Holy sweet mercy! If this isn't socialism, I don't know what is:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/24/obama-dems-seek-to-end-401-k-plans/
So House Democrats are talking about FORCING workers to transfer their 401(k) accounts to the government? Really? And they seriously complain when Republicans call them socialists? Do they know what the word "socialist" means?
Let me be clear. I am NOT (at least not yet) attributing this plan to Obama. From what I have read in the articles that I have read (two of which are linked above), Obama has not spoken either in favor or against this plan. However, members of his party are getting behind it.
Under this idea, which has been implemented in Argentina, the government would seize your 401(k) account, put it into one big fund with everyone else's, FORCE you to contribute five percent of your salary each year to the fund, and invest the money as Uncle Sam sees fit. Seriously people, what part of this plan is NOT socialist? If you're a Democrat, that's fine with me. But please, please, explain to me how this isn't socialism. If you can convince me, I'll buy you dinner sometime.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama Fails To Follow His Own Plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/us/politics/23fec.html
This is an article from the New York Times written in February 2007. The article details Barack Obama's proposal that the two major-party candidates accept public financing only for their general election campaigns. Let me say that again, this article details BARACK OBAMA'S PROPOSAL that the candidates receive only public financing.
Now, if you've been paying any attention to the campaign, you know that Obama is accepting private financing. In fact, he has spent more on his campaign than anyone else in history. John McCain, who agreed to BARACK OBAMA'S PUBLIC FINANCING PROPOSAL, kept his word and is accepting about one-quarter the amount of money that his opponent has spent. It is absolutely inarguable that Obama failed to keep his promise on this matter. Even if you are an Obama supporter, this is not up for debate. Your only argument can be that it's just not that big of a deal for him to go back on his word.
The absurd amount of money spent by Obama, however, is important to me for two reasons. First, Obama is parading around the country talking about the financial woes of the middle class. Meanwhile, he's taken more money from the middle class in the last two months than any other presidential candidate ever has. Liberals are whining about the cost of Sarah Palin's clothes, and yet, Obama spent about $10 million in 30 minutes last night to run an infomercial for himself.
The second reason this is important is very simple. Obama failed to keep his promise. Not only that, he failed to keep a promise on a deal that he proposed! How that's not important to the American people is beyond me. The fact is that Republican candidates usually out-spend the Democrats. So, Obama started out wanting to level the playing field. Then, when he realized how much money he could raise for himself, he no longer wanted it level. That, to me anyway, shows dishonesty and a failure of character that I do not want in the White House.
This is an article from the New York Times written in February 2007. The article details Barack Obama's proposal that the two major-party candidates accept public financing only for their general election campaigns. Let me say that again, this article details BARACK OBAMA'S PROPOSAL that the candidates receive only public financing.
Now, if you've been paying any attention to the campaign, you know that Obama is accepting private financing. In fact, he has spent more on his campaign than anyone else in history. John McCain, who agreed to BARACK OBAMA'S PUBLIC FINANCING PROPOSAL, kept his word and is accepting about one-quarter the amount of money that his opponent has spent. It is absolutely inarguable that Obama failed to keep his promise on this matter. Even if you are an Obama supporter, this is not up for debate. Your only argument can be that it's just not that big of a deal for him to go back on his word.
The absurd amount of money spent by Obama, however, is important to me for two reasons. First, Obama is parading around the country talking about the financial woes of the middle class. Meanwhile, he's taken more money from the middle class in the last two months than any other presidential candidate ever has. Liberals are whining about the cost of Sarah Palin's clothes, and yet, Obama spent about $10 million in 30 minutes last night to run an infomercial for himself.
The second reason this is important is very simple. Obama failed to keep his promise. Not only that, he failed to keep a promise on a deal that he proposed! How that's not important to the American people is beyond me. The fact is that Republican candidates usually out-spend the Democrats. So, Obama started out wanting to level the playing field. Then, when he realized how much money he could raise for himself, he no longer wanted it level. That, to me anyway, shows dishonesty and a failure of character that I do not want in the White House.
Monday, October 27, 2008
How Dare You Ask a VP Candidate A Question About His Own Statements?
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html
I don't like hard questions. They scare me. I don't know what to say. So, I just won't go near anyone who might ask me a hard question. I mean, the way I figure it, when I'm vice-president, I'm going to control the media anyway. Just eight more days, and I can say all the stupid stuff I want. In the meantime, I'm going into hiding.
I don't like hard questions. They scare me. I don't know what to say. So, I just won't go near anyone who might ask me a hard question. I mean, the way I figure it, when I'm vice-president, I'm going to control the media anyway. Just eight more days, and I can say all the stupid stuff I want. In the meantime, I'm going into hiding.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
My Political Philosophy
I've written a lot during the last two months about the presidential debates, the media coverage of the campaign, and things of the like. Although it's clear which side I lean toward, it may not be entirely clear where that lean is coming from. So, for both of my loyal readers, I thought I would share my general political philosophy.
I am a federalist. I think the framers of our Constitution had in mind a system whereby the federal government has certain enumerated powers, and the state governments are left to make many decisions and policies for themselves. I think one of the problems with our system today is that the federal government takes on far too large a role in determining policy that our framers intended the states to decide.
Now, I do think that our federal government needs to protect certain civil rights that, throughout our history, some states have ignored. For example, probably the biggest increase our federal government has ever seen was in the aftermath of the Civil War. The southern states were allowing egregious civil rights violations to occur, and that was wrong. The federal government was right to step in.
But, there are other matters that I think both Republicans and Democrats try to regulate from the federal side that should be left alone. One example that comes to mind is gay marriage. I do not think this is a civil rights issue in the same way slavery was. If you disagree with me, so be it. But, I think there are alternatives to gay marriage (such as civil unions) that clearly don't exist with something as horrid as slavery. I think the states should determine whether a gay couple can be legally married. I am against a Constitutional amendment to expressly allow gay marriage, and I am against a Constitutional amendment to expressly prohibit gay marriage.
I know some people would argue that my view is self-contradictory. On the one hand, I favor a federal government that can outlaw, say, slavery. On the other hand, I do not favor a federal government that can outlaw gay marriage. So, where do you draw the line? How do you decide when something rises to a level to where the feds should step in? That's a tough question. But, I think there is a distinction.
With most questions, it's not that complicated. States can write criminal and tort laws. They can handle insurance regulations and licensing issues (be it driver's licenses, liquor licenses or licenses to practice law). The federal government can regulate things over which the Constitution gives it power.
So there you have it. Our founders created a federalist system. To those who haven't done so in a while, read the Constitution. You might find it interesting.
I am a federalist. I think the framers of our Constitution had in mind a system whereby the federal government has certain enumerated powers, and the state governments are left to make many decisions and policies for themselves. I think one of the problems with our system today is that the federal government takes on far too large a role in determining policy that our framers intended the states to decide.
Now, I do think that our federal government needs to protect certain civil rights that, throughout our history, some states have ignored. For example, probably the biggest increase our federal government has ever seen was in the aftermath of the Civil War. The southern states were allowing egregious civil rights violations to occur, and that was wrong. The federal government was right to step in.
But, there are other matters that I think both Republicans and Democrats try to regulate from the federal side that should be left alone. One example that comes to mind is gay marriage. I do not think this is a civil rights issue in the same way slavery was. If you disagree with me, so be it. But, I think there are alternatives to gay marriage (such as civil unions) that clearly don't exist with something as horrid as slavery. I think the states should determine whether a gay couple can be legally married. I am against a Constitutional amendment to expressly allow gay marriage, and I am against a Constitutional amendment to expressly prohibit gay marriage.
I know some people would argue that my view is self-contradictory. On the one hand, I favor a federal government that can outlaw, say, slavery. On the other hand, I do not favor a federal government that can outlaw gay marriage. So, where do you draw the line? How do you decide when something rises to a level to where the feds should step in? That's a tough question. But, I think there is a distinction.
With most questions, it's not that complicated. States can write criminal and tort laws. They can handle insurance regulations and licensing issues (be it driver's licenses, liquor licenses or licenses to practice law). The federal government can regulate things over which the Constitution gives it power.
So there you have it. Our founders created a federalist system. To those who haven't done so in a while, read the Constitution. You might find it interesting.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Blue Jeans v. Botox
So if you've been watching the news this week, you've likely heard a lot about Sarah Palin's clothes. I'm not really sure why, except that it's just one more thing for the leftist media to criticize. The argument is essentially this: Americans are hurting financially; and Sarah Palin is out spending $100,000 on her hair and clothes for the campaign trail.
Now, do I agree that she needs to spend that kind of money? No. But, when is the last rally you saw Obama or Biden at in blue jeans and a tee shirt? And, how much did Joe Biden's botox cost? I mean, they're the ones supposedly concerned about the middle class, right? Michelle Obama's wardrobe is just as fancy as Sarah Palin's, and she's not even on the ticket. Oh, and by the way, Obama's campaign is outspending McCain's 4-1. That's a fact.
So, why are we worried about Palin's clothes again? Oh, that's right, we're not. The media just needs something to talk about besides Biden's recent suggestion that his own running mate isn't ready to handle foreign affairs.
Now, do I agree that she needs to spend that kind of money? No. But, when is the last rally you saw Obama or Biden at in blue jeans and a tee shirt? And, how much did Joe Biden's botox cost? I mean, they're the ones supposedly concerned about the middle class, right? Michelle Obama's wardrobe is just as fancy as Sarah Palin's, and she's not even on the ticket. Oh, and by the way, Obama's campaign is outspending McCain's 4-1. That's a fact.
So, why are we worried about Palin's clothes again? Oh, that's right, we're not. The media just needs something to talk about besides Biden's recent suggestion that his own running mate isn't ready to handle foreign affairs.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Presidential Debate - Round 3
I'm no Joe the Plumber, but here's what I thought:
McCain's campaign, to me, has become a mysterious land of missed opportunities. McCain, once again, failed to adequately explain Obama's income redistribution plan. He tried to talk about "spreading the wealth," but he's just not very good at breaking it down. So, let me do it for him. Obama wants to take Joe's money, and he wants to give it to people who already pay no income tax at all. He wants to give them a welfare check under the guise of a "tax deduction." How hard is that to say? McCain fought with his words all night.
After the deabte, a Fox News analyst said exactly what I was thinking. The debate seemed to be sort of like a tennis match where McCain was running all over the court just to get the ball across, and Obama was standing still just tapping it back over, every single time.
It's very frustrating, really. I'm not the biggest McCain fan in the world, but I think he's a much better choice for president than Obama. I just wish he could find the words to express exactly what his opinions are. Take the abortion issue, for example. How in the world does McCain miss the opportunity to nail Obama on his plan to provide federally funded abortions? How does he miss that? It's unbelievable.
I'm going to vote for McCain, but I don't think it's going to make any difference. I think McCain could have really scored points last night, because the moderator asked questions that would have allowed McCain a lot of freedom to attack. Instead, he said the same old things, stumbled over words, and missed several chances to land a knockout punch. Round 3 wasn't even close. Obama by a wide margin.
McCain's campaign, to me, has become a mysterious land of missed opportunities. McCain, once again, failed to adequately explain Obama's income redistribution plan. He tried to talk about "spreading the wealth," but he's just not very good at breaking it down. So, let me do it for him. Obama wants to take Joe's money, and he wants to give it to people who already pay no income tax at all. He wants to give them a welfare check under the guise of a "tax deduction." How hard is that to say? McCain fought with his words all night.
After the deabte, a Fox News analyst said exactly what I was thinking. The debate seemed to be sort of like a tennis match where McCain was running all over the court just to get the ball across, and Obama was standing still just tapping it back over, every single time.
It's very frustrating, really. I'm not the biggest McCain fan in the world, but I think he's a much better choice for president than Obama. I just wish he could find the words to express exactly what his opinions are. Take the abortion issue, for example. How in the world does McCain miss the opportunity to nail Obama on his plan to provide federally funded abortions? How does he miss that? It's unbelievable.
I'm going to vote for McCain, but I don't think it's going to make any difference. I think McCain could have really scored points last night, because the moderator asked questions that would have allowed McCain a lot of freedom to attack. Instead, he said the same old things, stumbled over words, and missed several chances to land a knockout punch. Round 3 wasn't even close. Obama by a wide margin.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
A Fresh Proposal
I'm not the most sophisticated economist around. I'll admit that. In fact, I really have no idea what I'm talking about. But, I have a general philosophy of fiscal conservatism that shapes my views on specific economic policy. With that in mind, I had a thought. Why don't we have a federal lottery system? I'm probably missing some obvious reason why it wouldn't work, but think about it. I live in Georgia, where literally tens of thousands of students get nearly-free college education funded primarily by a state lottery. The "Mega Millions" game, which currently involves about 15 states, can afford to give away $12 million two times per week, and it pays for state programs as well. So, let's say we had a federal lottery spanning 50 states. It could require an eight-number match to make it a little harder to win. But, the starting point for a payout could be $50 million. People would certainly buy tickets.
I can think of two main obstacles to this idea, but I still think it could work. First, a lot of people would say that it's just a predatory program that gets people with no discretionary income to buy a piece of paper in hopes of winning big. That doesn't bother me much. If John Doe down the street spends $100 a week of his janitorial salary on lottery tickets, that's his problem. The second problem is that a federal lottery program would force states that currently do not have lotteries to join in. I generally don't agree with having the federal government force programs on state governments. But, when I think about the volume of revenue that a lottery system would generate, I still think it could work. Again, I'm probably missing something obvious. But at first thought, I think it could be a way to bring in billions of dollars annually without raising taxes. (More on taxes later today or tomorrow). Feedback (from both of you who read this site) is more than welcome.
I can think of two main obstacles to this idea, but I still think it could work. First, a lot of people would say that it's just a predatory program that gets people with no discretionary income to buy a piece of paper in hopes of winning big. That doesn't bother me much. If John Doe down the street spends $100 a week of his janitorial salary on lottery tickets, that's his problem. The second problem is that a federal lottery program would force states that currently do not have lotteries to join in. I generally don't agree with having the federal government force programs on state governments. But, when I think about the volume of revenue that a lottery system would generate, I still think it could work. Again, I'm probably missing something obvious. But at first thought, I think it could be a way to bring in billions of dollars annually without raising taxes. (More on taxes later today or tomorrow). Feedback (from both of you who read this site) is more than welcome.
Friday, October 10, 2008
You Can't Make This Stuff Up
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435189,00.html
So let me get this straight. This gardener has been burglarized three times. So, he puts barbed wire up on HIS property. He is then told that he has to take it down because a thief might trespass, get injured, and sue? Yeah, that makes sense.
Let me just say this: if you agree with such nonsense, go ahead and let me know so that I can spell the big words next time I talk to you in person. Why? Because you're a moron.
So let me get this straight. This gardener has been burglarized three times. So, he puts barbed wire up on HIS property. He is then told that he has to take it down because a thief might trespass, get injured, and sue? Yeah, that makes sense.
Let me just say this: if you agree with such nonsense, go ahead and let me know so that I can spell the big words next time I talk to you in person. Why? Because you're a moron.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Presidential Debate - Round 2
Is it bad that the most impressive man in the room last night was Tom Brokaw? I say that somewhat in jest, but not entirely. Last night's debate was basically a re-run of the first one. The "town hall" format was something of a sham. Brokaw picked the questions ahead of time, and no one in the audience really got to ask a tough question. The best question of the night was from Brokaw himself, who asked both candidates who their treasury secretaries might be. Both looked completely unprepared to respond to that question, as if it had never crossed their minds that they might have to appoint cabinet members if elected.
Obama again seemed more comfortable in his surroundings and did a better job speaking to the audience (both live and television). McCain did a better job than last time of getting specific, but he still missed some opportunities. McCain also added a few "zingers," but his delivery wasn't all that great, and the audience didn't seem to get any of them.
Obama's Best Moment
Obama looked very good when calling McCain out on his alternative energy voting record. McCain kept pointing to the record on other issues, and Obama finally stepped in and said, "Hey, look at the record on this." I thought that was smart.
Obama's Worst Moment
I thought Obama looked like a total @$$ when he demanded that Brokaw give him more time to rebut McCain on the tax issue. Brokaw rightly cut him off and said, "Dude, you have to play by the rules too." Not a good moment for Obama though.
McCain's Best Moment
There were actually two. McCain pointed to a $3 million overhead projector that Obama asked for in Chicago. This was, of course, during the discussion of our government's out-of-control spending habits. Now, I don't know the first thing about this overhead projector business. But, I know if it weren't true, Obama would have corrected McCain. He didn't.
McCain's other good moment was in talking about Obama's tax voting record. Obama likes to say that 95 percent of Americans are going to get a tax cut if he's elected. I personally don't believe he is being honest when he says that. And, McCain called Obama out on his record of voting to increase taxes, even for those in modest income brackets.
McCain's Worst Moment
McCain lost me a little when he started talking about buying up bad mortgages. I mean, we just spent $700 billion to bail out these banks, and now we're going to spend more to buy people's mortgages? Maybe I'm insensitive, but if a guy buys a house he can't afford, that's his problem. He shouldn't have bought it. I think if we are going to try to help that guy, we ought to use our resources to help him get a job, not buy his house for him. McCain and I just simply disagree on that.
The big elephant in the room all night was the character debate that most thought McCain would try to get into. I thought it was smart that he didn't. That's what campaign ads and speeches are for. The average American did not want last night to be about Bill Ayers or the Keating 5.
Overall, I think the average American would say Obama won the debate. However, the only reason I say that is because I think the average American looks at our economy right now, realizes that Republicans have been in the White House, and assumes there is a logical connection there. In addition, Obama is just a lot more smooth than McCain in this type of setting, and he comes across like J.F.K. did against Nixon in 1960 (as if I was there).
On the whole, though, I think both candidates still missed a lot of opportunities. Obama again did very little to link McCain to Bush. He started to at the very beginning, but then never went back there. McCain again failed to really hammer Obama on how his tax plan actually works and on how he plans to pay for all these new programs given the state of our economy.
Any chance we could get the last debate to be between Palin and Biden instead of these two?
Obama again seemed more comfortable in his surroundings and did a better job speaking to the audience (both live and television). McCain did a better job than last time of getting specific, but he still missed some opportunities. McCain also added a few "zingers," but his delivery wasn't all that great, and the audience didn't seem to get any of them.
Obama's Best Moment
Obama looked very good when calling McCain out on his alternative energy voting record. McCain kept pointing to the record on other issues, and Obama finally stepped in and said, "Hey, look at the record on this." I thought that was smart.
Obama's Worst Moment
I thought Obama looked like a total @$$ when he demanded that Brokaw give him more time to rebut McCain on the tax issue. Brokaw rightly cut him off and said, "Dude, you have to play by the rules too." Not a good moment for Obama though.
McCain's Best Moment
There were actually two. McCain pointed to a $3 million overhead projector that Obama asked for in Chicago. This was, of course, during the discussion of our government's out-of-control spending habits. Now, I don't know the first thing about this overhead projector business. But, I know if it weren't true, Obama would have corrected McCain. He didn't.
McCain's other good moment was in talking about Obama's tax voting record. Obama likes to say that 95 percent of Americans are going to get a tax cut if he's elected. I personally don't believe he is being honest when he says that. And, McCain called Obama out on his record of voting to increase taxes, even for those in modest income brackets.
McCain's Worst Moment
McCain lost me a little when he started talking about buying up bad mortgages. I mean, we just spent $700 billion to bail out these banks, and now we're going to spend more to buy people's mortgages? Maybe I'm insensitive, but if a guy buys a house he can't afford, that's his problem. He shouldn't have bought it. I think if we are going to try to help that guy, we ought to use our resources to help him get a job, not buy his house for him. McCain and I just simply disagree on that.
The big elephant in the room all night was the character debate that most thought McCain would try to get into. I thought it was smart that he didn't. That's what campaign ads and speeches are for. The average American did not want last night to be about Bill Ayers or the Keating 5.
Overall, I think the average American would say Obama won the debate. However, the only reason I say that is because I think the average American looks at our economy right now, realizes that Republicans have been in the White House, and assumes there is a logical connection there. In addition, Obama is just a lot more smooth than McCain in this type of setting, and he comes across like J.F.K. did against Nixon in 1960 (as if I was there).
On the whole, though, I think both candidates still missed a lot of opportunities. Obama again did very little to link McCain to Bush. He started to at the very beginning, but then never went back there. McCain again failed to really hammer Obama on how his tax plan actually works and on how he plans to pay for all these new programs given the state of our economy.
Any chance we could get the last debate to be between Palin and Biden instead of these two?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
This Ain't Your Daddy's Big 12
At the outset of most college football seasons, I just assume that the SEC is the best conference. And, usually it is. Not this year. The SEC's talent at the bottom might match any league in the country; but at the top, the Big 12 is superior. The Big 12 has five undefeated teams that haven't even been challenged yet. And, if you're just sitting around watching the scoreboard on Saturdays, you might think Big 12 basketball has already started.
Texas has scored more than 50 three times and is averaging more than 45 points per game.
Oklahoma is averaging 50 points per game.
Missouri is averaging about 55 points per game.
Oklahoma State is scoring more than 50 points per game.
Texas Tech's least productive game on offense has been 35 points, and its average is in the 40s.
At the top, the SEC isn't even close to the Big 12 right now. Florida is good, but not that good. LSU struggled with an Auburn teams that looks clearly overrated. Georgia got throttled by a young Alabama team at home. Tennessee stinks. The saving grace might be Alabama, but is there anyone who thinks the Tide is winning any championships this year?
It's weird to say, but the Big 12 is awesome. I haven't even talked about Kansas, a team averaging 35 points per game and coming off a BCS bowl game from a year ago. In most years, I'll put the top six SEC teams up against anyone. This year, as Lee Corso says, "not so fast, my friends."
Texas has scored more than 50 three times and is averaging more than 45 points per game.
Oklahoma is averaging 50 points per game.
Missouri is averaging about 55 points per game.
Oklahoma State is scoring more than 50 points per game.
Texas Tech's least productive game on offense has been 35 points, and its average is in the 40s.
At the top, the SEC isn't even close to the Big 12 right now. Florida is good, but not that good. LSU struggled with an Auburn teams that looks clearly overrated. Georgia got throttled by a young Alabama team at home. Tennessee stinks. The saving grace might be Alabama, but is there anyone who thinks the Tide is winning any championships this year?
It's weird to say, but the Big 12 is awesome. I haven't even talked about Kansas, a team averaging 35 points per game and coming off a BCS bowl game from a year ago. In most years, I'll put the top six SEC teams up against anyone. This year, as Lee Corso says, "not so fast, my friends."
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Kudos to the New York Times.....What???
At long last, the New York Times is doing some reporting. It seems strange to say that, so much so that the automatic editor on my computer thinks I must have made some grammatical mistake. The front page of the Times this morning recounts the relationship between Democratic presidential nominee Barrack Obama and the radical, non-repentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Oh, you didn't know Obama was connected with a terrorist? I've known for 18 months. But, that's because I look beyond what most media outlets will let you hear about. Well, congratulations New York Times. You've finally done some reporting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Now, this article largely downplays the connection between the two men. And, this article is probably very accurate. What??? Did I say that right? Look, I don't think Obama and Ayers are best friends. I doubt they even speak much. But one quote in this article says it best. Imagine if John McCain had had overlapped so many times in his professional life with a man who unapologetically bombed an abortion clinic. You think you wouldn't hear about that EVERY DAY? You think McCain could just get by saying: "That's old news," or "That guy was in diapers when I made my first run at the Senate." I don't think that would fly, do you?
The bottom line is that Obama has crossed paths on a number of occasions with a guy who admittedly set off bombs in our country. Ayers hosted the first fundraiser for Obama's first campaign. Whether it happened last week or 40 years ago, that's not a good connection to have. And, when you're trying to become president, it is more than relevant to discuss such a connection. I applaud the New York Times for FINALLY reporting on it. I just wonder how this didn't become newsworthy to the publication sooner. And, I wonder if it would have taken this long had it been McCain who had such a questionable connection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Now, this article largely downplays the connection between the two men. And, this article is probably very accurate. What??? Did I say that right? Look, I don't think Obama and Ayers are best friends. I doubt they even speak much. But one quote in this article says it best. Imagine if John McCain had had overlapped so many times in his professional life with a man who unapologetically bombed an abortion clinic. You think you wouldn't hear about that EVERY DAY? You think McCain could just get by saying: "That's old news," or "That guy was in diapers when I made my first run at the Senate." I don't think that would fly, do you?
The bottom line is that Obama has crossed paths on a number of occasions with a guy who admittedly set off bombs in our country. Ayers hosted the first fundraiser for Obama's first campaign. Whether it happened last week or 40 years ago, that's not a good connection to have. And, when you're trying to become president, it is more than relevant to discuss such a connection. I applaud the New York Times for FINALLY reporting on it. I just wonder how this didn't become newsworthy to the publication sooner. And, I wonder if it would have taken this long had it been McCain who had such a questionable connection.
Friday, October 3, 2008
The VP Debate
Wow. I guess the first thing I would say about the VP debate last night is that I came away much more impressed with both candidates than I did last week when the would-be presidents faced off. Biden was sharp, on point and much more poised behind the podium than I have previously seen him. Palin was well-prepared, charming and didn't say anything to give media-types something to jump on.
Perhaps my expectations were too low for both of the running mates. In the recent weeks, Biden has asked a guy in a wheelchair to stand up and lied about being shot at in Iraq. Palin has said she reads every newspaper in the country and been caught like a deer in the headlights when asked if she approves of the Bush Doctrine. Neither candidate had a moment like that last night.
On the issues, Biden was strong economics and foreign policy, unlike Obama last week. He was not as good on energy. Palin was great on energy, good on economics, and good enough on foreign policy (given that she's with McCain, who's very good on foreign policy). The only downside I saw in both speakers was that they didn't always answer the question asked. I imagine that they were probably both told to find ways to steer their answers into areas of comfort. And, they both did that very well.
All in all, I have to see this one as a draw. Like the presidential debate, I don't think last night changed anyone's mind. I think Palin likely pulled favor with some undecided female voters, and Biden probably won among undecided male voters. It's a tie. But, it was a lot of fun to watch.
Perhaps my expectations were too low for both of the running mates. In the recent weeks, Biden has asked a guy in a wheelchair to stand up and lied about being shot at in Iraq. Palin has said she reads every newspaper in the country and been caught like a deer in the headlights when asked if she approves of the Bush Doctrine. Neither candidate had a moment like that last night.
On the issues, Biden was strong economics and foreign policy, unlike Obama last week. He was not as good on energy. Palin was great on energy, good on economics, and good enough on foreign policy (given that she's with McCain, who's very good on foreign policy). The only downside I saw in both speakers was that they didn't always answer the question asked. I imagine that they were probably both told to find ways to steer their answers into areas of comfort. And, they both did that very well.
All in all, I have to see this one as a draw. Like the presidential debate, I don't think last night changed anyone's mind. I think Palin likely pulled favor with some undecided female voters, and Biden probably won among undecided male voters. It's a tie. But, it was a lot of fun to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
