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!”