Thank You, Rabbi!

WE ALL ARE MORMONS....by Rabbi Shifren

We are living in an era of insanity! Witness the latest attempt to remake the nature of our country, founded and established on certain principles that have been the envy of the entire world. The latest assault on our country and its values comes in the form of vicious and criminal violence against the Mormon church in Westwood, California

Interesting how the selective self-righteous indignation on the part of the radical Gay activists is played out here: they bewail the blow to freedom and justice! But I thought we just had elections, where the majority of Californians expressed their views in a free and open manner. Are we not a nation of laws? Dare we relive the McCarthy era, where Americans were harassed and threatened with the loss of their jobs for believing in a certain way? If the Gay radicals should have their way, untold numbers of Americans would live under the threat of the Gay-Lesbian "thought police," where individuals that reject the Gay lifestyle would be sought out and have sanctions brought against them.

It's bad enough for those working in the entertainment industry here in Los Angeles, where a fog of political correctness and a bending over backwards to accommodate, even promote Gay lifestyle is in full gear. Let none dare say that this type of activity is anathema to our country, our morality, and the debauchery of our young people.

Let it be stated unequivocally: The radical Gay attack on the Mormons is the shot over the bow against the United States of America. There was a time when what a man did in his bedroom was sanctified between himself and G-d. Now we are being served an "in-your-face" smorgasbord of smut and licentiousness as being between people who only "want their civil rights."

Hogwash! We are dealing with the equivalent of a moral takeover of the country that has as its bedrock a belief in G-d and His promise for humanity. They don't want civil rights! What they desire is quasi Gay/Lesbian hegemony, where a huge "bookburning," reminiscent of the Nazis, will purge any remnants of the "Christian, White, mainstream America" that has given ALL AMERICANS the most profound scope of freedom, liberty, and justice that Mankind has yet to experience.

People have perhaps wondered: why the Mormons? Answer: they are a small, yet vocal Christian minority. They have been selected by the mobs as vulnerable, a group that might not have such massive support among America's Christians.

We who are friends of the Mormons, their patriotism, their family values, will not falter in our continued support of these dear Americans. Let us recall the Christian minister Niemoller, whose admonition during those dark years of Nazi Germany moved us to our core:

"When they came for the gypsies, I said nothing, because I wasn't a gypsy. When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing, because I wasn't a homosexual. When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a Catholic......then they came for me, and there was no one left to defend me."

My fellow Americans, in the coming battle for the heart and soul of America and everything we cherish, may this call to arms be the mantra of every concerned patriot:

"WE ALL ARE MORMONS!"

Here's the link to the original.

As I've Been Saying...

From Mark Steyn recently: "The president-elect’s so-called tax cut,” Mark wrote soon after the election, “will absolve 48 percent of Americans from paying any federal tax at all. Just under half the population will be on the dole. By 2012 it will be more than half. This will be an electorate where the majority will be able to vote itself more lollipops from the minority still dumb enough to prioritize self-reliance, dynamism and innovation over the cocoon of the nanny state….That will be the death of the American idea.”

Romney's Good Sense

Good strong sense made in this op-ed article by my still-favorite former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, about the dangers of a Washington bailout of Detroit's auto makers.  A good read. 

Support for Mormon Efforts Supporting Prop 8 from Fellow Christians

I haven't chronicled it here as I should have, but the opponents of Prop 8 (at least many of them) have been showing their true colors since the passage of the amendment in heaping abuse upon Mormons collectively and individually for efforts supporting the passage of 8.  Supposedly, tolerance and equality were the principled basis for opposition to 8.  Well.  Apparently it only applies in one direction.  

My inclination is to take it; certainly I'm not apologetic for taking what I consider a principled stand that benefits our society.  Of course, it's easy for me to talk since I haven't had to put up personally with the kinds of things some of my California friends have.  

In any case, this is a worthwhile and short read: follow the link here.  These and other supportive comments are much appreciated.  

Offer to Peasants?

We will appreciate the wonders of presidential transition, but simultaneously we still need to keep our eye on the political ball...perhaps know more than ever.  Does this cartoon nail it? 

Marriage Defended

The pro-marriage voting in Florida and Arizona appears to have been solid, and it appears Prop 8 in California is likely to pass though we're awaiting final word. 

This, to me, is very, very good news.  

Here is a terrific statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the passage of Proposition 8.

President Obama

We're still awaiting final numbers, but it's official that Barack Obama will be our next President.

More to come, but congratulations to him.  I want him to do well for our nation.  We will debate policy going forward...plenty of time for that.  

First in Line!

OK I know it's bragging, it's just it's never happened to me before! I was the first person in my district to vote today! 'Course I had to show up at 6 am and they put me to work setting up signs. It was crazy, though. By 7 when the polls opened there was a line snaking back and forth across the entire school gym and then extending outside. And this even though supposedly almost a third of registered voters in Utah have already voted with early and absentee/mail-in voting! Wow.

It'll be an interesting day regardless. But let nothing keep you from voting...no matter what it takes.

Let's All Agree to Ignore the Always Faulty Exit Polls

From NRO: "So remember: In about 15 hours or so the rumors and leaks are going to start – It’s an Obama landslide! Exit polls show him winning North Carolina by 15 points! In Vermont, McCain will be the first major party candidate not to break into double digits…

It’s all rubbish. Exit polls skew Dem. In 2004, they overstated Kerry’s support by 5.5 points. Which doesn’t sound a lot. But, given that there were only ten states where the margin of victory was less than 5%, that was enough to make Kerry briefly appear the winner. The point of all the afternoon leakage is to depress turnout in the Florida panhandle and points west. Don’t fall for it."

Doesn't matter how it turns out, when was the last time the early exit polls really told us anything useful? Just vote.

Go Prop 8!

Go Prop 8!

Click on this link: it'll warm your heart (if you're in favor of defending traditional marriage and family, that is!)  ;-)

Addendum: some of you can't link direct to YouTube so I direct embedded it above...

Now It's All About Turnout

The arguments have been made (not that we won't have a final bit of back-and-forth), and now it's up to us.  It's primarily a matter of whose supporters turn out to vote.

My philosophy is this: I can't worry about getting all McCain's supporters to the polls.  The only thing I can do is make sure I get to the polls, plus encourage my friends and family to do the same.

We will see how this whole thing shakes out.  If we've learned anything in recent elections, it's not to pre-judge what will happen.  Just do your part and let it play out.  

That said, here's your reminder must-read article for today on the dangers in Obama's tax and spend plans.  

Memo from the McCain Campaign

Interesting to read and see where McCain's focus is.  Read it here.  If you can do anything to help in Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and though they didn't mention them by name, Florida and North Carolina (and I'll add my own little list of Montana, Georgia, Minnesota, Wisconsin)...please do so tomorrow.  And again...everybody vote! 

Your Must Read Article of the Day

Click on link here. By Victor Davis Hanson.

Sample: "We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.

Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here [are] four areas of national interest that [have been] largely ignored." 

Dear Mr. Obama: Iraqi Vet to Obama

Watch; spread the word.

Polls Show Narrowing Race

It's down to the wire, but McCain has been closing the gap. Everybody be sure to vote.

Also, watch this video as Palin hits Obama back...wink, wink...good stuff!

And, you perhaps heard Obama was only going to raise taxes for incomes over $250,000, then it changed to $200,000 then $150,000, and some Democrats have suggested perhaps $120,000 would be more like it.  Sounds like a trend.  

Communism vs. Sharing - Believe It or Not There's a Difference!

From John Hood on NRO:

"Obama threw off a humorous line about John McCain's accusation that the Obama tax plan is redistributionist: "McCain has “called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,” Obama said. “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

Ha ha.

Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it."

Here's the link to the post.

An Analysis of the Infomercial from the AP

By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are - beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

More here.

And here's NRO's Mark Hemingway on his response to the infomercial. 

Excerpt: "the last thing that should be driving America's voting habits is a half-hour of Manipulative Portraits of Downtrodden Victims of Shadowy Governmental Forces.  Whatever our problems are right now, America is not one big breadline."  Amen. 

Creepy

Is anybody but me pretty much creeped out by the idea of Obama's face on all the major TV networks at the same time tonight for an uninterrupted half hour? As John McCain said today, this big infomercial is "being paid for by Obama's broken promises," reminding us that Obama promised to accept public campaign financing, until he broke that promise.

I, for one, will refuse to watch tonight's Obama infomercial on principle. Besides, does anyone seriously think we're going to learn anything from or about him tonight that we don't already know and haven't heard a million times already?

Closing the Gap

Polls in the past 2-3 days overall show a narrowing of the relatively small Obama lead. This is most certainly not over! Polls that showed Bush down 3% 4 years ago were off 5% as he won by 2%. If that "rule of thumb" holds now, it's pretty much a dead heat.

Every vote will count. Do what you can both personally and spreading the word. Let's go win this thing people!

Obama's Friends of the Press

What ever happened to the idea that the press are not "friends" of politicians, but that they have an objective job to do in presenting facts and information, both positive and negative, about those politicians?  No matter who wins, a partisan press is no friend of the public.  

You should read this Boston Herald article on the death of objective journalism. Here are a few excerpts:

"A new study by the Pew Research Center found that, while 71 percent of Obama’s recent media coverage has been “positive” or “neutral,” almost 60 percent of McCain’s coverage over the same period has been “decidedly negative."  And how much positive coverage did the media give McCain? Fourteen percent.

The American people have figured this out.

“By a margin of 70 percent to 9 percent,” another Pew study reported, “Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4.”  The percentage of Americans who rate reporters as objective and not favoring either candidate? Eight percent. 

My friends in the Partisan Press, your reputation has now fallen lower than both President Bush (25 percent) and the Democratic Congress (18 percent). Journalistic integrity now ranks along side communicable diseases and nuclear mishaps."

What Goes Around, Comes Around

Read this brutal but I think on-target article about what tools of government Obama may use to redistribute the wealth of Americans.

Income Redistribution

No wonder Obama wants to avoid having us believe the reality that his tax proposals represent income redistribution, taking from some, giving to others.  According to one Gallup poll, Americans oppose this in principle, 84% to 13%.  If you don't want this to happen, you may want to consider this in your decision on whom to vote for.  

Here are some of Obama's own words about his views on using the power of the federal government to redistribute income from one group to another, from a radio interview in 2001: “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf...And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change.” 

If you believe in constitutional government, and that constitutions mean what they say, this should send a very cold shiver down your spine...

Whatever Else: You Must Vote!

Ignore media pundits, ignore predictions, ignore polls.  I don't care what you think will or won't happen come next Tuesday, just make sure you do your part.  Get to the polls...early voting if you can, Election Day if not.  Those of us who have made some effort to understand the issues and the candidates I believe have a special duty to give our input via our vote, then let the pieces fall where they may.

Addendum: if you haven't seen this catholicvote.com video, it's worth viewing if you are pro-life, Catholic or not!

Tax Policy Explanation

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid d $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

Obama's Connection with the Radical Left

As with most human beings, coming to any real understanding of the meaning of all Obama's associations is very complex at best.  That said, I'll tell you how I interpret Obama's numerous ties to the far and radical left.  Clearly these various ties to individuals and organizations from Bill Ayers to Rev. Wright to ACORN and the New Party were part of an environment he chose to become a part of, and also was clearly the source of his early political career and support.  Chicago and its politics are drenched in liberalism.  What's harder to access is what Obama really deep down believes - I believe he has made himself quite opaque in this regard.  We know what he says, and that's about it.  We have his words, but little if any past specific action to prove them.  

Sure if he were elected I would hope for the best.  But the question we have before us is the estimation of what we believe either of the two candidates would do if elected.  Obama's rise from the radical left pond of Chicago politics and his voting record to date both in the Illinois senate and the U.S. Senate, are not a source of comfort to me.  

Read this for more information about Obama's membership in the "New Party." 

Need Donations to Support Prop 8 Now!

Please read here...and follow this link where you can donate to the pro-marriage cause. It's down to the wire and the outcome will affect all of us.

Frightful!

The Topic We've Forgot

You should read this article about vet from Iraq and his support of and interaction with John McCain.  For him and others, it's very personal, whether or not the rest of us seem to forget...

Scott Card Nails It: The Death of Media Integrity

Well worth the read.

How High Are the Stakes in California?

You wanna know how high the stakes are as seen by the "other side" in the Proposition 8 battle?  

Sad but true...post on the liberal Daily Kos site targeting Mormons who donate to help pass the pro-marriage Prop. 8.  

Please support Prop. 8 in any way you are able.  See link to the right.  Also check this link: latest poll has Prop. 8 passage barely in the lead.  

P.S. On another social issue, abortion, this is an interesting and powerful read from a Catholic bishop in St. Louis.

Proposing a New Boston Tea Party

Unfortunately it's unlikely to be Bostonians who will lead this charge in the same fight enjoined against British tyrants back in the days of the Revolution.  

Consider that 40% of Americans no longer pay federal income tax, and yet Obama wants to increase that number who no longer pay federal income tax, and yet increase tax rates on those individuals and small business owners making over $250K per year (that's the currently stated "line" proposed anyhow).  

Does this not sound like we are on the verge of having a minority taxed without adequate representation?  The taxes taken from the minority will be used at the discretion of the majority, including giving direct cash to the majority from those tax monies.  

Is this going to make America stronger, or weaker?  I wonder what John Adams would think about all this? 

Here is a post on this from NRO: "I actually think it's exactly the form of tyranny the Founders feared. As an increasingly sizable majority pays no taxes, the minority's representation becomes ever more illusory. The minority will be taxed, its property rights will be eroded, and it will have no meaningful say in the matter. A tyrant is a tyrant, whether he's a king or a block-voting majority of dependents. As Obama and his ACORN friends used to say when he was a community organizer signing up half of Chicago, "It's a power thing."

Hatred in American Politics

As much as we debate our positions and values in these political campaigns, it seems bizarre to me when real hatred enters into it.  It's scary to see.  This post also suggests that the liberal left sees this election as a "revolution" in a real sense.  I don't know.  Jay N. certainly is more connected politically than I'll ever be, so maybe he sees things I don't.  I hope he's wrong regardless of the outcome of the election.  

Also, speaking of an imbalanced and unkind approach to politics, perhaps you've heard something about the spot-on letter sent to the New York Times from Cindy McCain's lawyer after they spent investigative resources trying chasing after information about Cindy having used drugs in high school.  Here's a bit from the letter that makes some excellent points: 

"It is worth noting that you have not employed your investigative assets looking into Michelle Obama. You have not tried to find Barack Obama’s drug dealer that he wrote about in his book, Dreams of My Father. Nor have you interviewed his poor relatives in Kenya and determined why Barack Obama has not rescued them. Thus, there is a terrific lack of balance here.

I suggest to you that none of these subjects on either side are worthy of the energy and resources of The New York Times. They are cruel hit pieces designed to injure people that only the worst rag would investigate and publish. I know you and your colleagues are always preaching about raising the level of civil discourse in our political campaigns. I think taking some your own medicine is in order here."

Looking to Government for Solutions?

From Mark Steyn about the criticisms of Palin based on her being a small town mayor: "A township that digs its own wells and plows its own roads is less susceptible to the beguiling notion that everything necessary in life is a mysterious "government service" to be provided by faceless bureaucrats far away." 

Addendum: Also of note, Palin continues to draw huge crowds everywhere she goes...even in northeastern states where the grip of liberalism is strong.  As I talk to people and it's interesting that while most people in my circles love her, there is a group of people who feel she's "not good enough."  I wonder how those people would have responded in the day to Harry Truman, or Abraham Lincoln, or even Ronald Reagan, who were all in their way considered "contry bumpkins" or "dim bulbs" or "common" (in the negative sense), and yet were great presidents.  

Joe the Plumber vs. Obama

From Jonathan Adler today: "The press seems obsessed with plumbing the background of "Joe the Plumber." Some media outlets have even done extensive reports on his alleged tax problems. Yet, as Jim Lindgren notes, the press did not bat an eye at when Barack Obama's tax returns showed what appears to be a clear violation of Illinois ethics law. Specifically, Obama reported significant income from "speaking fees" on his 2000 and 2002 tax returns, even though, as a state legislator, he was barred from receiving honoraria and speaking fees at the time. I would think this would be more significant than whether Joe What's-his-name has a tax lien, but then I'm not a professional journalist."

Here's a review about Joe.  It also makes the point that he only claimed that he is working to buy the plumbing business he currently works for, and which has on income of around $250-$270K.  In other words, the key smears on him from Obama liberals are inaccurate.  

Also, from an e-mail from our friend Jeremy Kidd by way of explanation of Joe's situation: "My understanding of the license issue is that his boss has a plumbing license, and so he doesn't need one, because he isn't operating as an independent plumber. If he buys the business, then he would need to make sure that the license is current, but the current owner takes care of that, so the issue of the license would appear to be pure smear. As far as his taxes, I actually know a lot of people who have had tax liens against them at one point or another. It usually means that you were late in paying, but that you arranged with the IRS to repay. When that happens, they issue a tax lien until you pay in full. If he were trying to avoid paying taxes, he would be in court right now (trust me, we get a lot of those types of cases through the courtroom where I work). So, the tax lien is almost assuredly blown out of proportion."

European-Style Socialist Tax Policies

From the AP today: "CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Saturday accused Democratic rival Barack Obama of favoring a socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits McCain says would merely shuffle wealth rather than creating it.
"At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives," McCain said in a radio address. "They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway."

It also appears there is evidence that Obama was at a point about 10 years ago a member of what's called the "New Party" which is a socialist group of Democrats.  Check out the evidence here.  

Truth about Obama's "Tax Cuts"

I didn't know this but it makes sense and seems VERY pertinent...

From NRO's Rich Lowery: "One thing: the 95% number is fundamentally dishonest because I’m pretty sure it measures against the CBO baseline – which assumes all of the ’01 and ’03 tax cuts expire in 2010. Politically, that’s nonsense. But it allows Obama to count extending the politically popular Bush tax laws as an “Obama tax cut.” Compared to what people actually pay (what Republicans at the House Ways and Means Committee call the “reality baseline”), there isn’t actually a tax cut. Put it this way: currently families get a $1,000 per child tax credit. Now, the CBO baseline assumes that credit drops to $500 per child in 2011. So if the Obama Administration keeps the credit at $1,000 – which means the family pays the same as they always have – it counts as a “tax cut.” I know you understand all this, but it drives me batty how intellectually dishonest the mainstream media has been in covering the tax issue in this election."

Who Won?

I don't know who "won" the 3rd debate between McCain and Obama, but I do know that my son Noah's 4th grade Lehi football team won the "Lehi Bowl" tonight 28-20.  

I think McCain's biggest plus was stating clearly that he is not George Bush and if Obama wanted to run against Bush he should have run 4 years ago.  

I think Obama's biggest plus is that he doesn't make mistakes and has a reassuring demeanor.  

More to come on all this...

Addendum: a brief reminder that in the VP debate, it turns out Palin was the one who was by far the most correct on her facts, including the constitutional responsibilities of the vice president...check out this link.

The Call from NRO's K-Lo

Standing Athwart the Senate, Yelling Stop!
We have three weeks. Act like it matters.

Got 'Em Right Where We Want 'Em

From the LA Times: "Today, at a rally in Virginia, McCain sized up the state of the race, freely acknowledged being behind in the polls, anointed Barack Obama as a front-runner who is "measuring the drapes" at the White House -- and eagerly proclaimed, "My friends, we've got them right where we want them." 

McCain predicted several months ago he would be behind but that he would catch up 48 hours before the general election.  Let's see how this plays out, but anything is possible.   Just do your part and we shall see.  

What are the Real "Two Americas"

Quoted at NRO, from David Warren: "In the United States, especially in the present election, we get glimpses of two political solitudes that have been created not by any plausible socio-economic division within society, nor by any deep division between different ethnic tribes...The nation is divided, roughly half-and-half, between people who instinctively resent the Nanny State, and those who instinctively long for its ministrations. And every kind of specious racial, economic, cultural and class division has been thrown into the mix to add to its toxicity.

He regards these as "two basically irreconcilable views of reality"...Only in America are they so equally balanced. Elsewhere in the West, the true believers in the Nanny State have long since prevailed."

Me: so do we succumb as the rest of the world has...or do we fight on?  

Magician Obama - Ouch

Harsh but truth underlies...read this one...

Yes On Prop-8

California's Proposition 8 defending traditional marriage needs support.  It will affect all of us and our society.  Click here to see this web site and you can donate in support of the cause...

And click here to see a recent LA Times article on the fundraising of both sides in this battle.  

Socialism in America?

Wow...I'm seeing a lot of stuff popping up on conservative blogs since yesterday...anger and frustration about the apparent advance of socialism in America as represented by Barack Obama and the Pelosi/Reid/Rangle Democrats. 

Check this out on Obama as a former socialist party member.  I'm seriously surprised we haven't heard about this before now.  Seems important. 

Krauthammer on Obama's associations and how they are instructive. 

And this a youtube video from a McCain rally as an audience member voices this feeling (I wouldn't put things quite the way this guy does, but I can feel a response like the audience does):

And finally, although a person having acquaintance with someone does not mean the two agree with each other, this whole bit about Obama's leftist radical friends and acquaintances does concern me in some respects.  I ran across this on a conservative blog.  His key point is made this way: "None of these facts, by itself, tells you that much about Barack Obama. A reasonable person should, however, be able to look at this motley crew of left-wing communists and America-haters, realize that Barack Obama's rolodex is a veritable Who's Who of American Socialism, be very, very disturbed by that fact and ask some very probing questions about WHO Barack Obama is, WHAT he believes, and WHY this gang of radical America-haters considers Barack Obama such a good friend."

Another Kind of Health Care Reform?

This really does give you something to think about.  Check this out.

I still feel there are good reform ideas we should look to enact, but this may be the very best place to start.

Update on Pro-Marriage Prop. 8 in California

Please read these and stay informed on this everyone...if you care about defending traditional marriage and family please make this your issue! 

Update on supporting Prop 8

Overview of Prop 8

Initial Debate #2 Thoughts

I've already heard several different takes on this debate, but for me, I would give McCain an B plus grade, and Obama a B minus.  Both good, but I'll explain where the differences were for me.  

(1) I think that although this debate was more muted than it could have been, McCain was able to keep pressing Obama on a number of points, and seemed on the offensive to me in terms of energy level and challenges to his opponent's policies and record more than Obama did in return.  Obama several times seemed to want to stray from the debate rules to respond, again, more defensive in handling the challenges McCain was laying out. 

(2) Obviously the financial crisis remained the #1 topic, and although Obama continues to try to paint McCain with the broad brush of deregulation (which by the way, largely misses the point, since the companies at the heart of this mess were already highly regulated by law - just not effectively in practice by those in charge), McCain was able to show that specifically in this area, he was arguing in 2006 for more regulation of Fannie and Freddie.  And in general, McCain seemed steady on the financial/economic front.  But more to the point for McCain, he did a pretty good job of reminding people of the very large size of the increased spending and increased taxes to cover the increased spending, that Obama is proposing.  

(3) McCain does clearly seem to me more seasoned and experienced and comfortable with the foreign policy issues past, present, and potential future. 

The above would be reasons I felt McCain did somewhat better overall.  These of course do not represent the entire debate or points well made by Obama.  I'll try to come up with a more thorough look at the points made by both in the next day or two.  

Addendum: I need to add a couple of complaints about points that I think McCain still fails to make strongly enough.  First (and Palin did a better job of hammering this home in her debate), the fact that in the current economy, a large increase in taxes on businesses already under pressure will most surely cause significant large layoffs by those businesses who have to make the bottom line work and who will be writing large additional checks to the government that increases their operating costs.  The second, which I don't think McCain or Palin have made strongly enough, is the point that a tax on businesses is ultimately a tax on the people.  Businesses can only handle the additional costs of taxes paid to the government in two ways: cut costs (primarily lay people off), or charge higher prices for their products, which higher prices are paid by us, the consumers.  I still say Fred Thompson said it best..."they say these tax increases won't affect you or your family, just businesses.  So, unless you own a business or work for a business, or buy something  from a business, then this won't affect you!"  Obama and the Democrats have not given a good response to these charges that I've seen. 

And a couple of commentary posts:

From NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez:
"I still have the fight in me. You know why? Tuesday night: What Barack Obama said about 9/11 encapsulated it for me. As Gov. Palin might put it: He just doesn't get it. "A lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11." Were there five-year-olds in the room there I missed? We all remember, Senator. And tragedy? Maybe we should elect the head of the Red Cross commander-in-chief." 

From NRO's Rich Lowery:
"[Obama is] a kind of genius at appearing plausible. If the Nobel committee had a prize for appearing plausible, he'd win it every time."

From me: 

I agree with K-Lo that too often the tone I hear Obama take with regard to 9/11 and Iraq is somewhat trivializing, and that disheartens me greatly.  I agree with Lowery's assessment of Obama, and would ask: is that really what we want?  Someone 'plausible?'  How about someone with wisdom and experience instead?  What disturbs me is the thought that Americans, in a present mood of fear and uncertainty, will rush into the open arms of big-government liberalism without thought of the long-term future consequences.  Let's think, people!

A Common Sense Explanation of McCain's Health Plan

Follow this link...it's the best explanation I've seen yet of the advantages of McCain's health care plan.  

Never Fear - At Least Not Too Much!

For those of you who, like me, feel great concern about Obama's liberalism and the possibility (probability?) that he may win, I have a couple of thoughts.

First is that we remember than we have been through phases with liberal presidents before (it would be hard to imagine us being in any worse spot than under LBJ or Jimmy Carter), and we can make it again.  Yes, it's possible, like under LBJ, that liberal programs could be passed that seem impossible to kill moving forward, and that is one of my greatest fears.

But, there are lots of ways for us to work against liberal proposals even if Obama wins.  Step one is to work now and going forward on getting more conservatives elected to help block these.  Another is to stay active and involved...don't give in no matter what happens in November.  

Also, even though this financial crisis is no fun, it could prove a blessing in disguise.  It will be difficult, if not impossible for the kinds of massive tax increases and spending increases Obama proposes to occur if the economy is struggling and the national debt is rising dramatically.  

All this said, I'm most certainly not willing to "throw in the towel" before Election Day.  As Churchill said: "Never, never, never give up!"  I've said before and I'll say again that this is not my favorite election in terms of the choice between the two major candidates, but between the two, I'll choose the more conservative one.  And if I don't love McCain, I do like him, and that's something.  The distance between he and Obama in the polls is still quite small--there's no question that McCain can still win--but it will be a battle day by day.  

And if Obama does win, I'll enjoy the historic aspect in any case, but then go to work against his liberal policy proposals.  

My Biggest Concerns About the Candidates

Since we are within a month of the election, let me state my biggest concerns about the candidates.

John McCain

While I do not agree at all with the major Obama talking point that McCain is "erratic" or "out of touch" (I think we should just go ahead and toss those words in the garbage can where we're talking about McCain), I do think that we've seen a tendency for early strong/dramatic/symbolic statements and action from McCain in response to events.  This is not necessarily all bad, and certainly does not represent his entire response to situations, but has potential downside as well as upside, I think.  I think his initial response to the financial crisis was mostly fine...declare that it is a very important item to deal with, and move to show he is involved...it also demonstrated that the issue facing the nation was more important to him that the routines of the moment, including the debate.  However, in this case there were aspects he could not control, including Obama's response as well as the Congress' response, and his action seemed to raise expectations such that when he could not bring Obama and the Congress around to his point precisely, he had to back off and it ended up not increasing confidence as he had intended.  Now, as President he would certainly have more ability to control/influence, but it is still hardly absolute and therefore this tendency of his could be problematic in some cases.  

Barack Obama

My biggest concerns about Obama are very straightforward:

(1) His track record is very liberal.  Talk is one thing, actions are another.  I don't see actions in his past that say "centrist," only actions that say "liberal."  And for many reasons, which we should get into sometime soon, I think many of the deepest problems in our society today stem from liberal/secular philosophy and policies.  

(2) I still have not heard any effective claim from the pro-Obama camp that he has accomplished much of stand-out significance in his life beyond promoting himself.  You can claim that he has run a good presidential campaign, and that's true...but isn't that just promoting yourself by other means?  Again, speaking of experience and accomplishments, it is pretty stunning how little Obama has to show from his life thus far.  The last President to have had such limited experience and accomplishment before becoming President?  Jimmy Carter.  And a close second?  George Bush (junior).  So no matter what party affiliation you have, I would think this should make you stop and think.  (You all know I like Bush, but he has had his problems regardless.)  

(3) In terms of leadership, yes I do like someone who can be reflective and cautious and so forth...to a degree.  But there are times, not infrequent for the President, where that is not an effective course--it can convey the impression of being irresolute or uncertain or hesitant.  

California's Defense of Marriage on the Ballot

For all of us, but particularly for all of you who live in California or who have ties/contacts to California, may I encourage you to quickly become active in supporting Proposition 8 which will be on the ballot in California in a month.

The Proposition states simply: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

I have additional discussion and a few links here if you would take a few minutes to consider this.

Thanks everyone.

Palin v. Biden

I have no idea what polls will say about this debate, but for what it's worth, here are my thoughts.

(1) Joe Biden sounded like a senator used to talking and sounding erudite. He flashes lots of numbers and can accentuate his speaking to make a point. His main purposes seemed to be to try to make McCain seem like he's not a maverick, and that he's connected at the hip to George Bush and Dick Cheney.

(2) Sarah Palin sounded like Sarah Palin talking to average Americans in their homes and focusing on the future and what McCain-Palin priorities would be. She also faced an issue Joe Biden did not. Her treatment in the mainstream media and performance in a couple of interviews created questions about her ability and knowledge. After the debate I flipped through the major network and "cable" news channels, and pretty much universally I heard nothing but praise for how she did tonight, and I agree. She didn't answer every point brought up...but that's what good debaters do.

I heard one commentator (on NBC but mainly employed by NPR) say that she brings a folksy element that she compared to Truman or Andrew Jackson. I had that same thought during the debate, and I thought of that same element with Abraham Lincoln (who was the ultimate master of this, I believe). I get the feeling that she had to have made a stronger natural connection with most Americans watching than Biden.

Peggy Noonan on NBC said Palin "killed it" and I have to think that's about right. Again, Biden did fine. But most people watching had to have had their eyes more on her than on him. And she was very good.

Delayed Comments from the 1st Presidential Debate

I just found these comments compelling and interesting.  It is regarding the first presidential debate so sorry for the delay, but still...again from NRO, the author is of Russian heritage.

"Saturday, September 27, 2008
Obama and the Debate: Proud of His Country?   [Peter Kirsanow]

Two quick points on the debate:
 
Obama inexplicably chose to feed the narrative that he's smug, arrogant and condescending by repeatedly referring to McCain as "John" and by his behavior while McCain was speaking; on the split screen Obama's expression was one of disdain and he had a tendency to interrupt and talk over McCain as McCain was trying to wrap up a point. Not necessarily in the same league with Gore's repeated sighing, but off-putting enough.
 
Second, at the very end Obama seemed to be going for a big finish. He talked about his father from Kenya "writing letter after letter" trying to come to college in the U.S., because in no other country on Earth  could one make it like here—"our ideals and values inspired the world." Powerful stuff.
 
But then Obama concludes by saying " I don't think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same. " CLANG. He then states, reminiscent of Kerry's "Global Test", that we need to "show the world that we will invest in education" and "things that will allow people to live their dreams". 
 
The Obama campaign spent months countering Michelle Obama's "for the first time in my life I'm proud of my country " statement and then Obama himself suggests our ideals and values don't inspire the world,  and that we ourselves realize our values and ideals are suspect. 
 
Criticizing George Bush or any of our other political leaders is one thing. Contending America's ideals and values are somehow suspect is a breathtaking statement for a prospective commander in chief to make, especially when thousands of Americans have given life and limb, sons and daughters, in brave demonstration of our ideals and values.
 
In case Mr. Obama missed it, millions remain sufficiently inspired to try to come to America; our values and ideals still cause the rest of the world to look to us first whenever there's a crisis. And we always respond.
 
Like Obama and millions of other Americans, my father also came to America from another country. Not after writing letters trying to come to a prestigious college here, but after escaping from the death squads of the Soviet empire. Once here, he saluted the American flag every single day. And although he has since passed, I'm certain he'd marvel at our ideals and values today. He'd hold Obama's statement in contempt.
 
Insulting the values and ideals of  America may be fashionable in the salons occupied by William Ayers and Rev. Wright. It may be a matter of course at swanky fundraisers in San Francisco attended by pampered glitterati. But it's not something likely to fly with those who expect their president to have unwavering pride in America and the sacrifices of its best and bravest.

Obama kept saying that he had written the administration, or warned the administration, or warned the world, or what have you. If only they had listened to Barack Obama.
 
McCain might have said something like, “Oh, you’re the one” — you’re the one who (for example) said that these subprime mortgages were getting out of hand. A little, light sarcasm. Obama sometimes gives the impression of considering himself the center of the universe. And, as Newt Gingrich and others have said, what’s he done, mainly, besides think about himself and write books about himself?"

How Not Conflict of Interest?

How in the world can a journalist who is publishing a thoroughly pro-Obama book scheduled to be released on Inauguration Day not have told this fact to the Presidential Debate Commission until like two bays before she was to moderate the VP debate tonight?  

Seriously???  That's not right.  

Crap Sandwiches

From Jonah Goldberg from NRO (he's debating someone or other in Salt Lake City at SLCC tonight by the way):

No One’s Clean
Crap sandwiches for as far as the eye can see.
By Jonah Goldberg

On Sunday evening, Republican House Minority Leader John A. Boehner explained his considered opinion on the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan: It’s a “crap sandwich,” he said, but he was going to eat it.

Well, it turned out he couldn’t shove it down his colleagues’ throats. The bill failed on a bipartisan basis, but it was the Republicans who failed to deliver the votes they promised. Some complained that Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi drove them to switch their votes with her needlessly partisan floor speech on the subject. Of course Pelosi’s needlessly partisan. This is news?

The Republican complaint is beyond childish. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, a man saturated with guilt for this crisis, nonetheless was right to ridicule the GOP crybabies on Monday. “I’ll make an offer,” he said. “Give me [their] names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they’ll now think about the country.”

Would that Frank had been imbued with such a spirit earlier. Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has spent the last few years ridiculing Alan Greenspan, John McCain, and others who sought more regulation for Fannie Mae’s market-distorting schemes — the fons et origo of this financial crisis. Now he says “the private sector got us into this mess.” His partner in crime, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), a chief beneficiary of Fannie Mae lobbyists’ largesse, claims this mess is the result of poor oversight — without even hinting at the fact he is in charge of oversight of banks. They sound like pimps complaining about the prevalence of STDs among prostitutes.

And let us not forget that House Democrats, with a 31-seat majority, could not get 95 of their own to vote for the bailout, largely because it didn’t provide enough taxpayer money to their left-wing special interests. Would that they thought about the country.

The one man who truly tried to treat this crisis like a crisis — McCain — was ridiculed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who implored him to come to Washington to help in the first place. And the news media, which now treat any Republican action that threatens a Barack Obama victory as inherently dishonorable, uncritically accepted the bald Democratic lie that McCain ruined a bipartisan bailout deal last Friday.

This is not to say that McCain knows what to do. Faced with an unprecedented financial crisis involving frozen global credit markets and a maelstrom of moral hazard, his standard response is to talk about wiping out earmarks and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Memo to Mr. McCain: Waste, fraud and abuse are the only things holding the system together at this point.

Obama is no better. The man has spent two weeks irresponsibly excoriating his opponent for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong — a perfectly leaderly thing for McCain to have said during a panic. Then, campaigning in Colorado on Monday, the day the Dow plunged 777.68 points, Obama proclaimed: “We’ve got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows.”

Perhaps after al-Qaida seizes Baghdad, a President Obama would finally declare, “Hey, we can win this thing!”

Dos Caras Obama?

Ran across something that relates to a major concern I have with how the financial issues have been dealt with by Sen. Obama this past week. What are we learning about his leadership? From NRO:

"Dos Caras" [Amy Holmes]
According to the AP, "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for Americans to get behind attempts to salvage a $700 billion rescue plan for the financial sector." But his own advisers told the New York Times that he didn't call skeptical House Democrats to lift a finger.

Which Obama are we supposed to follow? The guy on the campaign trail? Or the politician behind the scenes? We've seen this public/private discrepancy with Obama before. Remember the NAFTA flap? Publicly he declared that it would have to be renegotiated, but privately, his adviser assured the Canadians that he didn't really mean it.

And he accused McCain of "dos caras."

Scout Camps, etc.

My apologies on not having something up on the debates and all else going on right now!

Blame it on the Boy Scouts.  A camp on Friday kept me away from the TV and I'm still trying to find the time to give this due diligence.  Post any comments here and I'll be back to it soon! 

Health Care Policy

OK, here is my long-promised attempt to summarize the health care policy options of the two candidates.  Below I will list my "executive summary" but I've prepared a longer review of the issues so follow this link to read the full account.

Summary
This may well be (I think is) the single most complex policy issue of them all. There is no simple, easy solution that I think we would be happy with.

That said, something needs to be done - for various reasons the current system is inadequate.

Both candidates have some good ideas as to lowering overall costs, improving health care overall nationally, and getting more Americans covered by insurance.

Where they particularly differ is in their approach to increasing the number of Americans covered by insurance, and in what portion of the overall health care system would be paid for and managed by the government.

Obama would still leave current options basically in place but would open up the government run insurance company to all Americans (currently just for federal employees).

McCain would basically work through the states on programs (currently operating fairly effectively in several) that would insure all Americans eventually, and would give people who are applying as individuals for insurance a tax credit/rebate to help pay for premiums.

McCain’s program is more decentralized (coordinating with the states) and likely would take some time to work out, but in its essentials I think would ultimately work.

Obama’s program I think sets some important standards and gives new options for getting insurance, but I believe will lead us in the direction where the government pays for and directly controls more and more of the overall health care system, which I think would have very negative consequences down the road.

My overall opinion: both have some good ideas, but I fear any policy that significantly expands the direct government involvement in determining and paying for health care benefits.

Update: It may be that the current expenditures being decided on to stabilize the financial system make it impossible to have a very large increase in expenditures on health care, which would impact plans for both candidates, but more so for Obama since his proposals are much more costly.

Follow this link to McCain's proposals.

Follow this link to Obama's proposals. 

President Bush Speech on Financial Crisis

I thought President Bush's speech to the nation tonight on the financial crisis was very good.  I copied the text to my supplemental blog, just follow this link.  

Key portions: 

"With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: To step in with dramatic government action, or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all.

I’m a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There’s been a widespread loss of confidence. And major sectors of America's financial system are at risk of shutting down."

"Fellow citizens: We must not let this happen. I appreciate the work of leaders from both parties in both houses of Congress to address this problem — and to make improvements to the proposal my administration sent to them. There is a spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and between Congress and this administration. In that spirit, I’ve invited Senators McCain and Obama to join congressional leaders of both parties at the White House tomorrow to help speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill."

I'm a PC

Unrelated to politics, but this is too funny.  Microsoft recently started a new ad campaign to counter Apple's well known "Mac vs. PC" ads.  Well, it turns out that Microsoft's new ads were created on Macs!  Hilarious.  

So Much for Sincerity

We've had e-mail discussions about the relative distortions of the ads of each campaign towards the opposing candidate.  This Manchester, NH editorial discusses what Obama's ads and claims about McCain say about his claims to be a "different kind of candidate."  

A quote from the editorial: "Obama's greatest strength as a candidate, aside from his oratorical skill, has long been his apparent sincerity and decency. Voters attracted to him think of him as that rarest of things: an honest politician. He has claimed himself that he would never engage in the sort of deceptive politicking that he says has tainted Washington for so long.

Yet here he is violating his own professed standards. This is not the Barack Obama so many voters in New Hampshire and elsewhere thought they knew. But it is the real Barack Obama. For despite his rhetoric, he is in fact campaigning so dishonestly that even The Washington Post and The New York Times have called him on it. Which means that he is in practice no different from those regular politicians against whom his entire campaign has been built."

Theory vs. Practice

I have had this recurring thought as I watch the ongoing contest between McCain and Obama.

Listen to Obama, and you hear him talk in terms of what he "would do" or "can do" and generally of "hope" and so on.  

When you hear his supporters, they emphasize feeling excited about him, his demeanor, his ability to speak effectively, and so on.

This is not to say he does not have policy proposals and ideas - he certainly does and we have been discussing these.  

But when it comes to actual accomplishments, the cupboard seems stunningly bare.  

So as I was scanning a few blogs, this segment on "Riehl World View" stood out to me.  He's talking about his impression from the recent 60 Minutes Obama interview:

"In essence [the interviewer asked], "Why are you the guy to be elected President?"

I've heard Obama's answer in any number of interviews I've conducted over the years and always from people I eventually didn't hire. It was, "I'm the guy (or gal) who can ..." It was not, I'm the guy who did.

Obama's entreaty was along the lines of I'm the guy who can get people who strongly disagree in a room and mediate to find some common ground. What was totally lacking in Obama's answer was, I'm the guy who did ... much of anything, for that matter.

Some people, likely driven by ego, have a sort of magical view of themselves. They believe that if they just get the chance they know they are the right person to make certain things happen, to make a difference somehow. Yet, at every step of their lives they mostly avoid any opportunity to prove the point. Just think about Obama's argument juxtaposed to John McCain.

When has Obama ever gotten people who "almost violently" disagreed politically into a room to reach consensus? He certainly never did it in the US Senate, though he might have had he ever shown up as opposed to immediately launching his Presidential bid.

Were there people who disagreed when Obama was state Senator back in Illinois? Sure, most likely about how much to raise taxes, how much to regulate - absolutely nothing as compared to what he would find as President in Washington, DC.

As best I can tell, in role after role when Obama had a chance to step up and actually lead, he voted present and preserved his political ambition over everything else.

Disagree with him or not, cantankerous as he might be, John McCain is a man who has done that very thing. He doesn't live in some magical world where he simply believes he can. Yes, he has angered the Right because of McCain - Feingold, McCain - Kennedy, etc. But isn't that the proof in the pudding of someone who can get people who disagree in a room and bring about some consensus? I'd argue it is."

That is the point I keep coming back to.  Where are the actual examples in Obama's past that show he can do what he claims?  Again, there is a reason Barak is ranked as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.  To me, it suggests a man who is not willing to break with the liberal line, not willing to challenge the status quo of his world (politically, the liberal world).  You can argue that some of his words/speeches give cautious respect to the "other side" but when push comes to shove, has he ever bucked liberalism and his party?  Has he really led vastly divergent views to a consensus?  Has he ever really accomplished significant reform or major legislative accomplishments?  

What does this say about a man who would be President of the United States?  

"Credit" - if you will - Where Due

This link is to a US News article about how we may have avoided "Great Depression 2" with the quick action of those with their hands on the financial wheel at this time.  The problem is that we can never "know for sure" where things would have gone had not the US Treasury and the Fed stepped in like they did.  But if this analysis is even close to right, $0.7-1.0 trillion is a bargain compared to what we would have faced.  

Given how quick we are with our criticism - maybe we ought to be willing to give credit where it's due as well.

Back to the Bull Moose Party!

Financial Crisis Upon Us

It seems that there are certain key events during an election season that give us a real demonstration of how the candidates would govern if elected.

The past weeks series of dramatic stock drops and government bail-outs of financial institutions seem to be one of those key events for this election cycle. 

The issue, it seems to me, is not that hard to understand.  Over the past 10-15 years, housing prices in many markets were climbing sky high.   People still wanted the nice houses in the locations they wanted to live, which continued the upward climb of prices.  At those prices, many were pressed into mortgage options which enabled them to get into the house (barely) but with the time bomb of adjustable rate mortgages ahead.

Then as the "housing bubble" burst (does any bubble not burst eventually? - hint to future economic planners), home values declined (i.e. now owners couldn't borrow so much against the value of their homes), and as ARMs came due, people couldn't afford their mortgage payments, so go into default and all that.  The cumulative effect of all this is that the lenders (and above them the insurers) have had both a decrease in income as people default on payments, and a dramatic drop in the value of their "assets" which were heavy on over-priced homes that were now worth much less).  And that, essentially, is what has brought "Fanny and Freddie" and AIG and others to the brink.  It has also made practically all "lenders of money" want to sit on their money and not lend it out, causing a major "credit crunch" throughout the economy.  

Because "Fanny and Freddie" and AIG and so forth are so key to the overall confidence in the US and world financial system, the US government has had to step in to support them with taxpayer dollars.  

So there's the problem.  So what do we hear from the candidates?

Obama: 'this is all the Republicans fault.  McCain is "out of touch" with economic reality and he is old (read: old thinking) so you need to have me step in with new ideas to get us out of this mess that, did I mention?, was the Republicans' fault.' 

McCain: 'this is the result of many years of both Democrats and Republicans looking the other way when real reform of the system was needed.  In fact, 3 years ago I specifically asked the Senate to approve a reform measure that would have gotten at the problems we are now seeing come to fruition today, and I predicted then that a failure to act would eventually lead to exactly what we are seeing now.  At the time I was working to get those reforms enacted, Senator Obama was silent on the issue.  Perhaps it was because he was getting more donations from Fanny & Freddie than any other senator except the Democratic chairman of the committee considering these reforms.  Certainly he has picked some of the key former executives of Fanny, Freddie, and AIG for key positions in and advisors to his campaign.'  

Of the comments I hear from the candidates on this topic the past few days, the one that seems most to the point to me is the fact that McCain was actually working several years ago to pass a reform bill in the Senate designed specifically to prevent the kinds of things that have led to this financial crisis.  At that time Obama was not saying or doing anything about it.  

So it's kind of easy for Obama to stand up now and complain, isn't it?  And yet it was McCain who saw it and was fighting to do the right thing - when nobody else was paying attention.  Now that it's a popular thing, we see Obama coming around to the same point, I guess.  

Follow the link above to read McCain's statement to his fellow Senators in 2005.  

And...Something About Sarah...

Something About Sarah by NRO's [Jay Nordlinger]: 
"Earlier this morning, I wrote that the attacks on Governor Palin — particularly the breaking into her e-mail — were making me sick. One reader wrote, “I, too, have been feeling a physical revulsion over the Left’s determination to destroy Sarah Palin, by any means necessary.” That reader spoke for many.

I myself have a tale to relate. An episode left me kind of shaken, honestly. Last week, I was talking to a friend of mine — a very warm and humane woman. We’ve been friends for years. I had been away, and we hadn’t talked politics — but then, we never do. We never had. She’s a liberal, of course — virtually everyone here in NYC is. And I never, ever bring up politics (with pretty much anyone — not worth the trouble) (and, of course, I do it professionally).

But she said to me, out of the blue, “What do you think of Sarah Palin?” And while I was drawing breath to answer, she said, “I hate her.”

That kind of took my breath away — because this friend of mine is no hater. But she said it with firm, horrible conviction. She said it with true emotion in her eyes. Frankly, I was too taken aback to reply, other than to say, “Well, my feeling is the exact opposite.”

I can see how you might disagree with Governor Palin — she’s a conservative, after all. I can see how you might find her unprepared even for the vice-presidency. But hate? Hate a woman who rose from a modest background to be governor of her state? Who is obviously a warm, civic-minded, talented mother of five?

Hate?"

Juicy, juicy...

Joe Biden may want to rethink his recent comment that "raising taxes is patriotic."  As McCain and Palin have both now replied: it's not about patriotism...raising taxes in the current economic environment is just dumb policy.  It will only cost jobs when we can ill afford it.  Again...tax business-->businesses have less money-->businesses raise prices on all of us and cut jobs.  

ENOUGH!

Thank you to this Boston Globe writer for nailing it:

Check this article out

Note that the Boston Globe is one of the liberal bastion publications in the country...

I Hope Not

There are reports out (I think the first you can see at this link but apparently there have been others) that suggest that Obama when he was on his recent trip to Iraq, was doing some behind-the-scenes negotiations with Iraqi leaders and even American commanders, along the lines of trying to get the Iraqis to delay until after the election announcing that they had worked out with the US a tentative framework for gradual US troop withdrawals.  I assume the point would be that even though this was worked out by the Iraqis and the Bush administration, the timing would cause it to be associated with Obama should he win the election.  

If this is true, it is incredibly disturbing.  The idea of a major political candidate working outside the official diplomatic framework of the United States for his own political purposes would have terrible implications, I think.  Both legally and historically, it is always critical that the United States speak with one official voice to both friend and foe internationally.  And this case would look even worse, because essentially it would have Barack Obama saying to Iraqis behind closed doors: 'look, I'm going to be the next President so you should listen to me now and do what I'm asking (which, by the way, is to my political benefit), instead of doing what you've worked out with the current sitting administration.'  

I wouldn't bring this up, except that I still haven't heard a denial of this from the Obama camp, and it appears the story has credibility enough to get a comment from the McCain camp.

"McCain spokesman Randy Scheunemann stated as follows:

At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation."

Let me just say, political differences/preferences aside...I really, really, really hope Senator Obama would not do such a thing.  It would be a terrible thing if he did.  I imagine we will hear more about this and hopefully we can get corroborating information one way or the other.  

Gibson Keeps Getting Slammed...YEAH!

There's been a lot going around about Gibson's glowering, condescending interview of Sarah Palin recently on ABC.  The most talked about moment was when Palin was hesitant about Gibson's meaning referring to the "Bush doctrine" and yet, the very person who coined the term, columnist Charles Krauthammer, says there have come to be several meanings of the term, and the one Gibson said it meant is not in common use any more.

Krauthammer: 

"Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage."

Political Art - Good Stuff

Arrrrrgh on the Media

I really am not at all a conspiratorialist.  But good heavens, Mr. Media!

Get this, by Mark Hemingway on NRO's "The Corner" blog:

"John notes that the Washington Post seems to be downplaying the McCain-Palin rally in its backyard. But the bigger crime may be how the Washington Post article on the rally was written. Let's just do a by numbers comparison:

Number of paragraphs in the Washington Post story: 14

Number of paragraphs about pro-Obama protesters: 8

Number of McCain-Palin supporters present: 23,000

Number of Obama protesters: about 30

You do the math." 

Amazing...

Before Returning To Regular Programming...

In the next few days I will start comparing Obama and McCain on several issues, including foreign policy, taxes, health care proposals, and Supreme Court issues.  

For a moment longer, however, let's note just how astounding it is to see a VP candidate so suddenly become the focus of both campaigns.  I mean...WOW!  That suggests very, very real political and communication skill on her part.  

The small lead by McCain has held for a couple of days held fairly well, but as polls do I'm sure we will see variation in upcoming weeks until the debates.  

This whole little flap about Obama's "lipstick" comment I think is just stupid.  Both campaigns, but McCain's in particular, should move on.  

From Howard Kurtz: "The Project for Excellence in Journalism says that 60 percent of last week's stories were about her: "Palin enjoyed more coverage as a VP candidate during the GOP convention than Obama did a week earlier when he became the first person of color to accept the nomination for president of a major party."

Amazing, Amazing - McCain-Palin Rockets Up

The latest polls are beginning to show a McCain lead over Obama.  In the USA Today poll, a whopping 10 point lead!  And the Gallup racking poll has it as a 3 point lead.  Amazing is the least we can say.

And yet, as is reviewed at this link, the Left continues to try to smear Palin, including several blatantly spurious claims that made into mainstream liberal media before being retracted as they finally concluded there was zero evidence to support them.  Sad stuff, regardless of which side you're on.  

Republicans Win Ratings

From Fox News: "As a television draw, John McCain was every bit the equal of Barack Obama.

The GOP presidential candidate attracted roughly the same number of viewers to his convention acceptance speech Thursday as Obama did before the Democrats last week, according to Nielsen Media Research.

It marked the end of an astonishing run where more than 40 million people watched political speeches on three nights by Obama, McCain and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Republican convention was the most-watched convention on television ever, beating a standard set by the Democrats a week earlier."

McCain's Backbone

John McCain is at his best as a speaker it seems when taking a serious tone and talking about serious issues.  He did a very good job tonight, and I suspect will have strengthened his support and position from the public because of it.  Specifically, here's where I thought he was great:

1) The repetition as well as revelation of additional details of McCain's life changing experience as a POW in Vietnam over the course of this convention was capped off by hearing from the man himself.  You come away with the powerful impression of a man who is utterly incorruptible and unstoppable in his determination to accomplish what he believes will benefit the United States of America and its people, simply because no matter how tough things get, he has been through worse, and in addition, the gratitude and the dedication he feels toward America and its people hardly know any bounds.

I thought the following stretch of his speech demonstrated this: "[Governor Palin] knows where she comes from and she knows who she works for. She stands up for what's right, and she doesn't let anyone tell her to sit down. I'm very proud to have introduced our next vice president to the country. But I can't wait until I introduce her to Washington. And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: Change is coming.

I'm not in the habit of breaking promises to my country and neither is Gov. Palin. And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you.

You know, I've been called a maverick; someone who marches to the beat of his own drum. Sometimes it's meant as a compliment and sometimes it's not. What it really means is I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you."

2) I thought he was able to bring up several policy issues, from Iraq to education to healthcare policy and so forth, enough to sketch out basic differences in the approach he would take compared to Obama. 

"I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it.
My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second-highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas. Doubling the child tax exemption from $3,500 to $7,000 will improve the lives of millions of American families. Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit. Opening new markets and preparing workers to compete in the world economy is essential to our future prosperity."

3) He also formulated the core principles which most Republicans and conservatives believe will strengthen our nation most:

"We're going to recover the people's trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire. The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics.

We believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential from the boy whose descendants arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We're all God's children and we're all Americans.

We believe in low taxes, spending discipline and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.

We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench. We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities.

We believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans. Government that doesn't make your choices for you, but works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself." 

4) McCain is clearly working to establish himself as an American running for president, as opposed to simply a partisan nominee.  He wants to bring new and more people to support him, beyond the GOP "base."  And he's not afraid to take on Obama and the Democrats in areas you would think he would shy away from.  Consider these lines from his speech, keeping in mind who he is running against.

"Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Sen. Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm president, they will." 

------------------

Sarah Palin I think remains the star of the Republican convention, but McCain is the anchor and weight.  They did themselves well I think.  

I suspect the polls will really tighten up, then we shall see what happens over the next 8 weeks! 

Palin v. Obama

I read that Palin had almost as many viewers watching her speech last night as Obama had watch his nomination speech.  Not bad for a VP pick vs. the presidential nominee of a party.   And she had about 50% more watch her than her Democratic VP counterpart, Biden.

Not bad. 

And from another NRO blog post: "The ability to effectively skewer political opponents with a twinkle of the eye and remain likeable is a rare political skill. The three best I’ve ever seen: Reagan, Clinton, Palin." 

And an article today from The Weekly Standard's Kristol: 

"The Speech
By William Kristol, The Weekly Standard
September 4, 2008

NOW WE SEE why the liberal establishment has been trying for the last few days to destroy Sarah Palin. She is a threat to their hopes to take the White House this year, a threat to their broader claims to speak for youth, for women, and for the future, and a threat to their attempt to control the high ground in the culture war. After her stunning success last night, some in the liberal media may retire from the ring for a while. Others, with the threat now even more evident, may redouble their assaults and become even more desperate and vicious. Surely they'll fail.

A star was born last night--but I won't belabor that fact, especially since it was the title of my New York Times column Monday. Nor will I analyze the whole speech, which I'm sure will be ably done by others. I'll just make three points.

1. I've heard one or two Palin skeptics acknowledge that it was a good speech, but then say--well, another nominee could have given a similarly good speech. Actually, no. The speech was so effective because it was given by someone who is, at once: a relative unknown, an executive not a legislator, a real reformer, a middle American who made it on her own, an outsider who was greeted with hostility by the D.C. establishment--and, yes, a woman. Obviously, another nominee could have given a good if different speech. But what made last night's speech special--what may have made last night an inflection point in this campaign, and even in American politics beyond Nov. 4--depended on the peculiar combination of qualities Sarah Palin brought to the table. Her speech was as far as a speech could be from being a generic one. Only Sarah Palin could have given it. The fact that she had the help of an excellent speechwriter, Matthew Scully, doesn't change the fact that this was in a precise way, and I'd almost say a profound way, Sarah Palin's speech.

2. The attack on Obama was very deft. Palin went right for Obama's fundamental weakness--that he's never done anything impressive. (And by giving such a good speech, she partly undermined his claim to be the only one who could speak impressively.) For example, consider this line--which I predict will be remembered two months from now: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities." This deflates all the sanctimonious praise of Obama at the Democratic convention for all his selfless years as a community organizer. And if you take away the community organizing, Obama's just a career politician, one "who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform," one of those who has used "change to promote their careers." What's left of Obama's résumé, and his claim to deserve the presidency? Not much.

3. Don't underestimate the power of this statement: "To the families of special needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House." The McCain campaign should flesh this out in policy terms, should not get worried by the inevitable attacks on McCain for voting (as he must have) for some budget resolution or other that would have cut (or not increased as much as some wanted) some special-needs programs, and just keep on emphasizing that Palin will take the lead on these issues, and McCain will see to it she gets the support, budgetary and otherwise, she needs. This would be real compassionate conservatism, and would be good both for conservatism and for the country."