The Bradley Effect

The Bradley Effect is when white voters overstate their support in polls to minority candidates. The Bradley Effect came about when in Tom Bradley the mayor of Los Angeles lost the 1982 California Governor’s race despite leading in the polls. Since then there have been several cases when the black candidates’ results on Election Day were skewed from polling results. Since Obama is an African-American, many wonder if the Bradley Effect is going to cost him the election. With Obama up in the polls, some wonder if white voters are overstating their interest in Obama. It is believed a white voter would do that to show that they are not prejudice. However, once they vote they vote for the other candidate since no one will know how they voted since it is anonymous.

I do not think that election will see a very large Bradley Effect is anything at all. First, a lot of the elections where the Bradley Effect came into play were over a decade ago. I like to think that we have come a long way in pushing aside our prejudices as a nation. Secondly, if you look at the democratic primaries, the poll numbers between Hillary and Obama were fairly accurate for every state. The only state that was a surprise as New Hampshire where Clinton won and Obama had a 7 to 10 point lead in the polls. The bottom line is that I would be surprised if there is more than a 1 to 2 point swing to McCain.

In actuality, there may very well be a "reverse Bradley Effect" in this election. This occurs when whites vote for a black person to prove to themselves they are not prejudice. This is ridiculous, but it can happen. Rational people do not have to do this to prove they are not prejudice. For instance, I know I could vote for any one of a number of black candidates if they were running for President (Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, or even Bill Cosby). I just cannot vote for a black candidate that says he will bridge divides by being partisan when his record is nothing but bi-partisan. The reverse Bradley Effect can also occur when whites openly admit they will vote for McCain to their conservative cohorts, but will vote for Obama in the booth. I definitely think this can happen.

Example of Spreading the Wealth

Here is a spreading the wealth example I got from a friend:

Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys in the area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money".
Once in the restaurant I noticed that my waiter had on a "Obama 08" tee shirt.
When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him that while he had given me exceptional service, his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need, the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.
As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pissed that I gave away the money he did earn.
Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.

I find it ironic that the waiter would be more than happy getting a rebate at the expense of someone else, but is not happy when the rebate comes at his expense. Some may argue that this is not an "apples to apples" comparison of what Obama plans since both the homeless person and the waiter would get rebates under Obama and no money would be taken from the waiter. However, the premise is appropriate in that no one really likes losing hard earned wealth at the expense of someone else. This example is also appropriate in its progressive rate of wealth spreading. The waiter is losing only $3, but a person making 200K could lose an additional 5% of their wealth at a minimum ($10K). I doubt $3 is 5% of the waitresses annual income. That would mean he only earned $60 for the year. If the waiter earned a measly 5K for the year (I am sure it much more than this), the $3 spreading the wealth experiment cost him .066% of his wealth! That is a tax rate 166 times lower than the 200K individual but an income that is only 40 times lower. That seems fair to me.

This example also points out on glaring problem with the Obama spread the wealth plan. How much money is going to "dead beats". People that do not want to work and only want hand outs to support alcohol and drug addictions. This number may be small, nevertheless, it makes no absolutely no sense to give money to people that will not use it wisely. Most hard working Americans must take a drug test to get work, do the spread the wealth recipients have to do the same? No. Does a spread the wealth recipient have to show that they are at least trying to get a job, or they are trying to better themselves? No. I say give "spread the wealth" money to individuals that work to fix up their neighborhoods and work to fix our city and road infrastructure problems. Handing out money for nothing in return is irresponsible unless you know the people are for a fact responsible. And how will we ever determine that? It is almost impossible.

The Fairness Doctrine

Nancy Pelosi is leading the Democratic charge to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was introduced by the FCC in 1949 to regulate that both the conservative and liberal points of view on controversial political issues be heard over the airwaves. I personally agree with this Doctrine however, the problem is that is not applied equally over all communications mediums. The Democrats want to reinstate the Doctrine that was last enforced in the 1980s, because it deals mainly with radio stations where conservative talk shows dominate the airwaves. The Fairness Doctrine was developed before TV and the Internet were existent. I would agree with the Fairness Doctrine if it were not only applied to the radio, but to the TV, our newspapers, and Internet news sites as well. It should come as no surprise that the liberals dominate TV and Internet news that are not covered by the doctrine. This only shows how biased and partisan the Democrats are. I also think the Fairness Doctrine should also apply to our educational system. Especially to our higher educational institutions that are predominately liberal. Today, these educational institutions have quotas to insure all races and religious types get a fair chance at attending their school. However, the only breed that is dying and being discriminated against in our schools is the conservative student and point of view. Teachers and professors that do not teach both sides of the story should not be tenured, it is that simple. Teaching opinions and bias has no place in the educational system. Just as educational institutions should teach both sides of the Civil War, they should be required to teach both sides of political issues. As I said, I am for the Fairness Doctrine as long as it is enforced through ALL media outlets and our schools. The Democrats only want it to equal the playing field on the radio, but not on TV, the newspapers, the Internet, or in our schools that are dominated by liberal points of view. The argument against the Fairness Doctrine is that it violates the “Freedom of Speech” amendment. However, the doctrine does not tell anyone that they cannot preach their viewpoint; it just says that another person should be allowed to give an alternate viewpoint on the same outlet. That means that Bill O’Reilly can still give his opinion on Fox News, but someone like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow should follow his show with an alternate view point.

Maternalist Versus Feminist

Sarah Palin is not a feminist and that may be why many women despise her. She is a maternalist. A maternalist is a strong mother figure. A maternalist is not so much concerned with equal rights for women as they are for the rights of their children. Although, Palin does have plenty in common with feminists in that she can balance work and family. Do not discount the political prowess of maternalists. They are not just happy homemakers. They fought for child welfare reform and started groups such as MADD (mothers against drunk drivers). I do not understand why feminist attack Palin like she is evil. What is wrong with a parent putting their kids first? Absolutely nothing! This country needs more strong mothers to raise their kids with good values, intellect, and commonsense. Feminist are strong women, but so are maternalist. Both feminist and maternalist have important roles in our society and have accomplished a great deal in the rights for women and children. However, it is disheartening that they can not unite for a common cause to represent the strong resolve of all women. It is especially disconcerting since the major political divide between feminist and maternalist is abortion. Feminist believe in a women's right to have an abortion and maternalist are against abortion at all cost. Although it seems maternalist and feminist are at odds on abortion, they probably are not that far apart. Even most feminist would not have an abortion with the exception of rape or incest. When you get down to it, not really much separates the feminist and maternalist. I think this country would benefit from a strong mother figure in the White House. The root of all problems in this country can arguably be pointed at education and the moral values that our children will have. Who better understands these issues than a strong mother figure or maternalist? Let’s face it, the future of the United States of America is in the hands of our children and it is the maternalist that shapes their persona, not the feminist. Ironically, feminist attacks on Palin are the same as attacking the mothers that did a good job raising Barack Obama and John McCain. It makes no sense and is hypocritical. I just do not understand why women cannot respect each others opinions and values. If they would unite, they would dominate the political landscape in the United States. After all, there are more women in the United States than men.

The Biden / Obama Double Standard

Last weekend Joe Biden had an interview with a TV station in Florida. The interviewee asked Joe what was the difference between Karl Marx’s view on socialism and Obama’s plan to spread the wealth? A fairly easy question for him to answer, but the question caught him off guard because he thought it was a joke. His answer was only a denial instead of intelligently answering the question. He could have simply stated that the United States has always had a progressive income tax where those who make more get taxed more and vice versa. He could have said that although Obama’s plan is to level the playing field between the rich and poor, it does not go as far as socialism to put everyone as equals when it comes to income. He could have answered the question as simple as that, even if he felt the question condescending. However, when Sarah Palin opted not to answer some bogus questions she found condescending from Katie Couric, she was portrayed as stupid and ignorant. Palin should have answered those questions such as “what does she read”. Yes, it is a stupid and condescending question when given in a way that it stipulates people in Alaska are different and do not read the same things as us ‘normal’ folks in the lower 48. However, the difference is clear, Biden is given a pass despite ‘all of his so called experience’ and Palin is made out to be dumb. The Obama campaign took it a step further and said they would have no more interviews with that Florida station. On the other hand, when Palin is kept under wraps by the McCain campaign by not allowing her to give interviews because every mistake she makes is amplified, they are incompetent. It is a double standard and it is sad that it this obvious. Just as the media did not give Palin a pass because she was green to the media interview process, they certainly should not let Biden and Obama get away with choosing what questions they feel are relevant from the media.

Should Everyone Have the Right to Vote?

Everyone has the right to vote with the exception of people that had committed a felony and a few other exceptions. However, why should people who do not understand the basic issues have the right to vote? Time Magazine asked potential voters 5 questions:

Who is the Vice President?
Who is the Speaker of the House?
Who is the Secretary of the Treasury?
Which State is Obama a Senator from?
Who is the Chief Justice?

Only 65% got 3 of 5 correct. Only 1 in 8 got all five correct. One in 12 got all five wrong. If you cannot score a 60 on 5 simple questions, then why should you have the right to vote? If you do not understand the basic players in our government, how can you understand the issues and have sound judgment to make a choice to represent us in government.

With the drop out rates at high schools increasing we should be providing incentives to kids to stay in school. If you do not graduate, you do not vote. I understand that some have to leave school to work, so exceptions can be made. However, most drop out for no reason at all. Is it fair to have ignorant and incompetent people deciding who gets elected into office? I do not think so.

Congressman John Murtha: Those who Vote for McCain are Racist

Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha claimed that the elder people in the Western part of his state will not vote for Obama because they are racist. If you take that way of thinking, then he is basically saying anyone who votes against Obama is racist. Once again this shows what kind of incompetent leadership we have in Congress. I mean people can vote against Obama because they are fearful of his socialized tax plan, his proposal of 1 trillion in new spending on failed social programs, his socialized health plan, his inexperience, his lack of a voting record, his relation with questionable characters, his lack of foreign experience, his partisan voting record, or any number of reasons to go with McCain.

I am really getting tired of the ‘race card’ being brought up in this election. The liberals and the media think they can convince people to vote for an African-American candidate to prove they are not racist. A person’s religious affiliation or they color of their skin has nothing to with politics. It should have nothing to do with how any American views another American. Let’s stop this. People can be objective and vote for McCain because they think he is the better candidate. Unfortunately, morons like Murtha will get re-elected. These are the idiots that need to be voted out of office since they are promoting polarization of Americans.

The Latest Attacks on Palin

The front page of the NY Times yesterday mentioned the RNC bought 150K of clothing for Sarah Palin to use during the campaign. It was suppose to make conservatives look like they are wasting money and to point out they too can be ‘elitist’. This is what the Times did not mention:

Palin is the only one of the 4 candidates that is not a millionaire and did not have appropriate clothing for a 6 week campaign.
The clothing was NOT GIVEN TO HER. It was donated. After the campaign the clothing will be donated to charity or auctioned off for charity.
Palin won the Alaska Governorship wearing modest clothing, including fleece during events.

Also, during a CNN interview Palin was told that many hard core conservatives have an issue with her. The interviewee pointed to a National Review (conservative publication) column that said she was any number of things including incompetent. The article in question was actually a glowing endorsement for Palin. The author simply stated that the media was acting as if Palin was incompetent. The author never made that claim. Either this interviewee did not read the article or was fabricating lies to make Palin look bad on TV. It is so blatant as to what ends the media will go to portray Palin as evil. This has got to stop, and intelligent individuals need to understand this.

Colorado Amendment 48

Fellow Coloradoan’s, for those who believe the definition of human being starts at conception can vote yes on Colorado Amendment 48. If it passes it will amend the Colorado Constitution with a definition of person.

Obama:Is He Copying Clinton Policies?

Since disposing of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primaries, Obama has begun to copy some of her policies. Obama’s Health Care plan has moved closer to Clinton’s. Obama’s economic policy to handle the housing crisis has moved closer to what Clinton proposed. It is funny how they debated these topics during the Democratic Primaries and Obama disagreed strongly with Clinton on these issues. Now with the financial crisis the top issue of the Presidential Election, Obama was desperate for a plan and he ripped one off from Clinton. He was too proud to pick her as his running mate, but is not too proud to copy her policies. I wonder what Obama and his administration plans to do once they are in the Oval Office since they will no longer be allowed to vote “Present” and will not have any policies to copy. It is scary that he and his campaign are clueless, but we Americans are too stupid to realize this. Obama flip flops on issues for political reasons, not the right reasons. Obama is all the sudden a moderate on key issues with his willingness to drill, he is against gay marriage, he wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan and so forth. It is amazing how a guy that was further left than any politician over the past decade is all the sudden a moderate. Does he really believe all his flip flops or is just convenient to get elected? The answer is obvious.

Biden: Obama will be Tested on International Crisis

Speaking at a campaign fund raiser when he thought the cameras were off, Biden claims “Obama will be tested on an International crisis in his first year of office”. He compared it to how the Russian’s tested a young and inexperienced John Kennedy. This should play into the Republicans hands. That is why John McCain has said numerous times, the President does not have time for on the job training. Besides, rogue nations such as Venezuela or Iran will be much less tempted to test a man with John McCain’s temperament. They know McCain will not back down. However, it is hard to know how an untested Obama may react. Do we Americans really want to see if Obama can pass the test of International crisis? Or do we want the assurance of John McCain, who will not even be challenged by a rogue nation. It should be an easy choice.

NY Times Attacks Cindy McCain

Just when you thought the media could not stoop any lower, the Times has. It has gone back some 20 years to paint Cindy as a bad person. I wonder why Barack Obama does not get the same scrutiny. When McCain brings up Ayers and other thugs Obama worked with, he is a racist. However, when the Times does it, it is good journalism. Let’s set the record straight. Some vital things the Times did not report on is that Cindy is one of the greatest Humanitarians for children of our time. She has gone on 55 missions to help the youth around the world. Her work is comparable with that of Mother Theresa. She is one of the most compassionate and caring individuals in this country and we should be humbled if she were the first lady. If the Times is fair and balanced, they would go after both Barack and Michelle Obama. Michelle is not even in the ball park when matched up with Cindy’s record as a humanitarian. Barack is not even in the ball park when his community service is matched up with Cindy’s humanitarian record. If everything in Cindy’s past is fair game, maybe we should start talking about Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright or his drug use twenty years ago.

Does everyone remember when Barack adamantly told the media to leave his wife alone after she was portrayed as unpatriotic. John will not do that because he understands that this is the nature of the beast in politics. I guess Barack's reaction was normal considering the media usually portrays him and his wife as the saviors.

Will "Generation Y" Decide the Election?

I believe the answer to this is yes since it is these young voters that are going for Obama at a rate of better than 2 to 1. I believe there is an easy explanation as to why this is the case. For the most part Generation Y has had two extremes of parenting. First there are those parents that are not involved with the raising of their kids and then there are those parents that too involved in the raising of their kids. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of those Generation Y children have been parented correctly. The under parented kids are brought up without a strong family unit. They are raised by teachers, day care workers, and baby sitters. They do not get the love and nurturing necessary to have a normal childhood. These children are more likely to get in trouble and do poorly in school. Hence, most become blue collar workers and generally earn lower wages. These individuals are more likely to vote democrat in an effort to get the government to take care of them. On the other extreme you have over parented children. Signs of over-parenting are not only when mom or dad is involved in every aspect of their children’s development, but also when they bail their kids out when things go wrong. For example, a mom will call a professor or teacher to change a grade their son or daughter received. Over-parented children do not know how to survive in the real world since mom and dad did everything for them. As a result, they are not self-aware and lack responsibility and character. These children are often spoiled and do not have to do chores or a job and often live at home after college. They are isolated and do not want to stray too far from home for college or employment. What is frightening is that these children are the future leaders of the United States. If compromise and progress are non-existent in our government today, it certainly will not be any better once this over-parented generation moves into power. In fact, things will get worse because over parented children’s personalities are amongst the weakest in terms of good leadership skills. They will not be good politicians, managers, or parents because they lack the essential personality and mental qualities to be successful. Although these individuals have opsimath personalities in terms of learning and education, their success lies in whether or not their personalities can change and overcome all the negatives outlined above. Over-parented kids expect rewards for just doing their job, just as mom and dad rewarded them. They can not deal with conflict or differing view points because mom and dad always said they were right. Hence, they have fragile personalities and frequently think their persona is under attack in the work place when others disagree with them. They are so dependent on their parents that in many cases they are just unable to take care of themselves in the real world or even think for themselves. Just as these children became dependent on mom and dad to take care of them and protect them, they will expect the government to do the same. Hence, more are likely to vote democratic to have a large government there that they can depend on and think for them.

Why is McCain Losing?

Money? The Economy? Bush? The Media? I think all of these factors are pushing Obama over the top. Less than a month until the election and we have an economic crisis that the media is comparing to the Great Depression as well as linking it to the Bush Administration. Plus, Obama has a 3 to 1 money advantage to pound this incorrect message the media is formulating to the mass public. You can read prior inputs in this blog to see why the above message is false. Besides, I want to throw one other thing into the equation as to why McCain is losing and that is organization. The Obama camp has been very organized and that may be because of money. The Obama camp is getting young voters registered and interested in the election. Republicans have no one to blame but themselves because they have not been able to come up with a clear message and rid themselves of the Bush Administration stigma. I live in a fairly conservative region in Colorado. However, who has come knocking on my doors? Who has called me? Who has filled my mailbox with propaganda? The Democrats! Everyday this past week I have been somehow reached out to by Democrats with some type of correspondence. I have yet to get one piece of correspondence from any Republican. Once again this may have something to do with money. However, I am not totally convinced. I have personally contacted the McCain campaign in Colorado and nationally through his web site to volunteer. I have contacted the local Congressman directly (been to his office) to volunteer. I have reached out at least a dozen times to volunteer for McCain and got nothing in return. I have taken matters in my own hands by making calls from the McCain web page phone bank. I have not even gotten a response for doing that. It is as if they are discombobulated. Elections are won by volunteers. Who ever can organize the best ground attack wins and to do that you need a lot of volunteers. Either McCain or his incompetent staff has not figured that out or they do not care. I doubt it is the latter. I am confounded as to why they will not sign me up to volunteer. I keep thinking it is because I am an independent, but you need to win over independents to win this election. If someone knows what is going on with the Republican Party and the McCain campaign, please let me know. I think conservative columnist Bill Kristol got it right by saying the entire McCain staff should be fired.

McCain has seemed to have several lives in this election cycle. He was left for dead in the Republican primaries. He was left for dead after the Democratic Convention. He has come back before, but time is running out on him to pull another miracle.

The Alfred E. Smith Banquet

Obama and McCain were at the Alfred E. Smith Dinner on Oct. 16th. The Banquet is named after the 1920’s governor of New York and is a fund raiser for the Catholic Church. The banquet has an interesting motif in that it is a roast. Both candidate talked for about 15 minutes and poked fun at themselves, their opponent, and other government officials. It was really quite entertaining.

I really wish all the networks covered the dinner. It is a way to see the candidates in a different and much less serious setting. I think if more people saw this, it would have greatly helped McCain’s cause. During the debates McCain is being classified as grumpy, attacking, stoic, unrefined, irritable, nasty, and a variety of other negative verbs. Whereas, Obama has been portrayed as being eloquent, Presidential, smooth, and a variety of positive verbs. However, during the Alfred E. Smith dinner McCain was hilarious and on his game. If people could see McCain in this setting, I bet his approval ratings would have shot up and there would be more positive verbs to describe him. Obama did well at the dinner, but not as well as McCain. Besides, Obama’s approval ratings are already so high they could not have been helped even if he was spectacular. Obama did well enough that he certainly would not hurt his approval ratings, but McCain did. Too bad most Americans will not see it. It could have been of a game changer for him and his campaign. Maybe there is a reason that all the major news channels did not cover it except Fox. Once again, the media probably did not want to put something on that could only hurt Obama who is far ahead in the polls. Too bad because I think the American people deserve to see candidates in different settings.

Why the Media and Obama must Destroy Joe the Plumber

Joe the Plumber did what McCain has been unable to do and that is to catch Obama off guard. Hence, Obama stated his clear intentions of “spreading the wealth” and starting a socialized America. Most intelligent Americans realize Robin Hood plans that spread the wealth do not work and only promotes mediocrity. Hard working Americans are not motivated to make a lot of money since most monies will be paid in taxes after 250K. Therefore, they realize it is not worth expanding their business because the pay back is not worth all the hard work. On the other hand, those collecting welfare at the expense from those that are hard working have no motivation to work since they get money for free. Socialism does not work. Now, the media and the Obama camp are attacking Joe the Plumber to show he is a phony. He has no plumber license and owes the government taxes. They also claim that no plumber can make 250K. It is mystifying to me why the working public does not see through this. The fact Obama and the media claim they are for the middle class, but who do they attack – A middle class American looking to try to get ahead to the upper class. They criticize and mock this man instead of trying to help him. This shows the mentality of what Obama and the media are all about. They see him as a threat to the Obama Presidential quest and must stop any traction that McCain can get from Joe the Plumber. The fact that Joe the Plumber has decided not to buy the business since it is not worth the risk because of the increased income tax he would have to pay demonstrates exactly what I have been saying. Spreading the wealth does not work because it does not motivate people to do better, it demoralizes Americans who just want to live the American Dream. When small businesses are unmotivated to expand and grow because of the tax burden the end result is that the economy slows because there is no job growth. It is simple logic, spreading the wealth does not make America better, it only makes us mediocre. Is this really what we want?

Separation of Church and State

A lot has been made about several churches using the pulpit to endorse John McCain this past week. Many claim they should lose their charity exemption for doing this. They are right, they should. However, let’s not have another double standard. I have not heard the media making the same claims against Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright who have been very public in their endorsement of Obama. They too, should lose their tax exemption!

That One

A lot has been made of McCain referring to Obama as “That One” during the 2nd debate. The media is portraying McCain as being very disrespectful. C’mon, let’s be serious. Obama may not have been referred to as “That One” before, but he is continually being referred to as the “The One” as in the “Chosen One” as in the 2nd coming of the “Messiah” by many of his supporters. Why is acceptable to say Obama is “The One” but not “That One”? Unfortunately, the media only picks what it thinks is relevant election news. Based on the background setting for the Obama speech as the DNC, he too thinks he is “The One”. I do not think you can have a bigger ego than thinking you are second coming of Christ.

Presidential Debate #3: McCain Wins, but not by enough

Once again I thought McCain had a clear, but certainly not an overwhelming victory. However, once again, most pundits and the uniformed American public think Obama won. The obvious reason for this is because Obama is a smooth orator and can talk his way out of anything. I beg everyone to look at their voting records and still tell me Obama won. Besides we do not vote on the best debater we vote on the best candidate. This makes it nearly impossible for McCain to win this upcoming election. He needs another miracle of some kind. Let’s look at the debate topics:

The Economy – McCain proposes tax cuts for all including the wealthy and all corporations. This is obviously the best choice in a recession. Obama wants to spread the wealth with socialized tax plans of taxing corporations and the wealthy. Why do the Democrats and most people in this country want to burden corporations and the wealthy like they are evil? Remember corporation employ people, if you continue to punish them they will be forced to take it on the consumer and their employees to remain profitable. It is commonsense.

The Deficit – McCain has proposed a spending freeze to get spending under control. Obama has proposed nothing concrete on how he will control spending despite having proposed a trillion new dollars in spending. Obama mention one 15 billion dollar program that has to go. It is strange how Obama has continually said the 18 billion dollars in earmarks that McCain fights against is only 0.5% of the budge and not a big deal, but he only has the nerve to only mention 15 billion in cuts. I am curious, am I the only one hearing this guy contradict himself?

Negative Campaigning – I thought McCain won this point as well. Although he let Obama off the hook for Ayers, Obama still failed to answer his 832K contribution to ACORN. Obama also did not repudiate the charge made by supporter John Lewis that said McCain and Palin were in the mold of George Wallace politics of bigotry, racism, and prejudice when given the opportunity. I found this surprising since it makes it look like Obama is using the ‘race card’ as a crutch. This is extremely disappointing, especially in a man who says he can transcend race in this country. Again, am I the only one seeing Obama continually contradict himself?

Their VP Choice – I thought this topic was a tie. Obama did not go after Palin, but even though McCain said Biden was qualified to be President he pointed out where he was wrong in the past on Foreign Policy which is suppose be his strong suit.

Supreme Court Nominees – This was clearly McCain’s best topic. He pointed out how Obama voted against Republican nominees whereas McCain voted for liberal choices in the past. He clearly said and his record indicates that Roe vs. Wade is not his only litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee, but Obama and his voting record indicates that it is. This narrow and reckless thinking. McCain also pointed out Obama’s tendency to vote “Present” on tough topics to avoid controversy. On this topic McCain was able to show how liberal and partisan Obama is.

Free Trade – Once again McCain was very strong on this issue pointing out that Obama nixed the Columbia free trade agreement. Obama explained he did not like that it did not protect Columbia workers, but agreed it will help the U.S. No bill is going to be 100% acceptable for any politician, but to openly choose that he cares more about Colombian workers than U.S. workers is a huge mistake. Obama also referred to NAFTA as being to lax on the environment and other issues and blamed Republicans for that. However, NAFTA was brought in by Clinton and the Democrats. Obama has in the past wrongly blamed NAFTA for jobs going overseas. This is not only wrong, but reckless. It shows he has no idea on how to decrease or trade deficit.

Health Care – I thought this topic was a push since McCain did not respond to Obama’s claim that his plan would force insurers to drop patients. He had an opening since Obama’s plan would also be open for insurers to drop patients. Obviously, McCain has the best plan. Citizens without care get 5K to go get their policy they want. Obama’s plan forces citizens without care to take what the government offers. Are we Americans that stupid and incompetent that we want the government to make all our decisions for us? Are we really that helpless that we want government interference on every decision we must make? Americans used to be proud, but now we are so lazy and incompetent that we cannot even do the most mundane task without someone helping us. Do we really trust the government to insure us and keep costs low? The same government that could not keep Frannie and Freddie from going belly up. The same government that has used up our social security. The same government that has trillions of dollars in debt. We are so naive and we never learn our lesson that government interference is another disaster waiting to happen. Obama claims that McCain will tax health care benefits and give the money insurance companies. What is wrong with this? Nothing, McCain has to pay for the plan somehow. On the flip side, Obama has yet to say how he will pay for his plan. I find it curious that “Joe the Plumber” will be rich enough to be taxed more, but will not be fined for not providing health coverage to his employees. Obama also claims he will lower the health insurance costs of those that have health care. How does he plan to do that? He has not given specifics other than taxing the wealthy and corporations. I give kudos to McCain for mentioning obesity and for saying we need better fitness programs in our schools. Obesity is the single main cause for our sky rocketing health costs. At least one candidate recognized that fact.

Surprisingly, this is the issue that most people think Obama wins and pushes him over the top in the debates. It is not surprising. As I make calls for the McCain campaign, everyone that gives me sob story is Obama. They are the ones that want the government to help them. Most are pitiful and have no ideas or plans on how to help themselves. I certainly have empathy, but I am not going to feel sorry for people who do at least try to help themselves, and EXPECT the government to bail them out. It is unfortunate, but this country is going down the tubes fast.

Education – I think Obama has the better plan. However, this is one issue that McCain caught Obama on. The fact that Obama said vouchers did not work, but he agreed with McCain it was working in DC (who arguably have the worst school systems in the U.S. – Thus, if vouchers work in DC they could work anywhere). Because of this McCain won the point. However, I think Obama is right about parents being more responsible for educating their children and he is also right about improving preschools. That is the key to bridging the socio-economic divide. Neither candidate offered much in the way on how they would reform tax dollars going into education. We need to close schools that are not getting the job done and move those students into schools that are working.

As far as college education is concerned, I am tired of hearing about how unaffordable college is. This is not a new issue, it has been this way for as long as I can remember. I also think the so called 'elite' college education is over rated. People can get an excellent education at minimum cost at community colleges and then attending state schools. I had student loans galore and lived in poverty and I got no assistance to attend college and I was able to get by. I worked 30 hours a week and averaged 20 credits per semester in engineering and got by. I started working at age 12 and paid rent at home. My work load caused my studies to suffer in high school so I did not get any scholarships. The bottom line is anyone who puts their mind to it and works their ass off, can go to college and pay off their debts. Unfortunately, our pride and work ethic amongst our Generation Y youth is non-existent, they are spoiled and expect rewards without putting in any effort. Everyone has a sob story, the end result is if you use it as an excuse and blame everyone else for your tough time, or do you use it as motivation to better yourself. Our only mission in life is to better ourselves and become better human beings. If you are not working towards that you have no business complaining and asking for help.

It is not even close, but we Americans are too stupid to look at their records. Instead, we are influenced by an eloquent speaker that looks very good on stage. McCain looks bad on stage and is not a great speaker – hence he must not be a good choice for President. Is this how we base our decisions, petty things like appearance and orator skills? Obama is fooling the obviously gullible American public. I wonder how we would look if we were 72 and had been to hell and back. McCain looks pretty good for 72 considering all he has been through. We should give him the benefit of the doubt. He should look worse than a 47 year old Obama.

The Economy: Why is Everyone Over Reacting?

Everyone needs to realize that the financial economic crisis is global and not isolated to the United States. This once again shows our ignorance to blame the incumbent Presidential party for everything that goes wrong. That is like blaming our President for banks failing in other parts of the world. Let’s face facts: Government regulation of the socialized nations of Europe could not stop the financial meltdown, then what makes us think the answer is more regulation and bail outs? People are in a panic and the liberals are using fear mongering tactics to take advantage of them. The liberals and the media are portraying the financial meltdown as the second coming of the Great Depression. This is not even remotely true. Markets went down 90% and the unemployment rate was over 25% during the Great Depression. Today, Markets are down 30% and Unemployment is under 6%. Look at the liberals voting records. They voted against regulation and over sight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but want to regulate Wall Street. This makes no sense, if they cannot run the government sponsored companies, what makes us think they can resolve the financial crisis? They can’t. The American people need to responsible and think before they cast their vote.

What makes this even more disturbing is that same people constantly return their local and state legislators to office at an alarming 96% rate. If you want change, vote out your local incumbents, not the President. We, as Americans, need to be objective and responsible when looking at our economic situation in this country. We also have to realize that recessions are a normal part of the economy. The economy cycles, it is natural and it usually does not matter who the President is. Congress has more effect on the economy than the President; after all they are the ones that create the legislation. We also must realize that global recessions last longer than U.S. recessions. Hence, this current recession can last up to two years and there is not much this or the next President can do to get out it, however they can do harm. I fear all of the bail outs going on will keep the country in a recession for a longer period of time.

On a positive note, oil prices have gone down over 40% in the past three months. I know the reason for the oil price drop is because of the financial crisis. However, I think it is important to note that while things look gloomy there is a positive that will help the American public as gas and energy prices decline.

I beg everyone to take a look at the Obama economic plan which includes billions of new spending in major cities. I have nothing against rebuilding crumbling inner cities and infrastructure, however with the economic crisis, we cannot afford to spend more money. Besides, there are better economic ways to rebuild inner cities than just throwing money at the problem. Instead, we should have people who collect entitlement money, work and fix inner city infrastructure problems. We can have volunteers, prisoners, and troubled youth do a lot of work. We give billions in entitlement programs and get nothing in return. It is about time our government should obtain some bang for the buck. Obama has already said in the debates that he does not plan on omitting any of his economic plans during the first four years of Presidency. If that is true, his policies should keep us in a recession for many years. Although, I do not like McCain’s call for another 300 billion to bail out home owners in trouble with foreclosure, his economic policies are far superior to Obama’s. The fact that he wants to lower taxes for everyone, including ALL corporations is the best plan of either candidate.

Election Fraud

Election fraud has been going on for a long time and is not anything new. Mayor Daley in Chicago found tens of thousands of deceased people to vote for John Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election. There were similar claims in Texas during the 1964 Presidential election. In the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections fraud was claimed by the Democrats. The media wants Americans to believe that new voting machines are not going to count the public’s vote correctly. Voter fraud is going to happen regardless if the vote is done by machine or by paper. The argument is that it is much harder to hide and cover up if there is a paper trail. That may be true, but it is still debatable because there has been accusation of fraud throughout the history American Presidential elections.

Today, it seems only a Republican can steal an election and it is beneath Democrats. Take the 2006 election cycle as an example. During the 2006 elections the Republicans were on the opposite side of a lot of close races. Incumbent senator George Allen of Virginia lost to Senator Jim Webb by less than six thousand votes and had the right to a complete recount. He requested to canvass a few precincts but saw no irregularity and conceded the following the day. That same day Democrat Senate leaders such as Charles Schumer of New York stated publicly that Allen needed to concede and not request a recount that was within state margins for him to do so. These are the same Senate leaders who backed Al Gore’s fight for the presidency in 2000 and did not want him to concede. The Democrats are being hypocrites and they are certainly not following the motto preached throughout this text to treat others the same way you expect to be treated. Like Allen, all Republicans that lost close elections conceded the next day. Not one claimed any fraud or demanded hand counts despite the high number of elections throughout the country decided by a few thousand votes or less. Over sixty percent of the closely decided elections went against the Republicans. The only seat contested and is still in litigation is Florida’s thirteenth district where Republican Vern Buchanan defeated Democrat Christine Jennings by three hundred and sixty nine votes. The recount confirmed the results, but Jennings still has not conceded a year later. Her basis for contesting the election is because Sarasota County had a very large under vote of eighteen thousand votes, nearly one in six voters did not vote in the race. Jennings won Sarasota County by six percentage points meaning eighteen thousand under votes could gain her over one thousand votes. However, this election was highly contested with a very heated campaign where both candidates got nasty with each other. There was a lot of mudslinging. Many people polled about why they opted not to vote for a candidate indicated it was because they both turned off voters with their personal attack campaigns. This is another good reason to implement the “None of the Above” category on ballots. For people who select “None of the Above” there is no dispute as to the voters’ intent. This way, election officials can make it clear that voters should vote for each race. If they do not like the candidates they should choose “None of the Above”. This approach would certainly clear up any under votes in an election. This double standard that exists that only Republicans cheat and commit fraud is preposterous.

In the 2008 election, only Fox News is reporting the corruption of Acorn. Acorn is backed by liberals (Obama contributed 800K and worked for them in the past) to get people registered to vote. That is a noble cause, but when one of three people Acorn registers is under question, that is unbelievable. The city of Indianapolis has 105% registered rate. An 80% rate would be high and obviously any rate over 100% means there are more registered voters than people that live in the area. Although no fraud was found in the 2000 and 2004 elections, the conspiracy theorist Democrats are sore losers and want to make sure those so called “fraudulent voting machines” do not steal another election, they themselves are turning to fraud. It is a sad world we live in when it comes down to this. The unfortunate thing about the Acorn registration drive, it is possible that people with the right to vote may be purged from the system accidentally because of their attempt at corruption. The bottom line, their attempt at fraud does not help anyone and could in fact hurt their candidate and effort.

The Media's Role in the Presidential Election

If Barack Obama is not brainwashing people with his outstanding orator skills to push a mesmerizing but substance lacking speeches, the media is doing it. It is unbelievable how slanted to the left the media is. I have said it a thousand times, if we had the media coverage that is available today during WWII, we would all be speaking either German or Japanese. During the Iraq War, the media has claimed the U.S. military and government has been responsible for many war crimes such as: Torture and killing innocent civilians. The media coverage of our troops such as ex NFL player Tillman who was killed by friendly fire got huge coverage. During WWII tens of thousands of U.S. military soldiers died from friendly fire. Anyone who thinks our soldiers did not torture or even kill prisoners simply because they did not have the capacity to guard them is simply mistaken. War is not a pretty thing, and horrific things happen. It is certainly not up to me or anyone who has not been there and done that to judge what happens and judge who did what. The media is out for a story and will endanger troops and take down anyone to make a name for themselves. This is despicable. And even worse, as troops got control of Iraq and turned the tide, the news coverage went away. The only conclusion one could draw from this is that the media wanted us to lose in Iraq so the next election cycle would go to the liberals. When the tide turned in Iraq, the media searched for a new story to incriminate the Republicans. They went to gas prices and then the financial crisis. They choose to report what is beneficial for them and choose not to report what is relevant to American public. Today, the coverage is directed at the economy and rightly so. However, the coverage should show that both parties have blame. The coverage, however only covers how the bad Republicans did not want to regulate Wall St. They conveniently omit that the Democrats did not want oversight on Frannie Mae or Freddie Mac. They fail to mention that the Democrats did not want to drill to bring down gas prices. During hard economic times the public is extremely fragile and the media knows that and they exploit them with one-sided brainwashing material to manipulate them into voting the liberal choice. As Joe Biden makes a gaffe a day, it is not reported, but any mistake made by Palin is made into a media circus. Palin, who has the highest approval rating of any politician in the U.S. is portrayed as the bad person while Biden and Obama who are part of the lowest approval ratings that the Senate has ever had in U.S. history are portrayed as the saviors. The media should be balanced and show no biases. They should be reporting the news fairly. It is extremely discouraging to see how the media abuses its power to push its agenda. The U.S. media has been critical of other nations'media outlets such as Al Jazeera as fostering propaganda to brain wash their following. How is our media any different?

Limiting the Power of the Legislative and Executive Branches

There is something to consider when voting for President in the up coming election. It almost certain that the both the House and Senate of the legislative branch will have a Democrat majority. If Obama is elected President, the Democrats will control both the executive and legislative branches and he will have the power to get all his liberal and socialized plans put into law. Consider how things went when Clinton and Bush had the legislative branch on their side – not so well. I think government is most effective when the executive and legislative branches are run by opposite parties. This puts effective checks and balances so the President or one political party does not get too much power. Some argue that this could make government less effective and they will get little done. However, the American people do not need a big government to legislate every action of our being. That is strong case to vote for John McCain to keep government honest.

Obama Claims that McCain is Promoting Division

Now that McCain has started to bring up Obama’s questionable relationships, Obama is crying foul. He says that McCain is promoting polarization amongst Americans. I find this somewhat ironic that Obama can make this claim considering his relationship with such radical human beings that have done nothing but divide Americans. Relationships with Bill Ayers who bombs and kills Americans, how much more divisive can someone be? Relationships with pastors that preach hate, conspiracy theories, and anti-Semitism. These preachers promote anger amongst African Americans that the government and every white person is out to get them. How do relationships with these individuals promote unity? Based on how well Obama is doing in this campaign, I do not think the argument of ALL whites being racist holds water. In fact, it is probably a very small number of whites in this country that are bigots and racist. Obama has done absolutely nothing to bridge the growing divide in this country. Do not forget Obama’s partisan politics. He has very rarely voted against his party, nor has he ever took on his party leaders. Once again, how does this promote unity? It does not, Obama talks a good game, but look at his record. He votes along party lines and has had questionable relationships with people that HATE America. I view Obama as one of the most divisive politicians of our time. America is already divided and Obama will only make things worse. Only John McCain’s moderate policies can our growing divide.

The media is also portraying McCain as promoting racism because of a handful of racist comments made by ignorant attendees at McCain rallies. Now, McCain is backing off his attacks. It is amazing how the media can portray McCain as promoting racism based on the remarks of a few ignorant spectators (That McCain does not even know), but the media does not want to report on Obama's relationship with Ayers and Wright.

The Cycle of Incompetence, Fear, and Dependence

History has taught us many valuable lessons. Too bad we continue to make the same mistakes. A good friend pointed out a valuable premise in what most societies from the Roman Empire to the present have in common when chaos rules. First, there is incompetent leadership which insights fear into the public as conditions worsen. Finally, the masses become dependent and cling to a new form of government or regime. Look at what the Great Depression created around the world. As incompetent leaders took us into the depression and fear grew around the globe, the masses became dependent on tyrants who gave a message of hope. Thus, Hitler and Stalin came to power despite radical views. In the U.S., things did not get as bad as Hitler and Stalin, but things certainly changed. FDR promoted and got support for a more socialistic society. In fact, many of FDR’s socialistic views are still present today and causing us headaches such as Social Security.

We can see the same thing occurring today in the U.S with the financial crisis. We have incompetent leadership, not only in the Executive Branch with President Bush, but in Congress as well. Let’s not forget that the Judicial Branch, which is not serving the people by ruling on cases based on partisanship, opinion, and bias and not on the law. The U.S. public has also played a big role on the incompetence front. People continually live beyond their means and get greedy. People have been running astronomical debts that they can not repay. People get involved in financial bubbles by borrowing money in an attempt to get rich quick without using commonsense or rationale about the consequences if the bubble bursts. People never believe the bubble will burst. That is naive because all bubbles burst. Every U.S. recession was the result of a financial bubble bursting. Today, we have the housing crisis, in 2000 we had the dot com bubble bursting. Let us not forget the incompetent corporate leadership that handed out trillions of dollars of loans to people with bad credit. The U.S. has certainly had its fair share of incompetence over the past decade. Now with things crumbling, not only are the masses in fear, so are the corporations and government. The government is bailing out every incompetent person and corporations with hastily put together plans in hope it will stop the crisis from spiraling out of control. Good luck, because more government interference will more than likely make things worse. Now the American people are desperate and have hope in the Obama rhetoric of “Change”. Things could not have played out any better for Obama and the Democrats a month before the election. Remember these are the times when gifted orators such as Hitler and Stalin got into power. If you look at Obama’s record as a do nothing state or U.S. Senator, it is amazing how fear has everyone flocking to his mesmerizing, but substance lacking speeches. There is nothing ‘unique’ in his rhetoric. It is Jimmy Carter’s failed foreign policy and LBJ’s and FDR’s failed economic policies. If he wants to give every middle class person a 1000 dollar tax rebate, then why did he not ever propose such legislation over the last 10 years? The reason is because he is a liar and only telling the American people what you want to hear. This is the same thing Hitler and Stalin did in Germany and Russia during the Great Depression. When people are in crisis they lose the ability to reason rationally and to use commonsense when resolving problems. When people lose this ability they will cling to any message of hope. This is why people are flocking to Barack Obama rhetoric of hope. However, his rhetoric is nothing more than an empty message of hope.

If only everyone had some patience to let the economic situation play itself out. If only everyone had some commonsense and practical thoughts instead of letting fear get the best of us, we could come out of this a better country. Unfortunately, chaos is the rule of the day and Democrats will be taking over a lot of seats because we are just simply irrational in our behavior.

Comparing Obama with Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton will vote for John McCain. Not only does he speak more highly of McCain than Obama on the campaign trail, but Bill holds a grudge. Bill is still steaming at the Obama campaign for painting him as a racist. There is no love lost between Obama and Clinton. Besides, Bill knows if Obama wins, Hillary will have to wait 8 more years instead of 4 to get another opportunity for the White House. I actually think for the same reason he voted for GW Bush in the last election. If Kerry won, Hillary would have had to wait an extra 4 years to get her first shot at the Presidency. So the same logic dictates that Hillary will also vote for McCain. Make no bones about it, the Clinton’s want that White House.

Ironically, the more I see and hear Obama, the more I see Bill Clinton. They are both gifted orators. And that scares me. Bill could tell a lie detector he is a six year old girl and pass. Once Bill perjured himself, it made me skeptical about everything that came out of his mouth. He lost all credibility and trust with me. I am not saying Obama is a liar. However, what I am saying if he were to lie, I do not think anyone could tell. This would scare me about any politician, but it scares me with Obama because of some of his past questionable relationships and because of some anti-American comments made by his wife. The chance of a person to commit a white collar crime is directly proportional to the size of their ego. No question that most Washington politicians have a huge super egos. This explains why so much corruption has been uncovered in Washington over the last decade. Does Obama, who just got to Washington have a super ego? You bet. First, is his monumental rise to power in the Democratic Party, which is enough to give anyone a big head. Secondly, he has been able to raise millions of dollars – more than anyone in the history of political campaigning, also enough to give anyone a big head and enough money to become corrupt. Third, he created an “Obama Seal” that looks like it is replacing the “United States Seal”. Fourth, not only did he choose a bigger venue to give his speech at the DNC, did you see the setting? It looked like the background from the home of a Roman Empire emperor. What is this telling us? You got to have some kind of ego to give that impression. Fifth, look at his trip to Europe. He was trying to act as if he was already the President. I can go on and on, but he has all the qualities of having a super ego. He has all the makings of a corruption scandal: Power, Ego, Money, and the ability to lie.

When is it Acceptable for America to Interfere in an Effort to Stop Global Genocide?

This is tough one to answer. If you listen to liberals around this country, they are disheartened by the amount of U.S. interference in Darfur and other regions of the world to stop the genocide. While at the same time, these same liberals are against the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a rogue leader who tortured and murdered thousands of innocent Iraqi’s. Iraq was a country in genocide. Why does it make more sense for us to use force in the Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur than to stop the genocide in Iraq? Why should we take our troops out of Iraq and lose that war so we can stop the genocide in Darfur? If we did that and Iraq got into the wrong hands then we would have two countries promoting genocide than just one. That means thousands would have lost their lives in vain. Some may argue that we would not have to use force to stop the genocide in Darfur. They are being naïve, the only way to stop the genocide in any region is to use force. If the U.S. sent forces into Darfur, they would be accused of doing so because of oil. In any case, you cannot win. Why is the Darfur genocide so much more important to the liberal elite (the media and Hollywood) than in other region of the world such as Iraq. None of this makes any sense. They complain when we interfere and complain when we do not interfere. This is hypocritical. Either it is an acceptable foreign policy to interfere and use force to stop genocide, or it is not. It must be nice to be an “arm chair quarterback” and disagree with everything a President does just because you do not like him or his party. These liberal elite are acting like a bunch of children that cannot get their way.

Why Liberal Robin Hood Plans Do Not Work

Many of us have been faced with Robin Hood plans. Robin Hood plans take money from the wealthy and redistribute them to the poor. On paper it sounds great, but they do not work. We have seen this attempted in education, where legislators try to take money from wealthy districts and redistribute to poorer school districts. Let’s evaluate this example. Once again the government thinks throwing money at the problem can actually resolve the educational issues on hand. The other ridiculous side of this proposal is that it risks the educational standards of good school districts with only the hope that poor school districts will improve. This policy only promotes the theory of mediocrity where kids from a higher social economic status get a worse education therefore lowering their overall intellect. At the same time, extra money in lower social economic schools fails to raise their overall intellect enough to offset the lower education for wealthy school districts. Why? Simply because providing extra money into a poor performing school district will not erase a student’s poor home environment and it will not necessarily bring in better teachers to improve the curriculum. If the same teachers are used, the curriculum may not improve despite more money. This is how our government and legislators fail us because they always assume the issue is money and everything else is equal. Everything else is not equal and how would our legislators realize this without having gone through the experience of being poor.

The easiest solution to this problem is to close poor performing schools in lower economic areas and allow these students access to better performing schools. Transferring tax funds from poor school districts to better schools can be used to expand better performing schools to accommodate more students. This will give children from poorer school districts access to the same education, teachers and activities to succeed. This concept is actually being carried out in many areas across the United States. The problem with this proposal is that it eventually becomes a burden on the better school districts because the kids from the sub-standard schools are behind the other kids. Teachers are forced to spend a lot of time tutoring and mentoring the under performing kids in order to catch them up. This is a continual cycle because once the under performing kids learn a new concept they are still behind because the better performing kids have already learned new concepts that the poor performing kids still need to learn. The bottom line is that low achieving kids never catch up when placed in the better performing schools immediately at the kindergarten level. The emphasis of getting kids from lower economic backgrounds caught up unfortunately neglects the better performing kids. This once again, is an example of the “theory of mediocrity” at work. This problem can be resolved by getting children from lower social economic backgrounds into the school system before kindergarten. The sooner they are in the system, the better their chances. Their lack of means and educational opportunities during their first five years of life is already crippling their development. Their environment is holding them back and the sooner they can obtain new experiences, the better their chances are of developing at an equal rate to those from higher economic backgrounds. Statistics indicate children from lower socio-economic backgrounds adopted by parents from higher socio-economic backgrounds have an Intelligent Quotient (IQ) that is thirteen points higher than children raised by parents or guardians from lower socio-economic status. This reinforces that children are capable of overcoming their educational deficiencies if they are given the same means and opportunities as children from a higher socio-economic status.

Well, what is different about the Democrat’s policy of taxing the wealthy and corporations? Nothing, they think throwing money at poverty will solve it. Welfare and other entitlement programs do not work. Throwing money to poor individuals who live in slums is not going to help them get a job. It does not train them to do a job. It does not improve their education. It just does not work. Social programs should not be permanent, they should be temporary until the issue is resolved. Throwing money to the poor are band-aide fixes that taxpayers will endure forever. Throwing money at a problem does not necessarily resolve the issue unless the root cause of the problem is resolved. Worse yet you have taken money from people that can keep the economy growing. Taxing businesses more will only have them cut jobs or benefits to the working class. It does not work and will not work. FDR’s socialized plans of the 1930’s never got us out of the Great Depression. WWII got us out of the Depression. FDR’s policies failed for 10 years.

Hence, the answer of taxing the wealthy and corporations more will not necessarily help this country unless the root cause of the problems of poverty and education are resolved. What Robin Hood Policies promote is mediocrity. Why? Say for example, I have a small business. Why should I bust my butt and grow my business into a larger tax bracket? There is no incentive to do so. If I make 250K to 300K it will be the same as making 200K. Is it worth all that effort? Probably not. Also, if I have a small business struggling to get by, where is my incentive to actually do better and make a profit is the government is going to give me free money and assistance. The bottom line is that Robin Hood plans promote laziness. Hence, productivity and economic growth is slowed. It is such a demoralizing concept. Joe Biden says it is patriotic to pay taxes. What he means it is patriotic for the wealthy to pay taxes to support poor.

Another thing that Robin Hood plans would hurt is charitable contributions given to many valuable charities that help the poor and people without medical insurance. Obviously the wealthy give the highest percentage of dollars to charities. Taking their wealth will only have them stop or reduce their contributions. Thus, the policy would hurt the poor and middle class people in need of help.

Presidential Debate #2: McCain Wins but Obama is Next President

I thought McCain won the 2nd Presidential Debate, but it was close. Since McCain did nothing to stop the bleeding in the polls, Obama now is almost certain to be the next President. I actually thought McCain won the first hour of the debate on the economy, but lost the half hour of the debate on Foreign Policy, so that was a surprise. For the most part it was a pretty dull affair. McCain tried to get his points against Obama, but he is too slick and smooth. He is such a great Orator he reminds of how Slick Willy Clinton could convince the American Public the Earth is flat.

So who is the loser from this debate? We are, the American public. With McCain proposing another 300 billion to buy up bad mortgages and Obama still has not said what he would cut as President, the taxpayer is the loser. Obama claims he will run at surplus. I am not sure how he is going to do that even if the war ends in Iraq. He has talked about a more expensive war in Afghanistan and even in the Sudan to end the genocide there. If he runs at a surplus he will really have to tax the rich and corporations heavily and that will backfire and most certainly keep the country in a recession. It looks no matter who becomes president there will bail outs galore and all kinds of government intervention in Health Care, Energy, and other programs. Welcome to the socialized United States of America. Expect higher taxes, larger government, and higher commodity prices with even worse service. Unfortunately, Americans are too stupid to realize what is transpiring before our eyes. Americans are selfish and expect the government to assist them when they are down. We have forgotten how to help ourselves. Heck, if I knew the government was going to bail millions out for buying a home a could not afford, I would have bought a bigger house on a large lot! We reward ignorance and incompetence, but people that follow the rules and are good citizens get the bill. What a bunch of crap! What ever happened to what John Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country"? What that means is we should live within our means and be healthy so we can keep health care costs low. What this means is that we should be continually trying to better ourselves. What this means is that if we lose our jobs, we should be competent enough to retrain ourselves to do a new trade. It does not mean we should expect to get bailed out for being stupid and incompetent.

Persona: Obama vs. Bush

Barack Obama claims that President Bush is stubborn and has lead the country in the wrong direction because he does not listen to his staff and only does what he thinks is best. He is probably right. This is certainly the behavior of a super ego personality. Unfortunately, I highly doubt Obama would be any better. In an effort to show he could be Commander and Chief of the Military, he stated he would not necessarily do what the Military Joints Chief of Staff would recommend for Iraq or Afghanistan. That means if General Petraeus says Iraq is still to unstable to withdraw he may ignore his advice. The outcome could become an unstable Iraq that could become a haven for terrorist to live and train. How is this any less stubborn and egotistical than any blunder Bush has done? It is not. In an effort to show strength, Obama has showed his true colors that he is no different than Bush. He would make decisions based only on his own bias and political influences. By ignoring the advice of his political and military advisers it will inevitably lead to flawed policies. This is no different than the Bush persona.

Which Ticket Can Unite Americans?

McCain / Palin have a record of working across party lines and going after their own party when they are wrong. McCain is disliked by most conservatives because he does not always agree with his party. He is more of a moderate than a conservative. Since he is more in the middle with his political views, he can effectively moderate conflicts between the left and right to find compromise to unite both parties. In this day and age partisan politics is almost obsolete. McCain has the best Senate record to insure we have a President that can be bipartisan and do what is right for the country. Palin has also demonstrated that she can be bipartisan. She ran on a campaign platform to be governor of Alaska pledging to clean up the corruption of the Republican Party. Senator Ted Stevens is being indicted for his involvement in a corruption scandal. Palin also placed Independents, Democrats, and Republicans on her staff showing bipartisan politics. On the other hand, Obama / Biden are the most and the third most liberal Senators in Washington. Considering that, then it is especially not a surprise to find out they have very little experience working across the isle with the Republican Party. It is probably even less a surprise to find out they have not taken on their own party. Even in this day and age of so many corruption scandals in Washington, Obama and Biden are quiet when their fellow Democrats are in a scandal, but show bipartisan politics when a Republican is in a scandal. If change is what Washington needs, the only ticket that can do the job is McCain / Palin since they have a record of taking on their own part and doing what is right for the country. With an Obama / Biden ticket you get partisan Washington politics as usual.

Experience: Obama vs. Palin

Although Obama has actually been a Senator 2 more years than Palin has been a governor, their actual experience time is a push since Obama has spent half of his time campaigning instead of governing. I have said this before and I will say it again experience as a governor better prepares a person for the White House than a Senator. Governors run a state and Senators run nothing but a committee. Governors are Executives, Senators are not. President is an Executive job. Consider some of Obama’s major campaign promises: 1000 dollars back to every family making fewer than 250 thousand dollars, energy independence, and ethics reform. Palin has already implemented these policies in Alaska. She has given over 3000 dollars back to every family on revenues received from oil profits. She has also been pushing a 40 billion dollar “clean” natural gas pipeline that will benefit everyone in the U.S. She has been pushing for drilling in the Alaska Arctic, which has been stopped by Congress including both McCain and Obama. Palin has taken on her Republican Party in Alaska that has been corrupt. She is doing such a good job she has over an 80% approval rating. That is almost unheard of, especially today with all the polarization in this country. They both have about the same amount of foreign policy experience – practically nothing. Palin runs the Alaska National Guard, while Obama has done some travel.

Obama has valuable community service as well as Illinois State Senate Experience. Palin has experience in the Wasilla Alaska PTA, City Council and Mayor. She also ran the Alaska Energy Department and lost an election for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska. Once again I see this as about a push. Overall, I do not see any difference in experience, but I give the nod to Palin because she has valuable experience as an executive. And more importantly what she has done as an executive has been exceptional as shown by her high approval ratings. Besides, as a legislator in Congress and Illinois, Obama has not authored very many pieces of legislator. In fact, there may only have been one or two laws in the Illinois Senate he co-authored. Considering his job is to legislate, Obama appears to be more of a follower than leader. Now, as Presidential candidate he is proposing lots of legislation. Why did he not try to implement any of his proposals why in the Illinois or U.S. Senates? I guess the millions he has made campaigning has enabled him to employ the foreign and economic advisers to tell him how to do his job. It reminds me of what my first boss told me after I got in trouble for being aggressive to get my job done: "Unfortunately, only those who do the work ever get in trouble". That is so true. Maybe Obama is afraid to hurt his record so he does not create any legislation. He hangs low and does not do anything controversial to hurt his political career. It works, I have seen hundreds of "oxygen thieves" skate through the corporate world and seen hard workers shown the door for "asking too many questions". It seems to be the American way of rewarding mediocrity or incompetence. This Presidential race is no different. The nation is enamored with a "do nothing" congressmen. Just like all the "oxygen thieves" I have dealt with in the past, Obama is a good talker who talks a big game that impresses everyone. People listen to all this talk instead of looking at what he has actually accomplished. Maybe this explains why Obama votes "Present" on over a third of the legislation he has seen. Can you imagine a Governor or President voting "Present" on legislation? They cannot do it. They must vote "yes" or "no". The only other explanation for Obama to do this is he is incompetent. I do not think that this is the case, in contrary, he is pretty smart to be able lay low and get away with having no voting record. Here is the the new American Dream: If you are a smooth talker and do not rock the boat, you will succeed and move up the corporate and political ladder.

Who’s to Blame for the Financial Meltdown (Republicans or Demorcrats)?

Both parties probably have equal blame, but for some reason the current President gets ALL the blame. Let’s not forget that the Democrats have had a majority in the legislative branch the past two years. It would be irresponsible to solely blame them, but face it, what did they do even as they saw the housing market collapse the past two years? They did nothing. Now that it is too late, to stop the bleeding we, the taxpayers, got a 700 billion dollar tax. Anyone who believes that the Republicans are solely to blame because of an unpopular President are being irresponsible and naïve. The housing crisis started a long time ago and some of the fundamental problems that caused the collapse can be uncovered when Bill Clinton was President under a Democrat led government. That was the start of government practice allowing Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac to yield questionable loans to people with sub par credit. Frannie and Freddie are government institutions that got so big, but had absolutely no oversight or regulation. They were run predominately by Democrats and Congressional Democrats did not want regulation. Democrats wanted no regulation of Frannie and Freddie because the felt they were sticking up for middle class America. They wanted every American fulfill their dream of being a home owner regardless of their credit. This pushed Americans to get greedy and live beyond their means. Frannie and Freddie executives felt as long as the housing market kept going up, even if people defaulted on their loans, they could resell the homes at a higher price. However, all this came to an end when the housing market actually declined. It is preposterous to think the housing market would continue to grow at its astronomical rate it has for the past decade. The housing market like any market is suspect to cycles of good and bad times. As Frannie and Freddie led the way, banks followed suit to get a piece of the pie. They too allowed lax guidelines to give out loans to susceptible individuals. Democrats argue that Republicans blocked regulation of Wall Street and financial industry. That is true, but the Democrats blocked oversight and regulation on Frannie and Freddie. It is hypocritical to want Wall Street regulation, but block government regulation. Frannie and Freddie held half of all mortgage notes in this country. If government would have listened to worried Republicans like John McCain they could have prevented half the problem. Now, Congress thinks they are doing us all a favor by passing a 700 billion dollar bail out. It is unfortunate but Congressional bipartisan bickering and blaming is causing the problem. There is absolutely no strategic thinking or planning. The bottom line, Congress, both Republican and Democrats are to blame for the financial meltdown. You can blame the greed and incompetence of the Wall Street brass, but our government led as a poor example.

One thing the government and Wall Street must get under control is the investing in derivatives. Derivatives are risky – they can have great rewards or huge consequences. It seems most of the mortgage loans were somehow wrapped together in derivative investments. Derivatives can show up anywhere. In fact, many people may think they have safe investments, however they can be marred with derivatives.

To make matters worse, the financial melt down just may be the start of a chain reaction. Now, it is almost impossible for anyone with average credit to get a loan. This will force car dealers and other small businesses out of business.

Obama's Free Trade Policy

Obama is a typical Democrat. During the primary season he blamed NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement - Between the U.S., Canada and Mexico) for having U.S. jobs move overseas. This was his slogan in states hit hard by the economy such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (Although there was not an official primary there). NAFTA was brought about by President Clinton and he used this against Hillary. He has also choose to vote against recent free trade legislation with Columbia. This is man willing to sit down with rogue leaders such as The Castro's and Hugo Chavez, but votes against free trade agreements with our allies. Does this make sense? He claims his economic policy will create jobs and decrease the federal deficit. How does he plan to do this without entering in free trade agreements. Blaming NAFTA for the plight of the blue collar worker in Middle America is simply a cop out and irresponsible. There are lots of reasons for the the loss of jobs in Mid America (And they did not necessarily go overseas): Poor leadership at our automotive and large companies, technology replacing jobs, illegal immigrants replacing jobs (That will continue under an Obama Presidency), Union policies, high company taxes (Will also continue under an Obama Presidency - They like to say Big Oil will get a tax break under McCain, but they fail to mention every company - Big or small will get a tax break to bring the economy back), and of course cheaper labor costs outside of the U.S.. Obama will not be able to fix our ailing economy if he does not understand what is causing the problems. NAFTA has very little to do with the loss of jobs, and in fact has created more jobs in the U.S. overall. This is a man that naive and out of touch with the work force. If he wants to fix the problem, he needs to correct our high corporate tax and illegal immigration before he nixes NAFTA. Deep down, even Obama can not actually feel NAFTA is the problem. As I said he is a politician and will say and do whatever it takes for him to win an election. He claims he brings a new style of politics, I see the same old liberal politicians as in Gore or Kerry.

Obama's Friends, Mentors, and Advisors

Many may ask what does politics have to do with religion? That is a good question, and the answer should be nothing. However, a person’s religious affiliation could affect their political aspirations. Many politicians such as John Kennedy had to overcome religious backgrounds to get elected president. Today, Mitt Romney faces similar questions amongst Republicans, Conservatives, and Americans in general about being a Mormon. On the Democratic side, many pundits have portrayed Barrack Obama as a Muslim. Although these claims are false, even if they were true it should not affect a person’s vote. Most Mormons and Muslims are good people. If someone is a good candidate and person, it should not matter what their religious beliefs are. Maybe it is the media once again trying to make an issue out of nothing. If anyone is voting on a person based on their religious affiliation and background, then they are truly being discriminatory and a bigot. There is absolutely no difference between voting for someone based on religion, race, or gender because all are discriminatory. These are the worst reasons to vote for or to vote against a candidate. This once again shows the power that faith has on Americans, and how it can influence and even brainwash our behavior and personalities. This is just another example of how religion and faith based practices can divide and separate Americans.

The only time people should not vote for a candidate because of religious affiliation is if the religion has radically flawed morale values. For this reason, some believe the American public electing Barack Obama for President would be a mistake. Pastors at the church Obama attends have on occasion used racial and derogatory remarks. Although Obama has concealed his anger that is at times preached by his church, his wife has made an occasional anti-American comment. Obama preaches the opposite view point when his church over steps its bounds, but it is a mystery why he continued to affiliate himself with such a controversial church for over 20 years. That being said, it is easy to see how his Church has influenced his political views to be a liberal leader and to promote social programs to help disenfranchised Americans. So one can only hope he sincerely denounces the hateful message that his church has expressed on occasion. While some make the argument that electing a black President would go a long way to overcome racial barriers in this country, this is only true if Obama really has not become brainwashed into secretly believing the hateful message his church raises from time to time. Some argue that Obama should not be responsible for what others say. For instance, people cannot be held responsible for what a sibling says about issues. That is one hundred percent true. The key difference is that people cannot choose their siblings, but people can certainly choose who they associate with as friends or in terms of the faith they practice. Obama chose to be associated with a reverend that has at times been more than controversial with his sermons and beliefs. Obama’s association with the bigotry, racism, and conspiracy theories of Reverend Wright however, has had a negligible impact on his support. In fact, about two weeks after the story initially came out, his lead over Hillary Clinton reached double digits for the first time in national polls. This was very surprising to me and led me to believe that maybe I am exaggerating the effect religion has on most Americans. Whether right or wrong, I figured this story would crush him. Even more peculiar was the impact on Obama’s campaign a statement made about small town Pennsylvania citizens just a few weeks later. Obama said something to effect that people in Pennsylvania are “bitter about losing their jobs and cling to guns and religion to cope”. This statement had more of a negative impact on his campaign than his association with Reverend Wright. This was puzzling to me because I really did not think that his statement about the Pennsylvania citizens was all that offensive. It seems natural for people to feel bitter about losing their jobs. It is also natural for people to cling to something to get beyond the trauma of losing their jobs. It may not be guns or religion, but it could be anything like family or any hobby. The only reasonable explanation to the public’s differing reaction to these two incidents is that Obama made the latter statement whereas, he never actually said any of the words that Reverend Wright preaches. Thus, it appears Obama is personally attacking small town Pennsylvania citizens. It is amazing to me that the Reverend Wright situation is going to pass without any impact on Obama’s campaign. I definitely think it is okay to listen to controversial speakers and read controversial books to learn and gain a perspective on differing viewpoints. For example, I read “Mein Kampf” by Adolf Hitler, but I would never join or be associated with a neo Nazi organization. The difference is that Obama is not only a member of Reverend Wright’s church, but he has donated a lot of money to it. He had Reverend Wright baptize his children and marry him. This is a strong association to man that routinely promotes hate, bigotry, and conspiracy theories. This to me is damning evidence that Obama may not be what the millions of people around this country, which are intrigued and mesmerized by his presence, really think he is: A person that can unite this country. I think this once again illustrates the lack of intellect of Americans and how petty and simplistic they are to be offended by a harmless comment, but ignore hateful comments that are contributing to the polarization of this nation.

Lets not forget Obama's association with Minister Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is one of the most racists ministers. His comments and antisemitism towards Israel is simply alarming. How a person can associate himself with such radical person and following with no retributions is simply mind boggling. This not only shows poor judgment, but it is scary to think what Obama may actually be thinking behind his calm and cool demeanor. And then there is William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. When Obama was running for the Illinois State Senate in 1995 he met with these radical individuals to get their support to help him win his election. Ayers and Dohrn were part of the Weather Underground in the 1960s who protested against the Vietnam War. The Weather Underground took responsibility for 25 bombings against "war targets". Ayers and Dohrn avoided arrest until the 1980s when they turned themselves in for their involvement in the Greenwich Village bombing. No charges where ever brought against them because of an improper FBI surveillance. How can anyone associate themselves with such radical left wing human beings? There is no excuse for this, and it is just poor judgement we do not need in a President.

If any of this is not bad enough, his top economic advisor is Jim Johnson who was once the CEO of Frannie Mae. Frannie Mae is the now defunct government financial institution that held nearly a quarter of the countries mortgage notes. Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created and run by government liberals so every American could live the American Dream by becoming a home owner. It is the Democrats and their liberal philosophy to help middle class Americans live above their financial means that has greatly helped in our housing and financial market collapse and melt down. McCain tried to get regulation on Frannie and Freddie, but the Democrats thought McCain was trying to take down the working middle class dreams and refuted his attempt (It was refreshing to hear Governor Palin preach fiscal responsibility not only to the government, but the American people to live within our means). When Obama is President, Johnson will be his chief economist, is this what we want? Doesn't it make sense for Obama to have a chief economist that was a successful CEO, instead of one that help lead us into our worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? It awfully suspicious that he would stick with Johnson. Obama claims to be clean of lobbyist and kick backs. But this stinks of something that is terribly wrong. There is no question that Senator Dodd (Head of the Senate Finance Committee) and Obama have benefited from kick backs from both Freddie and Frannie. Sounds like Obama is no different than any Washington Politician.

The Democrats have fought back and claimed that John McCain has 19 lobbyist on his campaign staff. It should be pointed out that lobbying is not necessarily a bad function and it is protected under the first amendment. Most lobbyists get a bad rap basically because of all the corruption in Washington and politics in general. Lobbyists provide a function by petitioning the government over grievances. A lobbyist can protect people from losing their home because the government wants to tear it down to build a highway. Hence, lobbying does serve a valuable purpose to make sure altering viewpoints are heard. The problem with lobbyists only arises when their egos become too large and they become fanatical over a cause. When this happens, lobbyists begin to divide and separate Americans because they become unwilling to compromise to end disputes. They can buy off politicians to get their way (Just as Frannie and Freddie did with Dodd and Obama). Every American has benefited from a lobbyist, they serve more good than bad. Joe Biden's son was lobbyist, this does not make him a bad person. The bottom line is this: I would take 19 good lobbyist over one corrupt one that should be in prison for his role in the financial melt down.

Democrats argue that McCain has had his dealings with many so called criminals in his day. If you work in Congress as long a McCain, it is unfortunate but there will be associations with some corrupt individuals. The difference between McCain's and Obama's association with criminals is evident. When McCain dealt with these individuals, they were not known criminals at the time. As soon as their corrupt activity was revealed, McCain severed the relationship. Meanwhile, Obama chose to associate himself with individuals that promote racism, hate, and bigotry on a daily basis his entire life. He also chose to associate with radical individuals who have admitted to being involved in and promoting bombings in the 1960s that killed many. There is nothing wrong for us to be friends with our neighbors. However, our character and judgment are tested once we find out that one neighbor is a racist, pedophile, adulteress, or a follower of any other morally wrong activity. Do we choose to continue to associate with them or do we choose to what is right and disassociate with them? Do you do what McCain does and disassociates himself with the individual or do you do what Obama does and embraces the individual? To be President you have to have good judgement and Obama clearly does not.