PotUS: McCain is better than Obama

I've gone back to the chalkboard to consider what should matter in choosing the PotUS. I've considered both the Leadership skills necessary to be PotUS and the Issues and Challenges the PotUS will need to manage. I will now evaluate both McCain and Obama in reference to these considerations.

Leadership Factors.
Good Judgment. Both men are obviously intelligent. Both men have also demonstrated good insight. McCain has demonstrated this by recognizing the problems of Iraq and recommended the Surge. Obama has demonstrated good judgment by recognizing that voting on contentious and difficult issues could hurt him politically and it would be better to just vote present instead. Obama has repeatedly skirted the difficult issues whereas McCain has not. Even if it would cost him political points (not just the Surge but also on immigration), he has acted on his insight. Regarding wisdom, Obama has not demonstrated to me any evidence of having any. McCain by putting the needs of his country first over his own political career has. When it comes to good judgment it seems clear to me that McCain clearly has demonstrated superior judgment over Obama.

Firm Resolve. Both men have convictions, but Obama's convictions are to further his own ascent while McCain's are clearly about furthering the USA. I suspect that Obama believes the US would be better off being more socialistic but he seems to lack the faith of conviction to publicly declare this. When it comes to the grace to admit to being wrong, Obama is the clear loser here for first being stubborn when he declared the Surge a failure before it actually begun, as news of its success began to surface he maintain his belief of defeat, and even after it was widely acknowledged to be a success he still refuse to admit defeat. McCain has demonstrated resolve with the Surge, with his unpopular stance on immigration, and even with accepting public campaign financing against the money machine of Obama. McCain wins hands down.

Persuasiveness. I do not believe either candidate has a true understanding and appreciation for the common man's perspective of life in the US. Both are out of touch. When it comes to both being an effective communicator and being able to inspire others, I believe Obama to be superior to McCain. McCain speaks the truth whereas Obama is full of platitudes. McCain's life is inspirational but he doesn't seem to be able to inspire others, particularly the common man, as Obama has. When it comes to persuasiveness, Obama is much more so than McCain.

Over all, my analysis of Leadership ability of McCain and Obama, McCain will be a capable commander in chief. He has demonstrated good judgment and the resolve necessary to carry out his good judgment. He will need to better communicate them though to the public. Obama lacks the judgment and resolve to be PotUS. Obama's persuasiveness, in the absence of judgment and resolve, make him a sophist not to be trusted.

The Issues & Challenges.

Protecting the US from outside threat. Obama lacks the fundamental understanding of what it will take to protect the US from foreign powers, whether it is a resurgent nationalistic Russia or the stateless terrorists of Islamofascism. Obama wanted to take the Georgia crisis to the UN before he realized that Russia has veto power on the UN Security Council. He also wants to treat the War on Terror as a police action, which means we punish wrong doers rather than preventing acts of terrorisms. Obama is too naive to effectively secure the IS against foreign threats.

Sound Fiscal Policy. Too much taxation inhibits private economic growth. This doesn't seem to bother Obama much as he supports increasing taxation on the middle class, small business and large business. This does not bother him because he is a socialist interested in using taxation to redistribute the wealth and furthering the role of government in our economy. McCain wants to make the Bush tax cut for middle America permanent and reduce corporate taxes so they can remain competitive internationally, as well as keep more jobs here. McCain also understands that a large federal deficit ties up credit that could otherwise be used to grow the economy. He has promised a spending freeze on everything except defense. Because Obama is a socialist, he wants the government to grow, provide more services, and thus will spend more. Given that the increased taxation will limit economic growth and thus limit government tax revenue over all, the federal deficit can only grown under Obama. Over all, I believe Obama's plan to socialize the US economy unacceptable.

Resource Management. Out most national resources are the American people who work to make this country more productive as they work to provide more for our families. Obama seeks to support our labor forces artificially by mandating a rise in the minimum wage (though this will inhibit job growth) and to restrict free trade (which will make out products more expensive in foreign markets). McCain wants to generate more jobs for more Americans by creating favorable economic environment for private enterprises to grow and generate more jobs as well as better products. McCain favors free trade, and for the low end jobs that are subsequently shift to foreign lands due to cheaper foreign labor, McCain has endorsed education programs to retrain our workers for better jobs here.
The other aspect of resource management to discuss is energy policy. McCain wants the US to be energy independent by furthering exploration and refinement of traditional energy sources like coal, oil, and nuclear. McCain also favors building up our green and renewable energy sources. On the green and renewable energy sources Obama agrees, but he would rather we become green even at the expense of continued energy dependence on foreign oil, such as from the Middle East, Venezuela, or even Russia.
While Obama's resource management proposal are well intentioned, I believe McCain's plan is both more practical and better for our nation in the short term and the long term.

Secure Individual Liberties. Obama's actions have raised concerns for me regarding his respect of free speech and opposing viewpoints. On several occasion he and his staff have sent letters threatening legal actions against sources of contrary viewpoints. Obama has also consistently opposed the right of each individual Americans to own and bear arms. McCain has been the opposite. Obama also favors agreeable liberties over security, treating terrorists as criminals to be punished after the fact rather than preemption of terrorist acts. There can be no liberty without security.
But the most glaring example of his disregard of individual liberty is his support of live birth abortion. Make no misunderstanding that this is not abortion because once the fetus has been delivered free of the mom, it is a child. In essence, he supports the legalization of infant murder. I do not care where you stand on abortion, pro-choice or pro-life. We are talking infant murder. The state is supposed to protect its most vulnerable members, not exterminate them.
McCain is both constitutionally and morally superior to Obama.

Overall Governance Theme. Obama sees what is wrong with America and wants to fix it, McCain sees what is right with America and wants more of it. Obama wants to change a failing America, McCain wants to change how DC fails Americans. Obama believes in the American State, McCain believes in the individual American. McCain comes closest to cultivating a culture of individual responsibility (Palin has outright stated this) that I believe America needs to build on and less reliance on the State.

In nearly all aspects I considered, McCain is the clear choice for PotUS. On November 4, 2008, I will vote for McCain/Palin. I hope you will as well. Do not let the socialist get elected.


PotUS: Issues & Challenges

What i expect from my president, in order.

A. Protect the US from outside threats. I view this as the primary responsibility of the executive because this is the essential and historical role of any community leader from a family patriarch, the tribal chieftain, to a people’s King. The constitution sets foreign diplomacy and commander in chief as the responsibility of the President. Performing these responsibilities well is the most important function for the PotUS in a world that remains full of dangerous challenges. Ultimately, regardless of how generous and responsible the US is as a member of the international community, some out there will want to hurt and harm us. Once they believe this is in their best interest, we will not be able to talk them out of it. I want a president willing to make war before we are attacked as well as one willing to talk so we won’t be attacked. It certainly won’t sound fair but I rather have foreign blood spilt than ours, foreign lands bombed than ours. I do not want war all and I want wars prevented within reasons. But I recognize that there will be times when undesirable war is preferable to hoped for peace. But once a war I want us resolved and determined to win. Once won I want to see the US as magnanimous in victory in order to jointly build a new future with our former foes. In short I want our foreign policy predicated on the simple idea of “There is no better friend and no worse enemy than the US of A”.

B. The second responsibility for the executive branch is to maintain a secure environment for Americans to pursue happiness. Here the president will need to lead, direct and set the agenda for Congress to formulate legislations further secure the American pursuit of happiness. Factors essential for a secure American environment are sound fiscal policies, fair resource management, and secure individual liberties.

B1. Sound fiscal policies have three aspects: first is a fair taxation plan that would stimulate economic growth, second would be appropriate federal spending to grow the essential governmental function, and to reduce the federal deficit.

B1a. Regarding taxation, it may seem tempting to tax the rich and give it to the poor, but in practice this just does not work. Firstly, who has the most money? Large businesses. But if for every penny they are taxed, they certainly pass it down to the consumer in terms of higher product cost. Sadly, it is the poor consumer that pays more as a percentage of their income on buying essential products for living than do the rich. If not big businesses then what about medium size businesses? Some of the tax they will certainly pass along to us, the consumer voter. But what tax they cannot pass along will eat into their bottom line and reduce available capital. Less capital means less growth in terms of hiring as well as building a better business. Either way, the community loses. Alternatively the rich individual can be taxed. From the Tax Foundation the fact is that this is already happening, with the top 10% (those making about $109,000) earners paying 70% of the federal income tax revenue. The bottom 50% earners (making less than $32,000) currently pay less than 3% of the federal income tax revenue. Squeezing the rich individual is harmful in three ways. Firstly it makes the rich even more involved in politics to reduce their tax, and once tax issue resolved, they will try to influence the governments in other ways. We cannot afford a plutocracy. Secondly like with small businesses less disposable income due to higher taxes mean less money to spend on personal services, from assistants to maids, cooks, and gardeners. Again the working voters get cut. Thirdly taxing the more financially fortunate is just counter intuitive to the American dream to become more financial fortunate. While my personal bias currently is for a federal flat tax along with a federal sales tax instead of the federal income tax (less tax bureaucracy too!) this is currently not likely. In lieu of this, I am and think we all ought to be opposed to raising taxes on any segment of the public.

B1b. Appropriate federal spending to grow the essential governmental functions covers firstly maintaining an active and competitive military, secondarily a national security program, and a functional transportation infrastructure for internal commerce. Maintaining the military is the primary function of any national government to defend its people and existence. The military must be well trained and well supplied in terms of men and equipment. Naturally we must care for our military personnel as they are serving and once they have served. I support a well-funded program to support the family of soldiers on active service; the families of those who love ones have died in service, and for our veterans after they have served our country. I also believe the best defense is a strong offence and this requires a technologically advanced military. To go on the offense you need accurate and reliable intelligence service. A similarly effective intelligence capability needs to be applied to protect against foreign terrorist acts within the US. There can be no freedom or prosperity without security. And prosperity will also require a well-maintained infrastructure for communication and transportation, especially as the US is structured as a federal union of states.

B1c. The president proposes the federal budget to Congress. If the US government is not in deficit, then it might be alright for the government to spend liberally, but given the size of the federal government, there needs to be limits on non-essential federal spending to reduce the federal deficit. The deficit needs to be reduced because these credits are especially sorely needed elsewhere right now. The first way to reduce the deficit would be to cease the expansion of government services except as above (B1b). The second way to cut the deficit is to increase revenue. This will occur if governmental policy stimulates economic growth. Increasing taxation usually inhibits economic growth. Thirdly, there needs to be a serious discussion with the American voters about reducing welfare.

B2. For fair resource management, the essential resources to focus on firstly is human labor, secondly promotion of trade, and finally energy independence, and promotion of trade. Human labor isn’t just about fair wages, human labor development is about having the opportunity to work and earn a living as well as opportunity for both personal and professional growth through work. The opportunity of work can only come about through a growing economy. And once employed, we need to provide circumstances for the American worker to be both productive and opportunities for advancement. I believe essential to productivity and advancement is a sound education, from grade school through high school (to provide the basic understanding of how life and our country works) as well as appropriate trade and vocational education. As the American voters progress, by necessity we will have others to do the more menial and more labor intensive jobs to others. But by doing so more people will have opportunity for employment and grow the market for goods. This is true whether these lower paying jobs will remain here in the US or is sent across our borders. And if sent across our borders, we need to establish trade agreements with these other nations to make it easier to both allow them to accept our needs for basic labors as well as open their markets for our goods. These trade agreements should be both free and mutually beneficial. But one thing we cannot depend on oversea for is our energy needs. The US needs to become less dependent, or even independent, for our energy resources. Energy is to our economy what food is to our body. The US cannot perpetuate the energy import as we have been. The PotUS needs to take leadership to promote expansion of our traditional energy sources as well as build up more energy resources, both green and nuclear.

B3. Secure individual liberties by preserving the bills of rights and protecting against act of crime or terrorisms. The most important bill of rights are the first protecting freedom of speech, to essentially speak against the government, and the second to keep and bear arms, also to personally defend oneself. But regardless of how the Bill of Rights is interpreted, it becomes meaningless if America is entrenched in fear due to crime or terrorist acts. I do not believe our liberties need to be sacrificed in order to obtain personal security. I believe we can navigate through and preserve both liberty and security. A president needs to understand the significance of both and take consideration of both.

C. Everything thus far discussed, to protect the US against foreign threat and to maintain a secure environment for Americans to be happy, are all practical and earthly responsibilities but won’t be enough without something for the soul and spirit for America. In my opinion the most important them for America to move forward with is the concept of “individual and personal responsibility.” No nation can ever be great if its people do not have the initiative to act or to act without personal accountability or responsibility. Without personal responsibility, then the state becomes responsible for everything. This can only lead to failure. Accepting personal responsibility means accepting that an individual can change the future. I believe this is cause for optimism, for through actions from each and every individual America can be made better and greater. This is what I would like to see for America.


Business: Dems vs. Reps

As an Obama victory looms likely, along with a possibility of a democratic filibuster proof majority, business are stepping in the fray against the Dems. All the more reason to believe that despite the economic crisis, business people believes the Reps are better for business. Is the reason predicated on tax schemes? Actually no. The reason is because the Dems are anti-democratic when it comes to union voters.

Firstly, the Chamber of Commerce acts to shore up GOP Senators:
The nation's largest business lobby, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has raised ire among Democratic leaders for pouring millions of dollars into an advertising push to prevent the party from winning dominance in the Senate next year.

The Chamber says it has raised enough money this year from corporations to spend about $35 million on the election, double its budget for House and Senate races in the 2006 election. The group is supporting pro-business candidates, almost exclusively Republicans in contested Senate races.

Business executives fear that Democrats, bouyed by heavy spending from organized labor, could gain enough muscle in the Senate to spark policies favoring increased unionization, higher taxes, more restrictions on trade and more regulation on the financial-services and housing sectors.

Secondly, individual retailers acts on their store managers:
Retailers are meeting with store managers to warn how a strong showing for Democrats in the Nov. 4 election could cause what they fear would be more economic pain for their companies, in particular by potentially making it easier for unions to organize stores.

The companies are worried about presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's stated support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would do away with secret balloting and allow unions to form if a majority of employees sign cards favoring unionization. The legislation, retailers fear, would have improved chances of becoming law under a Democratic administration.

The legislation passed the House last year but died amid a Senate filibuster and a threatened presidential veto. The issue in this election is whether Democrats, who hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate, can win the presidency and gain enough seats to prevent Republicans from using procedural motions, such as filibusters, to thwart legislation.

The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity and as a way to shield workers from antiunion pressure from their employers.

Healthcare Tax & Credit

Obama has suggested that McCain will tax employers contribution to employee's health care cost. This is true. With things as they are, it is actually cheaper for employers to pay for health care than it is for individual to buy health care. If you want more people to buy health care, then you have to make it just as affordable for individuals, the self employed, the part time employed, or those who work in a business that does not provide health care. Thus McCain will repeal the employer's health care tax credit and give it to everyone who pays taxes. Thus this will make health care more affordable to more people. Why not do both, because then it will allow some to double benefit. More here.

I work in health care. I make no distinction between the insured and the uninsured. The health care given are equivalent. I have also seen how government provided free health care is delivered. We do not want government funded health care.

Walter Williams comments:
The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute's annual publication, "Waiting Your Turn," reports that Canada's median waiting times from a patient's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist, depending on the procedure, averages from five to 40 weeks. The wait for diagnostics, such as MRI or CT, ranges between four and 28 weeks.

According to Michael Tanner's "The Grass Is Not Always Greener," in Cato Institute's Policy Analysis (March 18, 2008), the Mayo Clinic treats more than 7,000 foreign patients a year, the Cleveland Clinic 5,000, Johns Hopkins Hospital treats 6,000, and one out of three Canadian physicians send a patient to the U.S. for treatment each year. If socialized medicine is so great, why do Canadian physicians send patients to the U.S. and the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year on health care in our country?

Britain's socialized system is no better. Currently, 750,000 Brits are awaiting hospital admission. Britain's National Health Services hopes to achieve an 18-week maximum wait from general practitioner to treatment, including all diagnostic tests, by the end of 2008. The delay in health care services is not only inconvenient, it's deadly. Both in Britain and Canada, many patients with diseases that are curable at the time of diagnosis become incurable by the time of treatment or patients become too weak for the surgical procedure. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown plans to introduce a "constitution" setting out the rights and responsibilities of its health care system. According to a report in the Telegraph (02/01/2008), "What this (Gordon Brown's plan) seems to amount to in practice are the Government's rights to refuse treatment, and the patient's responsibilities to live up to what the state decides are model standards." That means people who have unhealthy habits such as smoking, heart sufferers who are obese or those who fall ill because of failure to take regular exercise might be refused medical care, even though they pay taxes to support government health care.

Taxes: McCain & Obama

From today's WSJ:
When it comes to taxes, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain is arguably as wide as it's been in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale battled in 1984. Sen. Obama is proposing to raise taxes more than any recent candidate, while Sen. McCain wants to cut them substantially. Most of the campaign debate has been over whose taxes would be raised, and whose cut.

Here are the facts:

My personal stance on Taxes.
1. Some taxation is necessary to protect and maintain the function of our society.
2. Too much taxation inhibits economic growth.
3. Taxation cannot and should not be used for income redistribution.

In review, as this article evaluated, McCain's taxation is better for our country.

As a reminder as to the impact on the average American family:


Palin & Immigration

Here are excerpts from a recent interview of Palin on Univision
Governor, let me ask you about immigration. How many undocumented immigrants are there in Alaska?
I don't know, I don't know. That's a good question.

As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?
There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?
No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They've got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.

To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

Speaking as a legal immigrant and a proud naturalized American, I whole heartedly agree with Palin on no to amnesty for illegal immigrants but yes a legal path for legalization of their status. I already believed this before I saw this today.
I hope it help them gain hispanic votes.

from the same interview, i thought this reasonable as well:
Do you think that we should talk about birth control with our teenage sons and daughters?
Yes. Use me as the example of why you should, even more admittedly. My daughter, of course she is 18 years old, but has really been forced to grow up very quickly now and starting her own family and you know, life has changed so quickly for her. And she is a good and responsible and a very kind hearted young strong woman, and she is going to be just fine. But if we can use this, and if my daughter Bristol can use her story as a kind of teaching tool for others, then so be it. Let us do that.


VP comments: Biden & Palin

Today Biden commented on Obama's readiness to be president.
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

The Delaware lawmaker managed to rake in an estimated $1 million total from his two money hauls at the downtown Sheraton, the same hotel where four years ago Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clinched the Democratic nomination. Despite warning about the difficulties the next administration will face, Biden said the Democratic ticket is equipped to meet the challenges head on.

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Basically get ready if Obama gets elected because our enemies will feel emboldened to test him for his inexperience.
If Obama becomes President his popularity will sag and he will make unpopular decisions widely viewed as unsound.


Meanwhile, some are asking whether Palin is advocating a federal marriage amendment based on this quote:
She says: "[I]n my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage."

Commenting on Roe v. Wade, Palin said, “I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.”

By being a "federalist" it seems to me she supports state right to make the decision rather than the federal government.

from wikipedia for "federalist":
In contemporary usage, as articulated by president Bush's New Federalism, federalists advocate the principle of greater regional autonomy within the United States—usually by allowing individual states to set their own agendas and determine the handling of issues, rather than trying to impose a nationally uniform solution.

When she says "I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage" i do not read this as suggesting she wants a US federal marriage amendment.


Political Elitism

Wikipedia describe Elitism as
the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern

When applied to the political arena, it suggests that the elites are best able to comments on or lead politically. I find this particularly amusing because most elites are either degreed intellectuals or the trust-fund rich. The problem with these people being in charge of politics is that they are usually out of touch with the goals of politics. Too often these elites are in it because they think they know better, or because of some misconception of Noblesse Oblige. In other words, they enter politics (either as a politician or as an expert on politics. This is not the goal of politics in a democracy such as the US.

The goal of politics in the US is to serve the average citizens. It is the average citizens that make this country great. They do so by working and toiling to provide for their family. The product of their toils is the productivity of the engines of our economy and national wealth. The even more precious product of their toils are young men and women willing to fight and die to protect this country, willing to continue their parents productivity to maintain this country, and generate entrepreneurship and innovation to advance this country. Thus it is the average citizens who makes up and continue the weave that make this country great.

Being richer than the average citizen does not give the elites a mandate for leadership in politics. Being smarter than the average citizen does not give the elites a mantle of leadership in politics. I am in no way suggesting that being rich or being smart disqualify a person for political leadership. Certainly being smart is of great value for any political leaders but it is even more important to know whether that intelligence has been employed to the benefit of the average citizen directly. "What have you done to improve the lives of those around you?"

I believe in political merits, that service has been rendered to help others should be the requisite for political leadership or positions. I want political leaders to be judged based not on what they want to do along. Anyone can promise the moon. I want political to know how the average citizens have benefited from what actions of the politicians. I am particularly tired of politicians and pundits who feel their intelligence and wit allow them to judge others based on elitist concepts without significance for the average citizen, even worse when they belittle and insult the average voters.


Black Civic Leaders: Political Intergration vs Economic Independence

From today's WSJ.
For more than a century, black civic leaders have tangled over whether to pursue economic independence or focus their energies on integrating political, corporate and educational institutions. W.E.B. Du Bois, author of the groundbreaking 1903 treatise, "The Souls of Black Folk," argued for the latter, while his contemporary, Booker T. Washington, said "political activity alone" was not the answer. In addition, insisted Washington, "you must have property, industry, skill, economy, intelligence and character."

Since the 1960s, the black civil-rights leadership has sided with Du Bois. Between 1970 and 2001, the number of black elected officials in the U.S. grew from fewer than 1,500 to more than 9,000. And while impressive socioeconomic progress has been made, wide black-white gaps remain in educational achievement, homeownership rates, labor-force participation, income levels and other measures.

Nor should we conclude that civil-rights laws are responsible for the black progress that has occurred. For example, up until the 1950s, and in an era of open and rampant racial discrimination, the jobless rate for blacks was much lower than today and similar to that of whites in the same age group. In fact, blacks had higher labor-force participation rates than whites in every Census taken between 1890 and 1950. And in the decades preceding the 1960s -- that is, prior to the passage of landmark civil-rights bills and affirmative-action legislation -- there were sharp rises in black educational achievement, both absolutely and relative to whites.

The economist Thomas Sowell has spent decades researching racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. and abroad. And his findings -- in books like "Race and Culture: A World View," "Affirmative Action Around the World" and "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?" -- show that political activity generally has not been a factor in the rise of groups from poverty to prosperity.

Many Germans came to the U.S. as indentured servants during colonial times. And while working to pay off the cost of the voyage they studiously avoided participation in politics. Only after they'd risen economically did Germans begin seeking public office, culminating with the election of presidents Hoover and Eisenhower.

A similar pattern can be found among Chinese populations in southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the U.S. In Argentina, where English minorities have done well financially and played a major role in the development of the economy, they've played almost no role in Argentine politics. And so it goes with Italians in the U.S. and Jews in Britain: In both places economic gains have generally preceded political gains. "Empirically, political activity and political success have been neither necessary nor sufficient for economic advancement," writes Mr. Sowell. "Nor has eager political participation or outstanding success in politics translated into faster group achievement."

Black Americans might keep in mind that in those rare instances where the political success of a minority group has come first, it has often resulted in slower socioeconomic progress. The Irish immigrants who came to the U.S. in the mid-19th century hailed from a country where 80% of the population was rural. Yet they settled in industrial centers like New York, Philadelphia and Boston and took low-skill jobs. Their rise from poverty was especially slow -- as late as 1920, 80% of all Irish women working in America were domestic servants -- despite the fact that Irish-run political organizations dominated many big-city governments.

"The Irish were fiercely loyal to each other, electing, appointing and promoting their own kind," writes Mr. Sowell. "This had little effect on the average Irish American, who began to reach economic prosperity in the 20th century at about the same time when the Irish political machines began to decline."

I have read this divergence of ideas before and I remain convinced that it remains true today. The choice for black civic leaders years ago to pursue a political path rather than economic independence was a tragic error. The current result is an astounding economic dependency of Blacks on Government with resulting dissolution of the black family. Too many black mens have become absent fathers and too many black boys grow up without adequate male role models. And like most dependencies, it only grow with time. I admire the few Black leaders who try to speak out against this trend, Bill Cosby for instance, but too often they are derided and their message lost.
I do not necessarily believe this was the intent of the Democratic party but certainly the Democratic party political agenda of more government services will not make things better. Certainly Obama as part of the Democratic establisment will only further this process.
It is a tragic consequence of choosing the wrong agenda years ago. It reminds me of similar bad choices in the Palestinians rejecting a separate states along side Israel decades ago. It also reminds me of the difference between the growth of cities like New Orleans compared to Houston.
Bad political choices have lasting consequences and the hole gets deeper and harder to come out of. I hope it does not happen to the US should Obama gets elected.


McCain is a Class Act

Alot of anger at recent Republican rallys i do not believe are primarily directed against Obama. Everyone is frustrated with the economy and many are angry about the US government bailout. And in regard to the presidential campaign, many Republicans are particularly frustrated with McCain's inability or unwillingness to get tough to get the message out and angry at the bias of the MSM and ACORN fraud. Thus this has so much more to do with everything else other than Obama. (And no, no one cried out to kill Obama as indicated by the FBI.)

Tonight I watched this video and I came to understand McCain better. He is a class act.

Thus I wonder whether it is fair for us to expect McCain to sacrifice a bit of himself inorder to put our Country First by winning this election over Obama.

Government vs Private Solutions

What do the best and the brightest of members of our society do? They go into medicine, law, business, or science. Those that are interested in service go into the military, education, volunteerism, or medicine and law. So who end up going into government? With rare exceptions, I do not believe the brightest minds are in political office or civil service of Government. Not only are the best minds absent in Government, the culture of Government does not support, endorse, or encourage innovation. These thoughts are best found in the private sector. Best found but not necessary always found I admit, but certainly more likely than from Government. Thus how could or should anyone reasonably expect our Government have a better solution to our individual or our society problems than a free market of ideas from the private sector?

Why is this? In all likelihood it is because America is a nation of immigrants. These immigrants left their native lands because their government has failed them. They come to the US with a natural distrust of government. This attitude is the culture each generation of new Americans are being born into.

This may not be the case elsewhere in the world. In China for instance, it has been a long tradition that passing the civil service test to serve the people is seen as a mark of distinction and achievement. But here in America the best and brightest do not enter into Government service.

That is why I am opposed to a bigger role for Government in American life. As Ronald Reagan has suggested, too often Government is part of our problems rather than the solution.

Senator Government

New add idea of McCain/Palin

"Senator Government"

These are tough economic times.
Everyone is looking to the government for a solution.

Senator Obama has promised to cut taxes for voters.
Senator Obama has also plan to make government spend more.
How is that going to work?

Senator Obama has promised to make more jobs for voters.
Senator Obama has also plan to raise business taxes.
How is that going to work?

Senator Obama?
Tell the American voters the truth about your plans.


Debate 3: McCain vs. Obama

Though I wish McCain was a better speaker to better explain his position as well as Obama, I am pleased that he was rather aggressive tonight and repeatedly called Obama out to answer for himself. I give this as a clear win for McCain.

Who is John Galt?

This is a follow up to a previous post here: Going John Galt during Obama's reign?
Who is John Galt? For those who don't know, go to WHo is John Galt.
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?

Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.

We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.

I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.

You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's impossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.

And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?

Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.

You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.

Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than its neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.

To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.

If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.

The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.


Obama & ACORN

PotUS: Qualities of Leadership

Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

* be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
* be at least thirty-five years old;
* have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Obviously no one believes these are sufficient qualifications, certainly I do not. I want to use this post as reference for future posts regarding how I rate fitness of candidates for PotUS.

First and foremost the president of the US has to be able to respond to yet known threats to the US. Any candidate can propose solutions to current problems. But many of our nation's threat aren't known and may not yet even be an idea in our enemy's head. What I believe will be the best criteria to determine whether someone can meet that unseen challenge is leadership. By leadership I mean a combination of good judgment, firm resolve, and persuasiveness. These three aspects allow the person to decide on the best course of action, to carry through the action and persuade others to the cause. How best to determine whether anyone has these ability to be an effective leader? Lets look at each of the three one by one.

Good Judgment. Having good judgment requires intelligence, insight and wisdom. Intelligence is easy to recognize but intelligence is not enough and is not as important as some might suggest. Many think that being smart is enough. It is not. Solutions have to be actionable, not just sound right. I have noticed a tendency for the super smarts to become even more abstract and removed from real world actions. It is the trap of favoring the ideals over the practical. Insight is more important than intelligence because it allows the dismissal of noise while appreciating the true significance of the situation. I believe insight is something you are born with, though it certainly can be honed with intelligence and knowledge. Once the truth of the situation is perceived, wisdom will allow for appreciation of what will likely work in practice, and the consequences of the action.

The easiest way to evaluate whether anyone has good judgment is whether a leader has demonstrated good judgment previously. But the challenges a leader will be facing will likely be different from any challenges he/she has faced. I believe this is true even for incumbents. One might be tempted to use experience as a surrogate for good judgment. But having experience does not mean a leader will have good judgment. Having experience allows a person to build upon his/her judgment for better and for worse. For an executive position of the PotUS, executive experience is beneficial. An executive decision differs from a legislative decision because ultimate responsibility and ownership for the decision lies with an executive rather than one of many votes among legislatures.

Firm Resolve. No course of actions will be endorsed unanimously and in the miracle should unanimity is obtained, it will certainly not lasts. Thus any leader must first have confidence of conviction to accept criticism as a difference of opinion rather as an attack of character or ability, even if the criticism are vitriolic and indeed are attack of character and ability. In all likelihood a leader must also have faith of conviction no worthy challenges will be overcome easily. There will likely be dark days and bleak moments when all appear lost, and many will desert the cause and endeavors. Erstwhile allies will reveal themselves as fair weather friends at best, allies of convenience at most. And should failure does perchance occur, a leader must have the grace of responsibility to acknowledge mistakes and ultimate responsibility. Both confidence of conviction and faith of conviction are predicated on the ideals of the solution or course of action rather than the personality of the leader him/herself. Otherwise, a leader will certainly have problems with acknowledging mistakes and error and taking responsibility for failure.

Persuasiveness. Never will a leader be able to address any challenges or achieve any accomplishment without the aides of others. This is especially true in a democracy. While charisma might seem imperative in this regard, I do not believe it essential. I am concern that by the time a candidate comes to position to run for PotUS, he/she would have come to be aware of his/her own charisma. And given the egotistical nature of most would-be-leader, it would be too easy to rely on charisma rather than building the essential of having good judgment. In addition, charisma feeds the ego in such a way as to detract from true resolve.

More important are having the common perspective, be an effective communicator, and being able to inspire. In a democracy any leader acts for his/her constituents. Thus it is essential to be able to intimately understand the hopes and concerns of the average citizen regarding any challenges. This requires having a common perspective. Only then can a leader be able to effectively communicate the significance of any challenge, how failure to address the challenge would affect each person, and what will be required to succeed against the challenge. Even so the audience will still weight the cost of failure vs. the cost of action. The people can and need to be rallied to act. While fear of failure can certainly be a motivator, fear is only effective when immediate danger is nigh. By then, the cost of action would be even greater. But if the danger is far, then action can only be raised when a leader can inspire action. Note I do believe that there is a difference between a leader being inspirational and being able to inspire. To me, being inspirational suggests either an innate characteristic or a quality ascribed to the person by followers. Being able to inspire to me suggests an ability with words and or action that can motivate both followers and bystanders alike. It is the bystander more so than the followers that are in most need of motivation and inspiration toward action.

These are thus the factors I consider essential for anyone asking to be my leader.
Good judgment with intelligence, insight and wisdom.
Firm resolve with confidence and faith of conviction, along with grace of responsibility.
Persuasiveness with the common perspective, effective communication, and being able to inspire.

I set this post up in order to allow me a “from the ground up” process of evaluating current and future candidates for PotUS. I will next post about global issues I expect to challenge the President and their priority.



John Galt during Obama's reign?

Dr. Helen broach the idea of Going John Galt. I think it is a tremendous idea that I will have to mull over for a while.
Here is the start of her post but please read it all and comment at her site.
Do you ever wonder after dealing with all that is going on with the economy and the upcoming election if it's getting to be time to "go John Galt." For those of you who have never read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, the basic theme is that John Galt and his allies take actions that include withdrawing their talents, 'stopping the motor of the world', and leading the 'strikers' (those who refuse to be exploited) against the 'looters' (the exploiters, backed by the government).

Perhaps the partisian politics we are dealing with now is really just a struggle between those of us who believe in productivity, personal responsibility, and keeping government interference to a minimum, and those who believe in the socialistic policies of taking from others, using the government as a watchdog, and rewarding those who overspend, underwork, or are just plain unproductive.

My response at her site:
The goal is not to withdraw from the US national politic or emigrate away. The goal is to reposition for a future win. I suggest moving to red states that voted for Obama. Being a red state it would be more palatable to live in than a blue state. Then we work to strengthen the local politics favorably, then the state politics. By being in a battle ground state we position ourselves for the next election.

For me, it will be either Palin/Steele or Palin/Jindal.

ACORN & Fraud

I think it is astounding that the first 2100 voter registration of 5000 submitted by ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) were all fraudulent. There isn't even an attempt to subtly defraud the American voters! Well I guess the subtlety is Obama's own campaign for PotUS.

Live blogging at Palin rally in Richmond VA

9:45a. Among the first in line for a 2p rally. Bought a t-shirt and a cap.
11:00a. Front at the rails and will have great view.
12:00. Crowd is building and is upbeat.
12:36. Cannot tell how big the crowd is but it intermittently errupt into cheers. Not many minorities here though. They need to do more to explain to minorities why they would be better with the Republicans.
13:36. Supposedly the crowd is at maximum allowed and they are turning away people. Not sure how big the crowd is. Thousands?
14:00. Still no Sarah at listed start time.
14:11. Kilgore introduces the flags.
He reads an opening prayer.
14:16. Kilgore warms the crowd. Palin seems to get the loudest cheers.
14:22. Congressman Littman on stage; Straight talkxpress arrives
14:24. Senator candidate Gilmore takes the stage. "Who do you trust? McCain Palin Gilmore!"
14:36. Palin arrives to raucus cheers.
14:41. Hank William Jr sings the anthem.
15:00. Paying attention to her speech delivery and crowd responds enthusiastically!
15:06. Her comments on society need to protect the most vulnerable are moving.
15:26. Done now. Sarah signed my cap!

She emphasized the positives rather than attacked Obama has she had been. I wonder if this is the campaign's response to the negative reports of negativity at the rallies. If this is the case McCain is paying too much attention to what the MSM is saying and not enough attention to what he should be saying.

Update: the crowd was estimated at 20-25,000.

Here are my pictures.

Obama's tax cut for 95%

Read how he means it in Obama's 95% Illusion in today's WSJ.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.


Troopergate findings

Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

Finding Number Three
Harbor Adjustment Service of Anchorage, and its owner Ms. Murleen Wilkes, handled Trooper Michael Wooten's workers' compensation claim property and in the normal course of business like any other claim processed by Harbor Adjustment Service and Ms. Wilkes. Further, Trooper Wooten received all the workers' compensation benefits to which he was entitled.

Finding Number Four
The Attorney General's office has failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for infomration about the case in the form of emails.

I am perfectly satisfied with this. She acted within the bounds of her office out of personal concerns in order to limit the potential harm she felt at risk from Trooper Wooten if he was to continue to function as a police officer.
Download full report here.

08 Presidential Election & the Credit Crash

The popular thought is that the current economic crisis helps Obama. I am less certain that this is true. Yes a down turn in the economy favors Obama as the agent of change. However, a sever economic down turn I believe may actually help McCain. Why? Lets look at Obama's economic program. Firstly it is about more government oversight and regulation. I think the average vote realize this doesn't mean squat when businesses are failing. Secondly the mathemagic tax cut for 95% americans also become meaningless if there aren't jobs for them to earn income for tax cuts. Thirdly, while yet to be announced, should Obama propose some kind of government mass employment projects, there just isn't enough tax revenue from this, especially after the bailout and with a bad economy.

Things McCain may have in his favor with the credit crisis are as follows. Firstly, using the bailout funds to directly refinance homebuyers mortgages will make it easier for them to keep their home. I cannot stress enough the safe haven perception of having a secure home when the world appears to be falling down around you. And his proposal could be easily tweaked to allow homeowners a forbearance should they become unemployed. This really isn't disimmilar to student education loans so lets not worry too much about socialism just yet. Secondly, McCain's healthcare plans involve giving individuals tax safe allowances to purchase medical coverage regardless of whther they have a job or not. Again this becomes more flexible in a period of severe economic downturn. In addition, I think that McCain's tax plans are much more friendly to small business that may have been permissive with Obama's tax plans and McCain will become much more appealing.

Currently polls have Obama's lead shrinking as the economy worsens, and McCain's favorable ratings equivalent to that of Obama. I interpret this as those polled want a better economy but are not certain that Obama will deliver. I also take it to mean they don't blame McCain himself for the economic crisis which means he still has a chance to convince voters he can do better than Obama. Also considering that approval rating for Congress is substantially less than of Bush linking McCain as Bush 3rd term gets weaker and weaker. Especially whether right or not, Bush is actually doing something to help stop the hemorrhage in the economy. Thus the severe economic downturn may turn voters back to the more business friendly economic proposals of McCain.


08 President Debate #2

Thoughts as the debate progress (in no particular order):

1. Who over told McCain to win a debate by predicating on his achievement as a bipartisan is an idiot. Most Americans are sick and tired of Congress, of both political parties. To say that he is working with both parties means he is doubling down with losers. He should instead be saying that he has been consistently frustrated in working to make Congress work!

2. McCain should have definitely called out Obama on the mathematical improbability of cutting taxes for 95% of American. When Obama respond with cuts for 95% of working Americans, McCain should declare that Obama is not telling the American public everything. What else isn't he telling?

3. Make it clear that Bush is not running for president in 08. Make it clear by clear examples of when McCain has gone against Bush!

4. Is it worth the airtime to keep thanking the questioner for their question? He should be answering the question promptly. And the "my friends" being repeated over and over again aggravates me.

5. McCain should have parallel our abandonment of Afghanistan mujaharddins in the 80s ultimately led to 911 to Obama's proposed abandonment of a nascent democratic Iraq would embolden the islamofascists like never seen befor.

6. I wish both candidates would tone down their rhetorics and just simply answer the question. For example, if one of our ally is attack, we must absolutely mobilize to support our ally and counter attack our shared enemy.

7. McCain finally answer the question directly about not knowing the challenges of the future, as well has how he would face that challenge based on his record of selfless service.

8. The open ended question format made it too easy for both candidates to repeat their campaign stump speeches. They should have been asked simple "yes or no" questions. Maybe a game-show format where both candidates answer simultaneously using podium buttons, then revealing their answers visually. Allow them time to explain their answer only if they responded differently from each other.

9. I think part of McCain's problem is that he was trying too hard to get his message out (media bias?) rather than listening to what Obama had to say then countering it.

Overall, nothing new, nothing novel, nothing to see or hear from this debate. Move along, move along.

Democratic Party & the poor

My first political eye opener was about 13 years ago. I was in an Eastern city taxi cab when I started a conversation with the driver. What he told me forever changed how I view the political system and voters. His belief was that welfare result, if not its intention, was to keep poor people down as virtual slaves. How? By making people dependent on another (in this case the government) you take away their pride and integrity as independent souls. And in doing so subvert their future to make them even more dependent by making it more lucrative to be on welfare than to work for minimum wage.
After thinking on that for sometimes, I came to agree that it was better to be poor and independent than to be dependent on anyone else for your livelihood. I am not sure why this wasn't more obvious to me and everybody. When we are old enough to leave our parents house, we do so to make something of ourselves, even if things may not be as easy as when we lived at home. And ultimately, what is the gap between economic dependency and slavery other than ownership?
While I am not suggesting that the Democratic party perpetuate a welfare state intentionally to keep the poor and disenfranchised beholden to the Democratic party politically, the result never the less remain just that. The poor and disenfranchised remain a core voting block for the Democratic party.
Yesterday I chanced across this video at the Anchoress which in essence voice a similar cry against dependency.


2008 Presidential Election Polls

As you all know, all the nation polls currently have Obama ahead of McCain with a statistically significant lead. This has causes a certain amount of anxiety for me because i truly believe that Obama is the wrong person to be our president. Today i found this post at Strata Sphere that is giving me a glimmer of reason to think the polls may be wrong. Please read it all.

The gist is that voters do not vote based on party identification (For which the polls are weighted for) but that voters vote based on ideology. That political party and ideology are not one and the same. Thus the polls are using the wrong measures to correct for sampling errors.

Fannie & Fredie


Palin: the Kwisatz Haderach

This post from Varifrank made me laugh
The Fremen have awakened!

"And how can this be? For (s)he is the Kwisatz Haderach!" From Frank Herberts' Dune.

Related: OMG! OMG! I Saw Sarah Palin!


VP Debate: Sarah Palin Rocked

She is confident, knowledgeable, and personable.
With her performance not only did she outperform Biden, she has also fairly effectively neutralized many critics of her ability.

BTW: When she talks Palin rather than talks McCain, I perk up to listen.

Peggy Noonan: "She killed"

More on Palin's accomplisments.

and a break down of Biden's "superior command of the facts" on the Constitution or just outright 14 lies
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

"Bidenisms" now up to 22!

hate to give him a whole post but it is heading that way.