Blog @ MoreWhat.com

As this blog is not a fan of an ABC News reporter with the fancy title of Senior National Correspondent, Jake Tapper may be recovering from an overdose of liberal Kool Aid. It is unclear what Tapper’s intention was or what he was trying to accomplish but he succeeded in painting Obama as the socialist he is.

Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

‘Spread the Wealth’?
October 14, 2008 12:27 PM

“This weekend,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said today, “a plumber concerned that Senator Obama was going to raise his taxes asked him directly about his plan. The response was telling. Senator Obama explained to him that he was going to raise his taxes to quote ’spread the wealth around.’”

Is that what happened?

Judge for yourself — here’s the exchange.

Tapper’s blog appears to offer the video along with a transcript of the Obama, Joe the Plumber ‘exchange’ even though the author of this post did not check out the video. Regardless of that, what is Jake Tapper trying to say? He titles the post on his blog as ’spread the wealth’, presents a transcript and a video, then asks the reader to decide what happened. The excerpt below is the quote from Obama. Is Tapper trying to be humorous?

Obama said, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

The bottom line is all the reports the day after the last Presidential debate held at Hofstra that suggest Obama is a socialist are correct. Spreading the wealth is the same as the Marxist, communist or socialist doctrine which advocates the redistribution of wealth. With the quote from Barack Obama above, there is no more case to be made. Obama is ready and willing to take money from one group of people and spread it around to other people. That is socialism, pure and simple. That is Barack Obama, pure and simple in his own words. This could qualify as his biggest gaffe of the campaign assuming he still wants to run for President.

So add it all up folks. The questionable associations, the mysteries about his personal history from college through community organizing to law practice and politics. And even before college there is a question about his birth certificate and what is citizenship really is if you want to count that. Since the lawsuit brought by Philip Berg has received a motion to dismiss from Obama and the DNC that included a protective order preventing discovery that was accepted by the judge, one has to wonder if there is something to the citizenship question. Otherwise why would Obama and the DNC try to bar discovery? If there is nothing to it what are they trying to hide? The records are available online. If you want the links, just ask. They can be published here.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

October 16th poll reviews:

Zogby has it Obama 49%, McCain 44%

Rasmussen is Obama 50%, McCain 46%

Gallup shows Obama 50%, McCain 43%

less than ten days ago Gallup showed an Obama nine point lead, Rasmussen an Obama 8 point lead and Zogby had a 7.7 lead for Obama. The polling from these three tightened in McCain’s favor after the last of three debates which of course was last night.

Obama has 5-point lead on McCain
Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:21am EDT
By Andrew Quinn

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama has a 5-point lead over Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential race, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/ZOGBY poll released on Thursday.

Obama leads McCain by 49 percent to 44 percent among likely U.S. voters in the latest four-day tracking poll, up slightly from a 4-point lead on Wednesday. The poll has a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.

The curious nature of political polling cannot be emphasized enough. But one day after the final 2008 Presidential debate and at least one announcement from none other than George Stephanopoulos of ABC that Obama won all three debates, how does one account for McCain closing the polling gap the morning after the last debate?

Is the Messiah’s ‘cool’ no longer enough to win an election. Is Barack Obama’s failure to adequately explain associations like domestic terrorist William Ayers more of a problem than the media reports? Is the economy being addressed near equally by both candidates? That would fly in the face of media coverage of the campaign also. Maybe the makings of a perfect storm of voter reaction is gathering in the last moments of the 2008 countdown to election day. McCain may be finally getting through to voters. They may finally be seeing the problems with the Obama campaign that his supporters and the media have tried to play down.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 (UPI) — Democratic nominee Barack Obama narrowly beat Republican John McCain in the final U.S. presidential debate, results from a snap Politico poll indicated.

Forty-nine percent of respondents indicated Obama won the debate while 46 percent believed McCain won, results from a Politico-InsiderAdvantage survey of undecided debate-watchers indicated Thursday. Five percent said they were unsure.

So how did CBS News and the fish wrap NYT’s come up with this polling data reported by the AP?

A new national poll by CBS News and The New York Times showed Obama leading McCain by a commanding 53 percent to 39 percent _ a huge leap over the 48-45 lead Obama held in the same poll before last week’s town hall debate. Other polls have also shown Obama leading, but by a lesser margin.

Could the noted CBS News/NYT poll be the sort of information that fuels complaints of bias in the media? How can one poll show a 14 point spread when the bulk of the others are in the low single digits? You can view that as a rhetorical question.

When some state that a few weeks can be a lifetime in politics, the 2008 Presidential campaign may support that notion. For all the help Barack Obama’s campaign has received from sources which should not be helping candidates, the narrow margin between McCain and Obama as election day nears may indicate a change in voter sentiment. The questions of Barack Obama’s choices and judgments may finally be getting through. It is often stated that most voters do not pay close attention to a political race until shortly before voting. If that is the case the polls may be shifting as a result of that trend. And the race has always been closer than some would have you believe.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In case it is not obvious to you this blog author is voting for Senator John McCain for President of the United States of America on November 4, 2008.

Ayers is a campaign topic that should not go away and conerned voters who expect honesty, sincerity and responsible judgment from elected officials do understand the importance even if they are not alarmed by William Ayers. The question of Obama’s dishonesty is not lost on one writer from the San Diego Union Tribune.

I put no stock in the politics of guilt by association. And even associating with ghouls should not hurt someone’s bid for the presidency. But lying about it is another story. It could be a warning of things to come.

The judgment or lack of it demonstrated by Barack Obama upon first distancing himself from the Ayers question by saying he was ‘just a guy in the neighborhood’ to having his campaign say for him that Ayers and he were ‘friendly’ and all but dismissing their work together promoting radical ideology in a scam perpetrated through funding from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and other work through the Woods Foundation is a disturbing track record for a candidate.

Obama’s work with Ayers in the CAC also involved other questionable relationships which increases the significance of the troubling nature of his conduct. A piece from Dick Morris reinforces that fact. What makes ACORN particularly embarrassing for Obama is that he used to be one of them. He served as general counsel for ACORN in Illinois, channeled millions to the organization from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (whose funds he distributed), and has lately spent $800,000 of his campaign money to subsidize the group’s activities. For this emolument, ACORN has registered voters 15 times over, canvassed the graveyards for votes and prepared to commit electoral fraud on a massive scale.

While the media and other Obama supporters dismiss everyone of the Democratic party nominee’s questionable associations and related judgments the voting public may not be so sure even though another attempt to prop up Obama was delivered by ABC’s Nightline, Terry Moran and George Stephanopoulos. The final debate post game show offered by ABC’s late night program also featured Donna Brazil, Matthew Dowd and Jake Tapper aiding and abetting the left leaning appraisal which inserted patronizing and meaningless notes on McCain obviously designed to avoid a criticism of bias.

Beyond Obama’s associations, judgments and mysterious past other notions have been thrust upon the campaign. At different times and from different sources the ‘race card’ has again been inserted. From the white bashing characterizations of small town folks clutching their bibles and guns to the ‘bubba’ reference and also ‘joe sixpack’ there was little reverse discrimination announced. And there is the suggestion that whites will show support for Obama in public but when filling out their secret ballot racism will rear its ugly head and they will vote for the white guy. Has someone been trying to guilt white Americans into voting for Barack Obama? The fact that the media and others have to insert the notion of the race card whether real or imagined ignores the fact that it is obvious one candidate is black and one is white. While all that is true it seems the underlying question will be dismissed based on race. Meaning the situation regarding dismissal of any Obama’s negative attributes get a pass other politicians may not get as it may be seen as racist to criticize the Messiah.

It general it seems the view is candidates and those who observe them may only discuss positive messages or the charge of negative campaigning appears. The trend is becoming a competition about what feel good promises each candidate proposes and any analysis of their weakness or downside is off limits. Do you decide on which brand of product or service to buy based only on advertisements? Do you not seek out information about a product or service that may disqualify it as your choice? Then why would you dismiss facts about a candidate that would disqualify them as your choice? Why would you abandon seeking more information about allegations of wrongdoing related to a candidate? You certainly would want all those facts if an elected official was accused of wrongdoing in office so why not find out if a candidate should be disqualifed before election day? Are you so worried about your wallet that you will rely on the fallacy of picking the candidate simply because they are a member of the opposition party? American voters may be making a choice on a single issue by an invalid analysis of that issue.

A fact that needs repeating based on the concern the public holds now on economic issues is campaign tax plans. As noted on this blog earlier, Senator John McCain is favored by a host of citizen tax groups. This favored ranking has been maintained over much if not all of McCain’s public service career. It may be difficult to decide on which plans are better, those from Obama or McCain, as numerous analyses from various sources provide too many pro and con points about them. Even if each candidate’s tax or economic plans were about equal there is a wild card not being discussed. Whether the next Congress has a liberal or conservative majority both parties have held the majority in recent years and their approval ratings have been poor all along. And these are the people necessary for any President to pass legislation on their respective plans. As is the case with most legislation, it doesn’t look much like the initial proposal if and when it becomes law. So for those deciding their November vote on the single issue of their wallet the outcome may not be what you expect.

And on the issue of VP choices perhaps too much has been made about Biden and Palin. History would suggest that the possibility is remote either would need to assume the office of President. It may be prudent to suggest that if either VP had to take the oath as President due to a tragic circumstance that the worst case scenario would be a lackluster performance equal to the that of past VP’s who were thrust into the role of POTUS by unexpected events. The best case may also be a probability that either one would rise to the occasion and perform so well as to be elected at the end of such a term.

Much of what is supposed to separate Obama from McCain in this race is intangible. Many pundits focus on the typical campaign analysis which focuses on what can only be described as marketing. Speeches, campaign appearances, stage presence, campaign promises and other fluff are claimed to demonstrate a candidate’s ability to perform in the office which they seek. It may be fair to say that Obama’s experience to date compared to John McCain’s life long public service is proof of something about the two candidates. If you take away the support staff of both and have to choose a candidate based on each individual’s ability it is likely John McCain could lead on his own whereas Obama would be lost without the likes of Joe Biden, et al, to explain everything he would need to do as President. The fluff is sort of fun to watch but when it comes right down to it John McCain has an entire lifetime of experience to rely on where Barack Obama does not have his own experience to guide him. He would be a President of others as most decisions would come from his staff.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

qoute of the day: “If you wanted to run against President Bush you should have run in 2004.” (John McCain)

It is this blog’s opinion that the Gallup polls have trended noticeably higher than others like Rasmussen and Zogby. Similarly the Zogby polls seem to have favored McCain more than others. The bottom line is as many pundits express that polling data may not be as revealing as it sometimes appears. There seems to be no doubt that Obama has an edge in the last month before the November 4th election. However, puzzling polling data or not, the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election still remains uncertain. And the three items that have received the most attention recently are the economy, Obama’s associates and the growing number of investigations into voter fraud. Another noteworthy item is the negative trends by both campaigns and their ads and sound bites in which the MSM focuses largely on the McCain campaign and various attempts by them at fact checking that resolves little.

Could it be that voters, undecided or not, are having second thoughts about Obama’s associates and his tendency to provide distractions away from the topic rather than addressing voter concerns? His repeated responses when available have simply dismissed questionaable associations as mere coincidental contact or relationships that have no bearing on his role in politics or outright lies that he did not have any contact as in ‘just a guy in the neighborhood’ in reference to William Ayers.

With the number one issue in the campaign currently being the economy and voters worrying about their wallets more than the character of presidential candidates, Obama’s advantage with respect to the issue seems to be fading according to recent poll results.

Gallup Daily: Obama-McCain Gap Narrows
Obama leads, 50% to 43%
October 12, 2008
Barack Obama continues to hold a lead over John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking, 50% to 43%, among registered voters. Obama’s lead has narrowed slightly after being in double-digits several days last week. Two Gallup likely voter estimates show the race slightly closer.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 45%. That’s a bit closer than numbers from a week ago when Obama enjoyed an eight-point advantage, his largest lead of the year.

Released: October 13, 2008
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 48%, McCain 44%

Obama’s lead declines

UTICA, New York – Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama slipped back into a statistical dead heat with Republican Party nominee John McCain, but still holds the advantage over McCain, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby likely voter poll shows.

In this latest report, McCain gained eight-tenths of a point, while Obama lost one full point.

For all the flak the MSM and others have tried to hand McCain and Palin for focusing on Obama’s associations the relative closeness of the 2008 race may demonstrate voters are not just concerned about the economy. And that would reflect well on the American voter. No one should be criticized for worrying about their wallet and what the next President can do for them in that regard but history may indicate that such concerns were never really a matter of just one person, a candidate, and their ability to improve the financial position of average citizens. It takes more than just one person, the President for instance, to affect the economy whether that is a boon or boondoggle in the public view. That is why Obama’s associations, choices and judgments in concert with his history and how his views have been shaped are of such importance. Whether you believe McCain is equipped to deal with the nation’s problems or not at least you have information for making the voting decision. Such is not the case with Obama. The primary reason is that he keeps that sort of information to himself and has been shown to be reluctant to give it up.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama’s ‘allies’ or supporters or the Democratic party are all in a huff about Sarah Palin raising an issue the Messiah would rather forget.  The connection of Barack Obama to domestic terrorist William Ayers has been all but ignored by the entire MSM.  With Senator Obama and William Ayers history in Illinois being summed up by Lynn Sweet (in earlier post here) of the Chicago Sun Times as a matter not of concern to those in Chicago, the virus is apparently contagious as most across the country are willing to forget about it and the MSM will do nothing to change that.

The disingenuous nature of ‘ Obama’s allies warn GOP: Lay off attacks ‘ is clear when a story appears in the AP about a warning from the Obama camp when the threatened retaliation makes its way around the press and the talk shows.  To refer to the act of raising an issue as an attack is nonsense.  To say if it does not stop you will retaliate in kind but then disclose the substance of the retaliation makes the warning nonsense also.  The Obama camp is bringing up the S&L crisis of the 80’s and McCain’s connection to it.  Since all that McCain was guilty of according to a Senate Ethics Hearing was bad judgment in the matter and the whole affair is easily accessible via the net (source) what’s to talk about?

So the Obama camp defines raising the issue of his connections to William Ayers an attack.  Their retaliation of raising the issue of McCain’s connection to the Keating Five is also an attack by their definition.  But McCain’s connection to the Keating Five has already been subjected to scrutiny which cannot be said of Obama’s connection to William Ayers.  McCain went to bat for a constituent and expressed his concern about not doing anything improper and as the ethics committee determined there were no specific rules restricting McCain’s efforts to resolve the issue with regulators on behalf of Keating.  Obama on the other hand has simply denounced William Ayers terrorist history and continues to deny any personal history with Ayers.  If John McCain was guilty of bad judgment in the Keating Five episode is not Barack Obama guilty of the bad judgment with respect to William Ayers?  McCain’s Keating Five experience is publicly available and has been subject to formal scrutiny.  Why has Barack Obama’s experience with William Ayers not been subject to equivalent scrutiny?

For those of you who need a review, Barack Obama was helped by William Ayers to enter politics in the state of Illinois.  Ayers was co-founder of a foundation on which Obama served as Chairman.  The two were involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge where millions of dollars were contributed for educational reform in which grantees were selected for adhering to the personal agendas of Obama and Ayers.  For simple proof of the connection between the two there is evidence of at least one time where Obama was at the home of Ayers and the recent records from a university collection document other times and places of their relationship. The fact that Ayers was in hiding for years and upon emerging avoided prison time for his part in terrorist bombings in the sixties plus his unrepentant attitude are what sparked the concern over Obama’s connection to Ayers.  So again, why is this story not being given the same scrutiny that was given to McCain’s connection to the Keating Five in the eighties?

That Obama is being given a pass by his supporters in the general public as well as the MSM includes other questionable judgment and relationships with Rev Wright, Tony Rezko, Franklin Raines and others which brings into question his judgment to be President.  Proper scrutiny would aid in determining if Obama possesses adequate judgment for the role as President.  Avoiding that scrutiny is equivalent to an indictment of the voting process in this country.  Disclosure is a necessary step in the process and simply denying their is a problem is totally insufficient.  Without the scrutiny one should be barred from the opportunity of seeking to be elected to public office.

The liberal definition of attack as used in the story referenced in this post is entirely self-serving.  Raising an issue is not by itself an attack.  Just because you do not want to answer allegations or criticism does not make an issue an attack.  The liberals simply want to avoid any discussion that reflects poorly on their candidate.  And that collection of topics is vast.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

During the one and only 2008 Vice-Presidential candidates debate there was much talk of taxes among other things. It is expected that many others will present various fact checking scenarios of varying degrees of accuracy. Just because some refers to an accounting of tax positions of candidates as ‘fact checking’ does not guarantee accuracy. This post does not claim to be the final word on the candidates’ positions on taxes. But it does present some information for your review.

A resource available to all who can access the internet is Project Vote Smart. Included in their database(s) on elected officials is ‘interest group ratings.’ In the case of Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama some very clear distinctions are obvious. After a quick glance through the list of interest groups and their ratings of these two candidates related to taxes it is clear that John McCain has the better record.

The one group that stood out was called Citizens for Tax Justice. They gave John McCain a rating of 50% while giving Obama a rating of 100%. A visit to the group’s website suggested they were partisan and liberal. A Google search returned a result from Wiki listing them as a liberal group and SourceWatch mentioned they were formed by labor unions and other groups. And of course the Heritage Foundation stated a report on corporate taxation by Citizens for Tax Justice ‘is riddled with errors.’ But the convincing final blow suggesting CTJ is a liberal leaning special interest was a simple spread sheet sorting of their ratings for all the politicians they cover. Big surprise, all Republicans were rated less than 20% and mostly zero with the unexplained exception of McCain at 50% while all the Dems were in the high percentages. A little too partisan to be a random numerical event.

On the other hand, Americans for Tax Reform have the opposite effect. While their highest rating for Dems is 35% most of them get a zero. The Republicans largely receive the high end of the percentage scale. The description at Project Vote Smart indicates this group is opposed to tax in general and believes taxes should be kept to a minimum. Both groups mentioned thus far seem to support the classic argument that liberals, aka Democrats, are tax and spend.

Freedom Works leans in the same direction as Americans for Tax Reform except they give some Democrats as high as 50% for their position on taxes. Both of these groups also hit some Republicans for their stand on taxes lower than some Democrats although Freedom Works appears to be more critical of some in the GOP on taxes.

The remainder of groups were only briefly studied but it appears a couple more liberal leaning groups gave John McCain decent ratings or at least higher than you would expect given that more conservative tax groups also gave him high ratings. But the oddballs were three agricultural groups. Each of the farmer groups were all over the map as if they all had different agendas.

With John McCain claiming the maverick role and adding that he has and is still willing and capable of reaching across the aisle to get things done in Washington, these interest group responses may give credence to that stand. To get high ratings from conservative tax groups and yet receive middle of the road ratings from liberal leaning groups they must all be finding something to be happy about in McCain’s positions on taxes. That is with the possible exception of farmers. With the state of affairs in agriculture it would not be surprising if farmers are mad at everyone.

The point is even though this may not be a scientific evaluation or one of acceptable mathematical precision the fact that all of McCain’s ratings at Project Vote Smart exceed Obama’s on taxes suggests there is reason to believe he may be a better choice at least when it comes to taxes. So this has been one rebuttal to some of the conflicting statements between candidates this evening in the VP debate.

One last reference that this blog finds truly amazing. The Club for Growth is not immune to criticism. They are viewed on this blog as a staunchly conservative group to the point of not accepting compromise which, let’s face it, is usually required at some time in politics. Here is the first reference from 2007.

Over the course of his twenty-four years in Congress, Senator McCain has cast several positive tax votes. These include a 2006 vote to extend the Bush tax cuts [1]; a 1997 vote to cut capital gains taxes[2]; and 1990 and 1993 votes against President Bush’s and President Clinton’s tax hikes[3]. To his credit, he has also introduced measures that would require a sixty-vote majority to pass a tax increase[4]. John McCain’s overall record on taxes, however, is profoundly disturbing and anti-growth.

In the excerpt above, the Club for Growth praises several of McCain’s actions regarding taxes. Yet in the 2nd excerpt below they criticize the Senator for voting against a tax cut for the wealthy when he understood the less wealthy needed tax relief as well. Having a conscience is not a bad thing. If you are going to give a tax break, give it to everyone.

Second, Senator McCain’s stated reason for opposing the Bush tax cuts rhetorically allied him with the most radical anti-growth elements of national politics. Senator McCain argued, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The view from this blog is that the House was unable to pass the massive bailout bill because those fearing election defeats voted for the bill. When it failed, Congress in their 12% approval rating mentality decided to hand it over to the Senate as re-election is viewed as not a problem for them. With that in mind this blog finds it reassuring that in the NO vote area below, Senators Sessions, Shelby and DeMint are listed. If memory serves, their voting records on illegal immigration and other issues were respectable as well.

But to be fair, since many members of Congress know who is going to do what before it happens, you could vote ‘no’ with the knowledge that so many others will vote ‘yes’ that your vote only serves to make you look good. But the leaning here is that Sessions, Shelby and DeMint are voting conscience and reason in this case. That is just a guess. Which unfortunately is the best one can do so often in observing politics.

Below is a copy of the roll call vote for HR1424 in the Senate. It is provided here simply as a reminder for those of you keeping score on your reps and what to do wth them. McCain and Obama of course voted for the bill. This blog views both Senators votes as purely political. This again requires a reminder that the choices for President at this point are not ideal but McCain, as viewed from this blog, is the better choice of the two. The reasons why will not be repeated in this post as it would just clutter things up and the reason for this post is obvious. Keep tabs on voting related to the BAILOUT and target members of Congress as necessary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Measure Number:

H.R. 1424 (A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes. )

Measure Title:

A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

Vote Summary Grouped by Vote Position

YEAs —74

NAYs —25

Not Voting - 1

Remember how it all started for John McCain’s VP selection? Christians applauded her piety, gun-lovers her love of guns and pro-lifers the Down’s syndrome baby she calls “perfect”. And nearly everyone warmed to her moose-skinning authenticity. “I give her extreme credit for being a mother of five and a governor. I’m a mother of five. And I can barely keep milk in the house,” said Kelley McDonald of New Jersey. John McCain was both applauded for selecting a woman as his running mate in view of the Democratic party’s refusal to pair up their two largest vote getters, Obama and Clinton (Hillary) and criticized for not selecting either Lieberman, Pawlenty or Ridge.

So some of the sheen surrounding the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s Vice-Presidential nominee has worn off. Introduced as an ideal compliment to the maverick style of John McCain, accolades from many in the GOP touted her courage for challenging her own party, fighting the good fight against big oil and opposing the bridge to nowhere as well as placing the state jet on Ebay. Since then she has been accused of supporting the bridge to nowhere, conspiring with big oil, losing money on the sale of the jet and fund raising for Ted Stevens. About the only thing her detractors have not attacked is her rating as the most popular governor in the country. Although some have said they’re not so sure about that either.

In keeping with the tradition of late night talk show hosts poking fun at public figures, Tina Fey has made a living off of Sarah Palin lately but one has to wonder if that is simply using what is popular for comedic fodder or using one’s own popularity to promote a political agenda. Some of it is funny and credit is due for that but how much of it is more of the same from Hollywood lefties. Speaking of lefties, how about the kook fringe and their over the top practices?

The Economist went to press before Mr McCain’s speech on September 4th. Both he and Mr Obama say they want to unite their country, but their two parties’ conventions showed a gaping cultural gulf. In Denver abortion-rights advocates handed out condoms with the logo “Protect yourself from John McCain”, while Obamaphiles wore badges that substituted “Obama” for “God” in the motto “In God We Trust”. Evangelicals in St Paul sighed that secular Democrats probably did not realise how offensive this was.

And the GOP convention had more wonderful attempts from the kook fringe of the DNC. Outside the Republican convention, largely peaceful protests were marred by a few thugs who smashed windows. More violent disruptions were avoided, however, because police informants infiltrated a gang of anarchists who were allegedly planning them. Police seized weapons and buckets of urine, apparently intended for throwing at people. Lawyers for some of those arrested demanded the return of their possessions. “Who should we return the urine to?” asked the judge, according to the Star-Tribune, a local paper.

The less than inspiring tactics of the kook fringe were not lost on their Messiah either as one of his campaign ads criticized John McCain as being out of touch for not using technology like the PC and email. Did they really not know that Mr McCain is not able to do some of those things as a result of injuries sustained while a POW? McCain was also criticized for referencing his service to country by what those critics claimed was overuse of the topic. Perhaps the reason why they did this is that their own candidate has no similar history to report. And the Messiah is all too willing to sidestep questions about his affiliations with domestic terrorist William Ayers as well as Rev Wright and Tony Rezko. Which makes it hard to believe that his campaign reference to ‘lipstick on a pig’ was not a shot directed at Sarah Palin especially when he used it so soon after her campaign quip about hockey mom’s and pitbulls.

The MSM is equally guilty of conspiring against Sarah Palin in support of their left side agenda. Pouring out an abundance of trash such as whether or not her baby she calls ‘perfect’ is her’s or her daughter’s. Focusing on the pregnancy of one of Sarah Palin’s daughter and questioning the Governor’s parenting skills as well as criticism of her career choices and having it all when the same criteria is not applied to men. What the hell does any of that have to do with Sarah Palin running for Vice-President of the United States?

The one and only VP debate for this year may put an end to the attacks on Sarah Palin but that is doubtful even if she is viewed as a decisive winner after the competition. What appears to be the reason for all the Palin bashing is the rift within the DNC for not nominating Hillary Clinton or inviting her to join the ticket after nominating Barack Obama. That the Clintons are expected to fully support Barack Obama for President is a purely political demand from the Democratic party. It is also understandable given the dominance of party politics in this country in addition to there only really being two parties in existance in terms of real power. It would be fair to say that neither Presidential candidate is ideal as viewed by the majority of party voters in the US. Things being what they are, how often has any candidate been popular enough to ignite genuine overwhelming support from thier party followers and independents? The pont is this year as in most years past you make a selection from two choices and you may wish you had a viable third option.

By luck of the draw Obama is seeing some renewed interest as the polls may suggest simply because the current financial troubles favor the opponents of the party occupying the White House. Considering the fierce battle between Bush and McCain in the 2000 primaries it is hard to fathom how anyone really sees the two as similar. Obama’s reference to McCain voting with the White House ninety percent of the time is a lame argument. If you study the voting records of most politicians that will be the likely result. Most politicians vote with their party unless they need political cover. Sort of like the Senate voting for a bailout when the House did not. House members are mostly up for re-election while that is not the case in the Senate.

If you let the curent financial crisis determine your vote this November as you blame John McCain for it you should first consider that he supported an attempt to avoid this crisis in 2005. The Democratic party has a much more vested interest in the subprime mortgage mess, Fannie and Freddie and folks like Chris Dodd who are in the pocket of the aforementioned GSE’s or government sponsored enterprises.

As for the hope and change mantra from the DNC, et al, hope buys you nothing and change will come no matter who is elected since George Bush of course was term limited and Cheney was never interested in a run for President. The truth is the Democratic party is mostly to blame for the current financial problems. Those problems will only increase if Obama is elected and is allowed to continnue the party agenda that is responsible for the subprime mess inspired by the Community Reinvestment Act (Carter), the deregulation of banking (Clinton) and the support of Fannie and Freddie (Dodd and cronies).

Have a nice time watching the VP debate. Think it through before you vote. Let not the idea of change misguide your selection for President this fall.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is an updated post from an earlier version on this blog. The video link above is for a new version of the original video that was removed from YouTube explained as copyright violations   Here is another version of the video for your viewing pleasure

Thanks to at least two people for this video, which is extremely well done, WATCH IT

Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook and midpointman or mouthpeace found at the video source

Here’s the original post at Maggie’s from which this post was inspired…. Burning Down the House……

As stated elsewhere, including [ Poll ] Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? , post this video, link to it, email it and be respectful as bad behavior is a turn off. If those in the battleground states view this video and further investigate the story they may well see as even Bill Clinton put it, ‘the Obama Fairy Tale’ and come to understand what is needed on November 4, 2008. Well, it’s needed now but the election is scheduled then. Point is folks, if you don’t view the video and do your homework another case of those responsible will go unresolved and more of the same will be perpetrated in the future. Things are not always what they seem and you must take the initiative by doing your part to fix it. So start with the video and the next steps will be clear to you after that.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The public funding of campaigns will not be the only campaign pledge that Barack Obama abandons. Never mind the connections to William Ayers, Rev Wright or Tony Rezko since many of you have already. From pandering to the antiwar Dems along with his colleagues in the Presidential primary to a newer surrender or defeat or withdrawal strategy stuck on 16 months, the list continues to grow.

In the first Presidential debate Barack Obama redefined his flawed foreign policy of direct talks with rogue nations like Iran by redefining ‘preconditions’ as ‘preparations’ and claiming McCain’s long time friend and advisor, Henry Kissinger, agreed with him which has been since been shown to be flat wrong. His additional error to appear genuinely moved by the receipt of ‘the bracelet’ from the mother of a fallen soldier can be dismissed by his failure to even remember the soldier’s name.

While abandoning a pledge to use public financing in his campaign may pale in comparison to other Obama flaws, it demonstrates the real ambition of Barack Obama. Win at any cost and if that means raising money by any means necessary, so be it. As stated below, lobbyists are creative and will have no trouble peddling their agendas with Barack Obama if he is in the White House.

Obama’s Lunch Money

Like money, such influence always finds a way in Washington, as Mr. Obama well knows. In June, he wriggled out of an early promise to accept campaign spending limits, becoming the first candidate since the laws were passed in the 1970s not to take public funds for the general election. Mr. Obama supported these rules right up until the minute he didn’t, once it became clear that he’d be giving up his fund-raising advantage over John McCain. Lobbyists are creative people too, and in an Obama Administration they won’t have more trouble than they do now eluding the latest lobbying nannies.

Wasn’t it none other than the Messiah, Senator Barack Obama who criticized Senator John McCain for having lobbyist connections on his campaign staff? Wasn’t it Barack Obama who said things have to change in Washington and the lobbyists can no longer be allowed to control the nation’s capitol? So you have to ask at least one question about Barack Obama and lobbyists. If Obama has three dozen lobbyist lawyers on his fund raising staff and it is said a great deal of his campaign donations come from individual donors, could these donors be employees of companies who pay lobbyists to run Washington? Maybe Mr Innocent is not so innocent.

Obama tied to lobbyists, but boasts of not taking money

By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama often boasts he is “the only candidate who isn’t taking a dime from Washington lobbyists,” yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

Ah yes, the ‘Washington Democratic establishment’ and a ’stealthy operation’ on K Street are just the ticket for Obama. Whether he is taking lobbyist money right now or not, the quiet assembly of a network of top politicians and lobbyists, the marriage made in hell, will serve him well if elected. When voters have long forgotten all his abandoned principles spoken of and broken during the campaign, life will go on with business as usual in Washington. That’s a nightmare we could all do without. A far left Democratic politician with an unlimited wallet to pursue his socialist agenda and push America closer to the abyss.

Obama’s K Street project

Williams is actively building support for Obama among lobbyists and the corporate clients they represent. While other Obama supporters have described him as a leading activist, Williams demurs: “I wouldn’t want to put my position as a spearhead.” He acknowledges that the gains Obama is making among Washington’s Democratic establishment are hard to see because Obama’s K Street supporters have kept a low profile. As a result, Obama’s K Street network is a stealthy operation.

Just like the community organizing affiliation with the corrupt and voter fraud filled ACORN and the Annenberg project ripoff of Obama and Ayers for over 100 million dollars, the Democratic party nominee for President has used lobbyists in his state legislative experience as well as ‘granting’ money to former volunteers that are now under investigation. How does the story below bode for an Obama health care initiative otherwise known as socialized medicine run by the government and your tax dollars?

In Illinois, Obama dealt with lobbyists

The wrangling over the healthcare measure, which narrowly passed and became law in 2004, illustrates how Obama, during his eight years in the Illinois Senate, was able to shepherd major legislation by negotiating competing interests in Springfield, the state capital. But it also shows how Obama’s own experience in lawmaking involved dealings with the kinds of lobbyists and special interests he now demonizes on the campaign trail.

A hundred grand to a former campaign volunteer who spread some to his wife and the project never saw the light of day. Perhaps the investigation will but it is doubtful what with a Democratic Attorney General investigating it and already saying Obama providing the grant is not part of the case.

Obama grant being probed

A $100,000 state grant for a botanic garden in Englewood that then-state Sen. Barack Obama awarded in 2001 to a group headed by a onetime campaign volunteer is now under investigation by the Illinois attorney general amid new questions, prompted by Chicago Sun-Times….

As a parting note, what about all those Obama earmarks and the fact that John McCain’s earmarks are zero? Folks, the information is out there, you just have to look for it as the MSM will not help you. (Well, not much)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Below is just a sampling of the written testimony of James Terry, Certified Public Advocate, Consumer Rights League before the US House Judiciary Committee’s long overdue investigation into voting fraud. The Joint Hearing on Federal, State and Local efforts to Prepare for the General 2008 Election is a little late to the party with the election almost here. But late may be better than never unless the fraudsters have their way and nothing comes of it.

Yes, there is ACORN, Obama and all the usual suspects for voter fraud in the United States. Read on or click anywhere on the highlighted text to go to the Senate’s Adobe Acrobat Reader (pdf) file. Other hearing information is available at the following link Committee on the Judiciary, Hearing Information

Project Vote and the political operative organization known as Citizens Services Inc. are wholly owned subsidiaries of the ACORN web of organizations. There should be no distinction between crimes or alleged crimes perpetrated by personnel from Project Vote and those from ACORN.

Comments the Consumers Rights League has received from current and past ACORN employees demonstrates that command and control of ACORN’s political operations is based in its national headquarters. While many view voter registration problems in different states as a series of random events, it is important that observers not lose sight of the fact that ACORN is a giant corporation potentially responsible for massive fraud across the United States.

A careful observer will note a ten-year record of voter registration fraud that spans the contiguous United States. Ten years and five election cycles is not a series of mistakes; it is a pattern.

Ten years ago, an Arkansas contractor hired by ACORN’s non-profit affiliate Project Vote was arrested for falsifying hundreds of voter registration cards. In the last few election cycles the problem has spiked dramatically.

. In 2003, ACORN employees in Missouri turned in more than a thousand suspicious voter registration cards, with one woman saying a card was turned in under the name of her infant.

. Following Colorado’s 2004 election, two ex-ACORN employees were convicted of perjury for submitting false voter registration forms6; one ex-ACORN employee admitted to registering her friends 40 times.

. In 2004, police arrested a former ACORN employee who had more than 300 completed voter registration cards in the trunk of his car, many of which had not been turned in within the legal time limit.

. In 2005, Virginia authorities found that of a sample of Project Votegathered registrations, 83% were rejected for using false or questionable information.

. In 2007, King County, Washington officials announced the indictment of seven workers ACORN had hired to register voters, calling the episode the “worst case of voter registration fraud in the history of the state.”10 At least three of those individuals have pleaded guilty and ACORN was forced to pay a $25,000 settlement.

. In April 2008, federal prosecutors announced guilty pleas for federal election fraud by eight former ACORN employees in Missouri, based on their activities in the 2006 election. They submitted false addresses and names, as well as forged signatures. At least one former ACORN employee was sentenced to 15 months in prison.

For those of you who do not believe Barack Obama is guilty of anything it is time you woke up and smelled the coffee. Open your eyes and look around. The evidence is all around you. Certainly you are smart enough to connect the dots on Mr Community Organizer, aka ACORN accomplice, who also conspired with William Ayers to rip off over 100 million with the Annenberg project in Chicago. You can also check out the notes from the testimony above regarding $800K to his campaign war chest and what it represents. There is also the campaign fundraising courtesy of Tony Rezko and lesser known associates to both the Obama and Biden campaigns. What trouble would anyone have seeing this for what it is…….the commission of a massive fraud with ties to Barack Obama.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Working the rope line in Maumee, Ohio, the Senator was asked by an environmentalist why he and Mr. Obama support “clean coal.” “We’re not supporting clean coal,” Mr. Biden responded. Then, riffing on China’s breakneck construction of new coal plants, he continued, “No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them, over there.”

Coal happens to be the indispensable workhorse of the U.S. power system, providing about 50% of the country’s electricity.

The piece goes on to say that the cost of the green revolution ‘won’t be paid by well-heeled coastal liberals‘ as is the case for most of what the likes of Al Gore, Barack Obama and Joe Biden pontificate. As for ‘clean coal,’ the Obama campaign actually supports it. Someone should tell Joe Biden since he is working for Barack America, or was that just another Biden gaffe?

This week, Biden told Katie Couric: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened’.”

The stock market crashed in 1929. Roosevelt became president four years later. The first commercial TV broadcast was on July 1, 1941.

Biden majored in history and political science at the University of Delaware.

Another case against the state of education in this country. But that’s another story. You might think the above ‘gaffe’ is no big deal. C’mon, screw ups like these if nothing else demonstrate incompetence and ,if allowed, lend themselves to just making stuff up as Barack so eloquently accused his opponents of doing. Maybe that is Barry’s plan. Each time Obama/Biden get in trouble Barry can have Joe make something up to explain it all away. Ya, that’s the ticket. That’ll work.

Then there was Biden’s appearance before an Indian-American organization in Delaware, at which he said: “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

Apparently, Biden’s knowledge of Indian-Americans is limited to watching “The Simpsons.”

The gaffe above ranks right up there with his primary season description of his new boss as ‘clean and articulate’ or shouting to Chuck Graham that he should ’stand up.’

In a recent speech, he said, “If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. . . .

“Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.”

ABC News reported the emergency landing was due to a snowstorm

Maybe plagiarizing Joe Biden stole one from Hillary as she was shot at by a sniper in Bosnia, NOT.

If you want a good read that chronicles the continuous mistake that is Joe Biden, check out the link from the following excerpt:

Inside Today’s Bulletin
Biased Mainstream Media Reports Only Opposite The Truth
By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
09/24/2008

If Gov. Sarah Palin had ever looked at her first grade teacher cross-eyed, that would be a front-page story in the newspapers of the dishonest, fraudulent and biased mainstream media. Papers like that include The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer. However, if you’re running on the Democratic side of the ticket, you can have a long record suggesting you’re stupid, arrogant and dishonest and that will be ignored by the mainstream media.

Take the case of Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for vice president.

It starts out like any other report expressing dissatisfaction with the MSM but there is a whole lot more there and worth reading. It even gets around to Barry’s problems that are like Joe’s. And then there is…..

Barack Obama and Joe Biden stepped out of sync again Tuesday, as the Democratic presidential nominee criticized his running mate for voicing opposition to the government bailout of American International Group early last week.

It was the second off-message moment for the Democratic team in two days. Biden had to ratchet back his own rhetoric Monday after an interview aired in which he called one of his own campaign ads “terrible.”

It could be that the worst part about Biden-gaffe demonstrates the two members of the Democratic party ticket are worlds apart on policy or simply do not agree on the issues. How would that work in the White House? The fact is it would not. A history of bad choices when it comes to associations like William Ayers, Rev Wright and Tony Rezko. A slick photo-op marketing scheme including a world tour sprinkled with plagiarism, gaffes, mixed messages, and a stream of errors only the far left kook fringe can appreciate. The MSM support for Obama and an overflowing campaign war chest are all that Obama/Biden bring to the table with their audacity of hope they can continue to perpetrate the biggest fraud in history all the way to the White House.

The current upside is that in a year when most thought the DNC would have an easy time invading the White House the polls remain quite close. This would seem to indicate reports suggesting voters would not really pay attention until election day was close were accurate. There is reason to believe the sham that is the candidacy of Barack Obama will be exposed as election day arrives. And the most effective agent of that exposure may well be Senator Joe Biden. For all his faults, Joe Biden could go down in history as saving the country from the worst choice for President in many years, Barack Obama.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Barack Obama’s stated policy on trade offers a classic piece of campaign rhetoric in its first bullet point. It is a common practice used by all campaigners to avoid the obvious problem of guaranteeing accomplishment of any proposed plan offered in exchange for your vote. Obama will fight for fair trade. Obama and Biden will fight for fair trade. They claim they will fight for fair trade policy but this of course promises little. It also is rather vague on what that means. They also claim the CAFTA does not live up to labor and environmental standards but no where detail how the agreement fails or what exactly the standards they support are.

The same follows in their second bullet point on NAFTA. If it was oversold to the American people was that not a job done by Democratic President William Jefferson Clinton? And if it is not an acceptable agreement for American workers and Senators Obama and Biden claim they will make it so, where are the details of what is wrong with it and what they will fix? They will work with leaders of Canada and Mexico to make it work? How do they know that whatever they will propose will be accepted by Canada and Mexico? As with the first bullet point, the second offers no answers, specifics or any sort of detail. Only a vague proposal to do something or fix something without explaining what is wrong..

In the final proposal of bullet point two, Obama and Biden at least use another word in place of ‘fight’. They will ‘pressure’ the WTO to right the wrongs on trade agreement enforcement and barriers to US exports. Obama and Biden pressure will cause the WTO and signatory countries to ‘cave’ to the American will. How’s that working for us so far? You can rest assured that if Obama and Biden were given the opportunity to be President and VP they would state they pressured the WTO and fought for fair trade after a miserable failure at both. Thus honoring their campaign pledge to ‘fight’ and ‘pressure.’ But no solution to their proposal would be forthcoming nor would we really know what it was, specifically.

The third bullet point is quite easy to believe coming from the most liberal Senator in Washington and his most experienced liberal colleague. For a man who claims he will punish companies who move jobs overseas he is willing to up the ante to the American taxpayer to fund additional programs for ‘displaced’ workers when his ‘American jobs’ policy fails miserably. Right afterwards in bullet point four Obama/Biden think you have fallen asleep and did not notice this is where they say they will punish those who move jobs overseas. If that would really work they would have little reason for the additional displaced worker funding.

The last bullet point in this series is more of the same. Claim you will reward employers for doing what many of them already do. While it is true that many pension and other benefit arrangements at American companies are on the decline or taken over by government guarantees, many companies offer matching funds to 401k plans and a typical insurance coverage based on what is available today. Whatever Obama and Biden would offer would still not likely help the small business owner who is the life blood of the American worker. The large corporations like GM have been met with hard times most likely do to their bets placed on market decisions but have taken an additional toll by caving to organized labor over many years for unreasonable costs for employee compensation and benefits. It was easier to cave than fight the expensive fight and we are now all paying for it. Obama/Biden want to increase the cost to the taxpayer by funding failures of the past and continue them into the future.

On the one hand the American workforce has seen real wages degrade over time. On the other hand emerging nations like China have placed enormous pressure on business to seek cheaper labor abroad. Making villains out of business and creating victims out of workers may be standard procedure for the Democratic party but it provides little in the way of solutions. Perhaps Obama and Biden should focus a little more on what governments do and how they influence the lives of their citizens with the politics, legislation and policies they so casually initiate while sparring with the political opposition. The rest of us have to deal with the results.

The only promise made here beyond ‘fight’ or ‘pressure’ is ‘extending’ a worker assistance program which is Washington-speak for spending more taxpayer dollars. Something that is not hard to believe from the Dems. While they complain about outrageous spending from the GOP in recent years they have no plans to stop it if they are elected. The small omission by both parties when pledging anything in a campaign is that most of it, especially money, requires agreement with Congress to be accomplished. That is not always a deal breaker but the point is there are limitations on what the President and VP can do without the legislative branch although those limits have been tested during the current Administration as well as in others before this one.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from the Obama campaign website:

Trade

Obama and Biden believe that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.

* Fight for Fair Trade: Obama and Biden will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. They will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama and Biden will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

* Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama and Biden believe that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. They will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

* Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama and Biden will update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

* End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving their operations overseas. Obama and Biden will also fight to ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies that are committed to American workers.

* Reward Companies that Support American Workers: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 with Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to reward companies that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers. The legislation would provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America if it has ever been in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

Several posts back this blog started a review of Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s economic plan as published on the campaign site. This is the second in a series of these reviews that will last until the stupidity of presenting these lame ideas from the liberal Democrats ( ya, that’s redundant) becomes unbearable. The highlighted text below is linked to the source of the information.

First an observation on the initial bullet point below is worth mentioning. The liberal politicians continuously complain that the GOP has failed America and among other things the liberals plan to increase jobs that the GOP lost. A 2006 analysis of taxation in America referenced in the first post in this series stated 135 million individual tax returns. Assuming that includes joint returns, where does the Obama campaign come up with 150 million workers? Does that include illegal immigrants or is there some typical error involved with the estimates? Or could it be that since 2006, 15 million more jobs were ‘created’? Okay, enough was written about that.

Even if the first bullet point is accurate, Mr Obama, your tax cut equals somewhere between 75 and 150 billion dollars. How is that paid for? What are the offsets? How much good does about a buck and a half per day for individuals and less than three bucks a day for a family really provide? There are already over 40 million who do not pay income taxes so what is the point of adding another 10 million? It would be nice if no one had to pay taxes but without it how will YOUR government programs get funded? Your first bullet point is nonsense and amounts to simply pandering to the public for votes. It solves nothing and places more strain on an already burdened budget, deficit and national debt. And you criticize McCain and Palin on the economy? Who’s out of touch here?

Your second bullet point is as useless as your first and for the same reasons. Have you checked with seniors to understand their finances? Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are under tremendous strain with more baby boomers retiring everyday. No one should need to tell you the history on these matters and what should be done. Okay, the $1400 will keep seniors from eating cat food for meals maybe but does nothing about paying for prescriptions or other medical expenses or other services required in one’s later years like assisted living. If you believe your plan will genuinely assist seniors earning less than fifty grand a year you really are an idiot or think seniors are.

You saved the best for last on your third bullet point. Are you aware that there is a better than 50/50 chance any answer to a question you ask the IRS will be wrong? And you will have all that data floating around in more places to attract identity theft or breaches in security as have already happened at the VA, etc., all in the name of making tax preparation a five minute ordeal? Are you telling the American people they are too stupid to use the EZ form of the 1040? Could it be any simpler or shorter than that? What, you never heard of Turbo Tax? You are not aware that there are numerous sources for free tax preparation? You don’t know that H&R Block offers tax solutions?

Yo, Barry, the problem isn’t the tax form or preparation. IT’S THE TAX CODE !!! And you claim you are ready to be President. If you really believe that it proves you are not ready. If you know you are not ready and just trying to fool the public you should never be President ready or not.

It is difficult not to get angry when dealing with the audacity of politics especially Obama style. The audacity to present this dribble to the public in hopes of winning an election is beyond depraved indifference. Guess watching Law and Order paid off after all these years. Found a use for the phrase depraved indifference. A little lame humor serves the purpose of calming the agitation one can feel from the effects of being insulted by a politician.

This post raises the number of stupid bullet points from the Obama/Biden economic plan as advertised on their website to 5/5. That means five items have been presented and reviewed and all five are lame and not worth anyone’s vote.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief

Obama and Biden will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.

* Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

* Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama-Biden plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return.

* Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama and Biden will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama and Biden will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama-Biden proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.

It is not necessarily ideal but it is what we have. Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama are of course the two candidates for President this fall. The obvious fact that seems to be overlooked lately is that certainly one of them will be President and sworn in next January. It may be fair to say that not that many people regardless of what side of politics they are from can honestly muster excitement about these prospects. The typical campaign ads and whistle stops or speeches delivered in recent days mark this election cycle as no more interesting than the Super Bowl when your favorite team will not be involved. So what do we do when circumstances conspire to offer less than optimum choices for the future of this country?

That is simple. Just like choices made on a daily basis for life in general and the routine matters of any individual we do the best we can with what we have. In terms of the Presidential election in the US you can vote or not vote. While both candidates try to attract various demographics for their vote, Obama has been credited for drawing younger voters which James Carville is credited for asking the question ‘ what do you call a candidate who courts young voters? The answer is loser. A recent story from VOA included this statement from a young Republican, ‘While people may really believe that Obama or McCain is the right guy they may not make it to the polls on that day,’ Gallagher said. ‘I think it is the classic problem of the 18-25-year-olds. They have an opinion but they have trouble getting to the polls.’

Another young person was quoted in the article with this statement, “I know plenty of people my age and younger who are not interested, who are apathetic, who do not turn out to vote,” he said. But that statement could apply to a large segment of the voting age public based on voter turnout in general. There are 50 million people between 18 and 30 in this country. Obama leads McCain 55% to 32% in this category. But McCain’s draw of older Americans may prove more reliable come November 4th. In 2000 18 million of the 50 voted and in 2004 that number improved to 20 million. Who knows what will happen in 2008?

Outside the young vote of the 18 to 30 year olds and discounting those who do not honor their civic duty the vote is becoming more polarized. A report indicates that the state of Texas is overwhelmingly Republican except in the capitol of Austin. The same holds true for the author of this blog’s home state of Wisconsin. Some refer to the state capitol as ‘The People’s Republic of Madison.’ The thing that makes Wisconsin lean blue is the urban concentration of Milwaukee and Madison and the associated demographics. A similar situation is given in the Texas example and elsewhere that urban areas (larger populations) are predominantly Democrat while the suburban and rural areas are Republican. As for the state capitols and large urban centers it gives credence to the idea that liberals hover around the halls of government they crave. Let the government rule the people rather than the other way around as it was intended.

With their failed choice of Al Gore, John Kerry and the recent failures of John ‘philanderer’ Edwards and scandal-ridden Hillary Clinton liberals are left with the most liberal Senator in Washington, Barack Obama. That is coupled with one of the most experienced liberals in Washington, Joe Biden. Does it get any more liberal than that? Yes it does. Barack Obama’s far left liberal associate, William Ayers and his Hyde Park cronies propped up Obama in Illinois politics. And the liberal leaning MSM helped Obama ignore Ayers’ Weather Underground and domestic terrorist background. They also give little attention to Obama’s 20 year history with ‘damn America’ liberal Rev Wright who together with Obama’s wife Michelle have little to be proud of when it comes to America. And convicted felon Tony Rezko not only helped Obama buy into a shady real estate deal but both he and Biden have campaign finance deals courtesy of Rezko and his associates.

Along with the aforementioned usual suspects the left side of American politics is directed by the likes of MoveOn Dot Org, the Daily Kos and other kook fringe far left radical groups who do not have the best interest of ordinary citizens at heart. These problems are exacerbated by the ruling elite of the DNC such as Ted Kennedy and his lieutenants, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who will accept any Democratic party candidate they believe can win even if they are bad for the country.

That leaves us with the only other choice in this Presidential election, Senator John McCain. The most provocative or certainly notable action during the McCain campaign was his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. The campaign slogan of ‘country first’ in many ways may define more of the McCain/Palin ticket than any other. John McCain’s family and personal history of service to country coupled with the genuine admiration of his service from his VP nominee as well as her rapid rise in politics and impressive list of accomplishments to date provide a compelling case for the American voter. While not perfect or flawless by any measure it is easy to believe this pair has the country’s best interest in mind especially when compared to the only other choice.

One contrast that stands out between the candidates for President is the ability to admit mistakes and the courage to stand on principle against overwhelming opposition. Senator John McCain almost destroyed his chances for victory early in his campaign for President with the McCain/Kennedy ‘amnesty’ measure. The immense outrage over allowing the rule of law to once again be abandoned in favor of illegal immigration met the challenge to defeat the measure in the summer of 2007. John McCain admitted it was a mistake and while still favoring the ludicrous ‘path to citizenship’ for illegals understood the majority of Americans were opposed to the so-called bipartisan legislation he, Kennedy and the White House proposed.

On the other hand, for Barack Obama, one time Messiah for the far left kook fringe antiwar movement that is the largest constituency of the DNC was and is incapable of admitting he was wrong on the troop surge that was a complete success in Iraq and vindication of General David Petraeus and every service member in uniform. While he claims to support the troops his only policy on the matter is withdrawal, surrender and defeat. Not a quality one looks for in a Commander-in-Chief.

McCain on the other hand supported the troop surge from the beginning in the face of overwhelming public opposition as well as political suicide. In his own words he would rather win a war and lose an election and at the same time he was correct in his analysis that Barack Obama was willing to use the war as a political tool to win an election. Again, Barack Obama’s choice is not a quality you look for in a President.

A post on this blog that starts a series of looks at the economic policies of Barack Obama and Joe Biden displays their support for the redistribution of wealth to cater to their base of liberals that favor socialist doctrine. Together with the items mentioned here you should have enough incentive to reject the Obama/Biden ticket or at least continue to view the vast array policy initiatives they endorse. None of which are favorable for the future of the United States.

So in an election cycle that is less than ideal, one candidate, John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, may be ideal when compared to the alternative of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com