Sunday, October 19, 2008

A knowledgeable and eloquent man from the Conservative side.

Although I am sure Republicans just see a turncoat for racial reasons.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Am I Harder on John McCain?

Sure. Here's why. He's not a bad guy and I don't think he's a racist, but he has borrowed advisers and plays from the book of George W. But that is only part of it. It is the way he misleads us, as all conservatives do, when they talk of domestic policy. You see, I have talked a little about Obama's health plan, and it has merits and short comings. His energy policy will be expensive, but he does not deny it and he does not hide it or lie about it. Let's look at a couple of McCain's major policy claims as an illustration. Energy and health care. For energy he says he will build 45 nuclear plants. Now, I am not a big fan of nuclear, clean in some ways, nasty dirty in others and could be dangerous. But we didn't invest all these years in new technologies and because of that fusion, among other technologies, is as elusive as it was 20 years ago. So we may have no short term choice. But here's the thing, McCain talks about cutting spending and shrinking government. Each of those plants will cost $10 billion dollars. Cut spending and shrink government, or start a half trillion dollar energy program, and that is just one piece of the energy puzzle! So which will it be? As for his health plan, I have already talked about how his tax ideas won't work, but I like his community health centers idea. If you have read this blog about health care reform you see I want hospital run medical clinics. But with Medicare rates and insurance reimbursement what they are, the hospitals can't afford to build these clinics. Billions more for that and I won't put an exact price because John won't put out an exact number of clinics. Is he going to cut spending and shrink government or enact these initiatives? If history of conservative administrations from 1980 to the present is any guide--- he will do neither. He will tell us what great plans they are, but we need to "wait, my friends, until times are better and we can afford to do this. Let us first spur on the economy with a tax cut for business and the wealthy". This is why I am so hard on John McCain. Because even if you like what he says...he won't be doing it. As for some other things, as I have previously said, John McCain thought the economy was good before he thought it was bad and he thought the bailout was bad before he thought it was good. He might help in Afghanistan, but hasn't a clue about Iraq. A McCain presidency will be 4 more years of inaction on important issues, and mistakes on others. That is why I am harder on him. Not a bad guy, just mired in an ideology that will not let him succeed.

How I believe the election will unfold.

Here is my take on the electoral college map. I believe Obama will win the popular vote by about 3-5%. Here is my electoral college map, as provided by Yahoo. I will update that and my popular vote totals as information comes in right up to the election. I hear talk of an Obama rout, but I do not see justification in the statistics to call for that yet. Check back as conditions change. I will put it in my link section, and leave it up until the election. If I am turn out to be pretty accurate on election day, then I will leave it up until Yahoo stops the link!!
By the way, I have only given Ohio and Florida to McCain because I do not think the voting will be fair in either state. If there does turn out to be irregularities, I will renew my call to remove Florida from the electoral college, and start looking at Ohio next. See how quick they get their acts together if that were to happen!!

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Debates are done! Where do we stand?

They're done. I think this was John McCain's best debate, but I don't think he did very well. That is because he could not. His policies and stands are not what are right for America now. He tried to frame this debate about what was wrong with Obama because he knows there is not enough substance behind his policies. He wants health care insurance to be able to be shopped across state lines, which take it from someone who sold the stuff, will raise the premiums and screw up the plans in all those states where health care and thus health insurance, are cheaper. He would rip apart the state system, which might have merit, but not for the reasons he gave. Then on abortion he explained that he would leave it to the states to go against Roe Vs. Wade because he's a Federalist. He said there would be no litmus test for judges, except he ended by saying, and I bet he wishes he'd ended a few seconds earlier, "no litmus test except a strict adherence to the constitution, but any judge that supports Roe in my opinion isn't adhering to the constitution" (I did paraphrase a little, but that was pretty close) Which is it John? Break apart state governance or a Federalist? No litmus test, but no judges who find Roe acceptable? He mis-characterizes Obama's plans but that is okay. If Joe the Plumber is rich now congratulations, many in America are not. Which leads me to my biggest gripe about Obama's performance. Enough with letting John McCain talk about redistribution of wealth and class warfare. What Obama is proposing for the richest Americans, is making the tax code fair again, by repairing the inequities that have favored them in the tax policies under George W. Bush. That is all. Fairness. Not redistribution and not class warfare, and I am disappointed that Obama has failed to clarify that. Nevertheless, as McCain still comes across as dismissive (although less so tonight), seething and petulant, Obama continues to make the case that he is the steady and Presidential figure this country wants and needs. SO where do we stand? The polls indicate it is going for Obama and I do not see that anything changed that tonight. We shall see what the polls continue to say. Some have questioned, with some statistical merit, that in some ways the race and in particular the electoral race is closer than it appears. Maybe, but the momentum for change seems t be with the candidate the people are embracing as the agent of change. I have said it before, and I say it again, there is nothing so scary about the unknowns of Obama compared to all the mistakes and poor policies John McCain has made and proposed, much less all his poor choices in support of much of the W. Bush agenda. Tonight, he could have tried to turn the tide by really speaking to the people about how his policies could benefit them. Instead, as he has done, he gave short answers about how he was going to take care of everything (because, you know, this stuff is all so easy) and then made this about why Obama was not a good choice. It did not work for George H.W. Bush against Clinton, and it is not going to work against Obama now. I look forward to all of us trying to take a President Obama's good starting plan for health care reform, and moving it into a true agenda for reform needed for the 21st century and beyond. WHat is best about this situation though, is Obama has shown he has a command and plausible agenda for most of the aspects of the Presidency. He is not a one issue candidate, which is fortunate because this is not a one issue nation. God bless this great country of ours, the men and women out there risking their lives to defend it, and all of us, as we move forward and show the entire world that the best times for the greatest nation ever on the face of this earth---are ahead of us!

I had to laugh....

I found this online: If Obama Were White, He'd Be Hit Twice as Hard.
If you are interested, it is short and can be found here: (So can my comment, but I have copied and expanded it here.)

While it is true that generally, I would say it was Sarah Palin and not John McCain that has been stoking hatred, it is John McCain that is paying for it. The reality is that the Dems have been going equally soft on McCain because he is a war hero, something the Republicans didn't do for Kerry. Where conservatives took a war hero and tried to lie about his accomplishments, no one has pointed out that what McCain gave for his country was a great sacrifice, but getting shot down and imprisoned for years is not a qualifying event for President. And NO ONE is taking any shots against Palin, presumably because she is a woman---except to point out the numerous things she says that do not make sense. The democrats have treated John McCain better than George W. Bush did in the 2000 primaries. Conservatives just cannot accept that they were in charge of the WhiteHouse for 8 years, the congress and senate for 6, and have made such a disaster of things that the country is leaning left. Rather than take responsibility, which conservatives never do, they will now blame their losses on fears of being labeled racists if they said "the truth". My friends, you have pointed out about Ayers, and the democrats pointed out about Wright long ago. But those aren't the issues. They are the economy, Iraq, the environment and the future of America, and on those fronts are why Obama is leading.
It is not pretty watching conservatives panic. Amusing, but not pretty. Would that they had spent years worrying about our soldiers dying in Iraq, our 45 million uninsured Americans, business getting rich while ordinary Americans were falling behind and the looming energy crisis, they would not have to panic now as America might even agree that Obama was too inexperienced. But now, thanks to the mess the W. Bush Administration and Republican Congress created, people are craving that change, even if there is an element of unknown. Better the unknown that seems in the right direction, than the known which clearly isn't.

Monday, October 13, 2008

McCain scrambles to remake candidacy with 'comeback' speech. Decides to start discussing issues instead of anti-Obama rhetoric. Palin speechless.

Really. Sarah Palin has nothing to say, because she doesn't know anything about the issues. She threw a tantrum when she heard about this new campaign style, because she was told this was always going to be all about hate, and she knew she could handle that. It is rumored that she was overheard telling her taxidermist: "...crazy old man! How does he expect me to learn about the issues now, it takes all my time trying to spin my ethics violation, which by the way was neither improper nor a violation, nor unethical even, no matter what that bipartisan commission found. C'mon, who you gonna believe, a bunch of politicians and lawyers or a wolf shooting, moose eating, soccer/hockey mom that does a wicked Tina Fey doing herself, impression?"
Oh yeah, and McCain says he is going to talk issues---as soon as he gets some. No, no he has some, he just likes to change them often. It's like a hermit crab trying on different shells, he just wants to see which one is best, and by best, he means which one does not get ripped apart by the pundits and the public, so he can move on to the next issue. Remember, John thought the economy was good before he thought it was bad. He thought the bailout was bad before he thought it was good. And he thought Sarah Palin was a good choice and now he tries not to think of her at all.

New York Times Columnist and Princeton Professor Paul Krugman wins Nobel economics prize

Smart and perceptive. A man who's research spawned new ways of thinking about global production and trade and who is right on the money, often, on the home political scene. Congratulations!
Here is a link to his blog:

Sunday, October 12, 2008

McCain Locks In the White Supremacist Vote. (and what vote is Sarah Palin going for?)

With John's latest verbal assault "in the next debate I will whip his you-know-what" referring to Obama, are we to presume he was throwing out a little code to remind the southern states that might for the first time in decades be leaning towards a democrat, of the good old days when blacks knew their place---and if it wasn't picking cotton it was tied up and at the end of their owner's whip? Or are we to believe that this usually well spoken and learned man is just becoming unglued? He probably resents the implications that he is unstable. Will he really prefer becoming the KKK poster boy, instead? He seemed to be trying to avoid that recently by trying to paint Obama as a decent man at some of his more vehement rallies, and saw the ugly side of some of his supporters when they booed their candidate. Has he decided, like he did years ago with George W. Bush, that if he cannot beat them he should join them?? Now, I am quite sure conservatives will say over-sensitive liberals are just nit-picking. Possibly, but in a year long primary battle with a full field of candidates, the democrats all managed to avoid such verbal blunders (even if their spouses did not always do as well). Or perhaps John was just trying to show that he can put his foot in his mouth as easily and often as his running mate Sarah Palin. I haven't bothered with her much because...well, why bother. But did you know she feels she was exonerated of ethics violations even though the bipartisan commission in Alaska found she violated ethics rules. Foot in mouth or just plain liar? She must be going for the 'liars who can't even get their lies straight' constituency, but I think she already had a lock on that one.

What Republicans are afraid of. (Part 1)

You know, I know a lot of conservatives, and speak with them on a fairly regular basis. They're actually family and friends and I care a great deal about them; not because they're conservatives of course, but because their family and friends. So when the issue of the election comes up, which is probably a stupid thing to be talking about in the 1st place with family and friends, I often get the same response, "I'm afraid of Obama." Now on the face of this, I can understand. They say they don't understand exactly what he would do or stands for because he's an unknown. You don’t have to argue that point with me, because here on these very blog pages I have not been so friendly to Obama during the primaries and had endorsed his rival Hillary Clinton. But since, politics affects health care reform and this blog is actually about both, I feel it's time I weigh in on this election although I have been uncharacteristically silent compared to previous elections. So, in part 1 I am going to state my thoughts on what conservatives are afraid of, and then in part 2 we are going to hear from our favorite pollster from Hell; he's lean and mean and a soul searing machine… he puts the Satan in satanic and the devil in the details… he's no stranger to you and he’s a friend of this blog… Satan. But first, I look at the country and the world today. I think back to eight years ago, when we ignored the warnings about Al Qaeda using our own airplanes a month before 9/11. I think about the fact that the military we used to clobber the Taliban in Afghanistan and defeat Saddam Hussein's armies in Iraq was the military that Bill Clinton maintained and armed. Certainly, we know this to be true, because George Bush didn't have time to alter the military. Now, every conservative likes to say that Democrats will decimate the military if given the chance. They say this for two reasons. First , because they need to find something to say, because they used to say it was the tax-and-spend Democrats. A funny thing about that. While it's true that you can't say the Republicans like to tax people, although I like to call them the unfairly taxing Republicans, because they have no problem with an unfair tax code that more burdens the middle and lower classes. You can however call them the free-spending Republicans. How can they any longer attack the Democrats for big government and high spending, when in the last 28 years, the only time we did not have hundreds of billions of dollars being added national debt every year , was under Bill Clinton --- a Democrat. I've actually heard a couple of conservatives have the nerve to claim that the credit for that goes to the Republican-led Congress and Senate that Bill Clinton had to deal with during much of his presidency. They fail to note that under Ronald Reagan, the Democrat led Congress and Senate gave into most everything he wanted because the public support was behind Reagan, and also that under George W. Bush he mostly had a Republican-led Congress and Senate that led to the biggest deficits of all time. This despite all the spending in Iraq and Afghanistan only totaling a little more than one year's deficit under George W. Bush, is pushing through tax policies that he said was going to increased tax revenues because they would expand American business, the fact that his wars have expanded America business by war spending on materials, the fact that we have had growth in stock market and housing price values for much of his terms and decent employment figures. If we had these raging deficits during reasonably good times under most of the W. Bush administration at least economically (which was certainly a hold over from the wonderful Bill Clinton years) and in what circumstances could Bush and the Republican Congress and Senate have imagined America would have to have had to start to reduce deficits during their terms? Conservatives also like to say that the Democrats will cut spending and ruin the military because they like to scare people. After all it worked so well in 2004 when it reelected George W. Bush. Now, go back to 9/11; we can blame 9/11 on a combination of factors, but none of them relate to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton built up a fine military, a good reputation for the US around the world and had Richard Clarke in there fighting terrorism. George W. respected Richard Clarke so much he kept him around for a while. And after all, George W. Bush was being George W. Bush. Why would we expect him to take anything seriously, and not be playing golf, which is just the way he's always been as all his successive business ventures collapsed. It wasn't a surprise to me that Mitt Romney wasn't the Republican candidate for this election, because clearly conservatives like to choose business failures not business success stories. So you take a lazy failure and you make him president, you have no right to expect he's going to do any better than he did. Now jump ahead eight years, our initial success in Afghanistan and Iraq was destroyed not by a bad military, but by a bad commander-in-chief and the poor people he put under him to manage the warfare. Did the surge work? Of course, sending in thousands more troops to kill more Iraqis worked just like Bill Clinton sending in 100,000 new police officers across the country to curb crime. Eventually, if we send in enough troops and kill enough Iraqis, when their leases many troops as there are Iraqis left, we will have created a real and lasting peace. At least from our viewpoint, apparently. Besides Iraq and Afghanistan, we have the economy, which we drove so into the ground thanks to George W. Bush and six years of conservative Congress and Senate that voted along with him all the time, that we have driven the rest of the world's economies into the toilet as well. I actually have seen conservatives blame the current state of the economy on the Clinton administration's deregulation. When I stopped laughing, I point out that whether deregulated or regulated, a situation is only as good as the current oversight. Nobody has been minding the store during the entire Bush administration. Plus they have continued to deregulate, and pass rulings that encouraged less oversight. The lone exception is the Sarbanes-Oxley act, passed under George W. Bush out of panic for the last corporate greed mess stimulated by the attitude and lax oversight of this administration, that has onerously burdened smaller businesses, while clearly not handling those areas of business practices that were going to cause us these problems. Then of course, we have the rest of the Middle East, where we have accomplished nothing of note in the last eight years, but of course not much of note had been accomplished before that. We have the environment which has gone a bit downhill in the last eight years. We have North Korea and Iran which have basically been mishandled in the last eight years. The world is a much worse off place than it was eight years ago. Some conservatives point to the fact that we haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11 as proof that their policies, at least in some ways, work. But as I point out, the attacks on our soil were the two on the World Trade Center eight years apart. We weren't necessarily due yet. We have certainly seen terrorism across the world, terrorist recruitment up thanks to some of our policies, and Al Qaeda enter Iraq where it never was before we invaded. You will notice that 9/11 happened in 911 2001 not during the Clinton years. You can blame the conservative supreme court and the poor voting procedures of a Bush run Florida for 9/11 as much as anything else. You see, if the actual elected person, Al Gore, had taken office, we would have every reason to believe based on past experience that he would've read the reports and taken them seriously and acted a month before 9/11. It may never have happened. Of course, we'll never know, but it should keep you awake at night thinking about it, because no one has ever accused Al Gore of being uninformed or not on top of what's going on. So after all this, what is my point? What are conservatives afraid of? I've tried to point out, that what I truly believe they are afraid of, is that things will get better under Barack Obama. They like to say they're afraid of the unknown and the terrible things that might happen, but could the consequences be much worse than what's happened under George W. Bush, which is why I stated everything or I should say, restated everything, here now. No, what conservatives don't even have the ability to admit to themselves, which is why they just have this blanket statement "Obama scares me", is because what they're really afraid of is that things will get better and they won't have a shot at the White House again for a very long time. You see that's what happened last time, after things are great on the Clinton, Al Gore won the election. However, because of shenanigans in Florida and a conservative supreme court they were able to steal the election for George W. Bush. They know that won't fly with the American people again. The American people don't forget and they will remember for a very long time what happened when they allowed the Supreme Court to steal an election and how bad everything has been since.
I have weighed in here on the negatives of Obama in the past. I have weighed in on some of the positive aspects of John McCain from the distant past. Haven't bothered to weigh in on some John McCain's weaknesses when he was a Republican that I liked. Why bother? And all his time in the Senate so, actually hasn't accomplished much. It's true, what he said in the debate about his record, that he is reached across the aisle, but also that he hasn't always been like by people in his party or the other party. It's true. He doesn't get along with enough Republicans or Democrats to accomplish very much. He never has. More recently, for several years, he has tried to get along with the most conservative Republicans by kissing up to George Bush and showing that he can be the kind a guy that they can get behind. Pathetically, they still haven't really gotten behind him, but that's okay because let's be real, they’re not going to vote for Barack Obama. I guess McCain is most worried that they won't come out and vote at all. Now in the last debate, John McCain explained in just a couple of sentences, that he's going to fix the economy and catch Osama bin Laden because those things are really not that hard. Not that hard?! John McCain is either a liar or is sadly confused and deluded. These have been two of the greatest hallmarks of the George W. Bush administration. In just a couple of sentences John McCain has proven what he's been trying to stop the Democrats from doing for quite some time. He proved he is just like George W. Bush. And as I have stated here, anything we could possibly fear about the unknown of Barack Obama, has sadly already been realized by George W. Bush and company. This is why I can wholeheartedly endorse Barack Obama for president and why I dearly hope his deeds will match his words and the feeling and compassion behind them, and that he will do his best to fulfill the promises and expectations his belt among the people who were going to vote for him. His words and deeds and what actions we have seen, have all been of a man who cares about this country and all the people in it. There is no history or uncovered documents and letters that would lead us to believe there is anything more to fear from Barack Obama than fear itself.
Next up: we'll hear from Satan.