit on the Internet. Post them in your blogs. Post them in the comment fields of news stories. Post them in discussion boards and forums. Post them in emails. But most importantly, post them in your conscience -- and try to act on making this world a better place. Gandhi said that *we* must be the change we wish to see in the world, and I am asking you to help be one agent of change. Change need not happen in one fell swoop with grandiose actions, but rather can be accomplished through a smaller number of simple acts done by many people. Never underestimate the power of the masses and the power that you have to help change the world we live in.

With that, I'll draw this inaugural post to a close. It is unlikely that you'll be reading this post any time soon as there are millions of people writing about this topic -- so we very much have the proverbial needle in a haystack. However, if you do come across this post or these writings, and decide to post them elsewhere, I encourage you to include a link back to this page so that others can find it as well.