Let’s not forget what Joe Biden said about Barack Obama and John McCain BEFORE he was placed on the Democratic ticket.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
The Joe the Plumber story has, regardless of anything else, raised the consciousness of many voters to understand and see beyond the mirage that is Obama. The understanding comes from the realization that the Democratic party, while touting McCain as four more years of President Bush, has successfully reminded citizens of their decades of overtaxing Americans. Obama’s statement of ’spreading the wealth’ exposed that flaw and woke up a nation.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
For all the abuse Joe the Plumber took from the ’spread the wealth’ liberals after being lifted onto the national stage for having the AUDACITY to ask the Messiah about his tax plans, his own words should get more play. They do in this video.
It sounds good enough and is not the first time this scenario has been suggested. But the flaw of the argument or the fly in the ointment lives within the other words of the commentary referenced here.
The wake up call for the GOP was with the midterms in 2006 where they lost the majority. And the author above is also right about the Dems interpreting any defeat of the GOP as an endorsement of their failed agendas. To wit: the new direction for America marketed by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats has resulted in nothing. Nothing except an approval rating for Congress lower than that of the President. This is not just a GOP problem but a GOP and DNC problem. Ousting what is left of the GOP from Congress and putting a Democrat in the White House will not solve the problem. Giving the Dems the majority in Congress in 2006 is enough proof of that.
It’s hard to think of how Obama could be worse. He’ll just be bad in different ways. And that is where the author loses his argument. To object to the recent interventions of the federal government in response to allowing the subprime mortgage mess to dismantle the credit markets and put just about everyone as risk and call it GOP socialism is a bit over the top not to mention wrong. What should have been done? Let everything fall where it may? That is poetic justice but the crisis itself if it can be called that was also proof enough how well that strategy works. Something had to be done and nearly any response would be judged inadequate or simply wrong. There was no way to win once the problem had been allowed to develop in the first place. The Dems have plenty of complicity in the subprime mess and the GOP is not without guilt either.
This isn’t to say that Barack Obama would be any better. Government would undoubtedly grow under his watch. And from my libertarian perspective, he has been increasingly disappointing even on the issues where he’s supposed to be good. There it is. Obama won’t be an improvement. The government will grow on his watch. He is increasingly disappointing.
You cannot engage in politics only during an election cycle and expect things to go the way you want. Even if you are diligent year round this is a republic and we elect representatives who are not required to do as we ask. They are to represent us in what they believe is the best way. If we disagree we can vote for someone else. Rather than throw out the baby with the bath water as this author suggests, we need to retain the GOP in the White House and at least hold where the member numbers are in Congress. Along with that expressing our reactions to what happens in Washington as individuals must be maintained. It was in evidence in the summer of 2007 when Congress considered amnesty for illegal immigrants. The measure was soundly defeated due to an enormous public outcry rendering the Congressional phone system unusable from overload or simply being turned off to stem the tide. That is what gets the public’s opinion listened to in Washington.
The biggest problem with the author’s suggestion to throw out the GOP in hopes of reforming their lost ways is the damage that would be caused by Obama and friends and no guarantee of when the GOP would be able to return renewed. Unbridled power to the left may be a tipping point the republic cannot withstand.
Abandoning the GOP is not the answer. Doing your part to keep Washington honest is the answer. And voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin is the start. Doing your part after that by continuing to let your voice be heard in Washington throughout the year and beyond is the finish. That’s what keeps government working for you. Don’t blame everything on the GOP or Washington. As citizenz we share in the blame for how things are no matter who is in charge.
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
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.
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.
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.
Released: October 13, 2008
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 48%, McCain 44%
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.
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.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
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?
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
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
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, A Blog For All, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, , third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
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
I’m hacking this hasty post cuz I’m really mad. Won’t even comment on Brokaw’s Meet the Press except to say Giuliani did a credible job on behalf of the McCain/Palin ticket. What matters most is the mention of the ‘Bubba’ effect and once again stooping to accusations of racism and elevating the discussion of the race card as a thinly veiled political tactic to improve Obama’s chances in light of his waning campaign.
If I had not already decided to vote for and support the McCain/Palin ticket the single fact of calling me a racist if I do would have been enough to change me from undecided to support John McCain and Sarah Palin in the November election.
The insult that if you don’t vote for Obama/Biden you’re a racist is over the top.
An angry Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
News reports today suggest that Obama was not targeting Sarah Palin with his ‘lipstick’ comment. And they further express that McCain suggested Hillary Clinton’s heal care proposal was putting ‘lipstick’ on a pig. The phrase originates from sales humor of making a bad product appear attractive to customers in hard sell tactics employed by less than scrupulous sales people.
When McCain used the phrase some time ago Hillary had not used the term lipstick in presenting a humorous turn of phrase as Sarah Palin has about hockey Moms and pitbulls. The use of the phrase by Obama comes so close after Palin’s use of it that drawing the distinction as an insult directed at Palin from Obama is not a stretch. If Obama could not see it as a hazard then it is simply proof that he is out of touch rather than his claims his opponents are.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
You are currently browsing the archives for the Gov Sarah Palin category.
Copyright © 2003-2006 Ulysses Ronquillo. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress v 2.0.3.
Page in 0.339 seconds.
