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.
20081016
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.
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"
"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.
20081015
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.
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.
20081014
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.
* 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.
20081013
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.
My response at her site:
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!
Afterthoughts:
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.
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!
Afterthoughts:
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.
20081010
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
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.
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.
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.
20081007
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.
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.
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.
20081006
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.
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.
20081005
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!
20081002
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)