Senator Barack Obama: the movie brought to you by Democrats

Polispeak is never more beautiful and impacting than when it appears on the silver screen. Such are the thoughts of the Democratic Party and David Guggenheim. And to that end Guggenheim is in the process of filming Senator Obama, a film that will be presented at the National Democratic Party Convention and then hopefully (Dems think) out to the general public.

And why not. Look what Guggenheim did for the doom and gloom polispeak of Al Gore. Since the movie An Inconvenient Truth (which inconveniently contains misstatements and inaccuracies) Al Gore has swelled in popularity and political power. He has sparked the fuel for green everything and the masses accept him as never during his political career.

If Al Gore can be transformed into a media darling and political top cat, imagine what will happen to the already popular Senator Obama. You can almost see Democrats and Hollywood drooling.

One definite positive will of course be the fact that some 10% of voters with their heads up their arse will finally be lead to understand that their email stating Obama is a Muslim is false. Too bad no one has made a movie warning these same people about emails that promise to give them millions from an overseas lawyer representing a dead person with their same last name. If these are the voters that the Democrats think will win them the Oval Office, they are in trouble and have their eyes shut to it.

The thing that gets me is that there are some voters that will be swayed by a film, created by an Obama supporter (he has already donated cash to the cause) meant to be biased in favor of Obama. That’s not politics or a documentary, it’s a big infomercial. But of course how many millions are made off of infomercials each year??

Perhaps the worst aspect of this idea is what it will mean in the future. Direct marketing of Presidential candidates will vie time alongside votes for American Idol (if that show could only end). Billy Mays will be preempted to present the latest pitch by a presidential candidate, promising to fix the world while you sit in your ever so comfortable sofa, if you just make a vote. And as technology improves even fewer people will take the time to use that technology to check out facts, instead accepting the polispeak spouted on their latest Iphone streaming video or satellite television piped into their cars.

Look I have nothing against movies about Presidents, or even candidates. Generally the movies will give me a President I can respect, agree with, and is acting in the best interest and spirit of America. But the reality is that some writer dreamed up that candidate and the ones we vote for are severely more flawed. A movie hyping a candidate like the next hopeful summer box office hit only makes me wary.

Is Senator Obama a good candidate? Well there is no question that he is better than Senator Clinton – a liar and highly manipulative. He definitely sounds great giving a speech. And he is young, which America obsesses over to the tune of billions each year. But none of that makes him a potentially good President.
So rather than spending a stupid amount of money to hype Senator Obama as if he were Will Smith, why don’t Democrats spend one-tenth the money (and time) and just present a couple of fully defined plans they think will actually improve America? Or do they believe that Americans are too dumb to actually read?

Well I know you my readers can. So what do you prefer, a movie highlighting a bunch of fluff or a couple of pages of facts? Which would sway you more?

The challenges to a Senator McCain Presidency

Politics is an amazing arena. It’s the only business in America where lies, misperceptions, misspoken statements, and polispeak are valued assets and critical winning strategies. And that’s true of every political party and elected official from local government to the highest office.

I mention this because of a conversation I had with a woman today. She is interested in getting her voice out to the masses for this election. She believes it to be very important, and thus she is also interested in creating a blog. To that end she contacted me and eventually we discussed the Presidential candidates.

Now in this discussion it came out that she prefers Senator Obama over Senator McCain. There’s nothing wrong with that. When I asked her why, the reasons she gave were very telling. The only reason involving Senator Obama was the fact that he would provide change, every other reason in our 2 hour discussion focused on a belief she had on Senator McCain. I feel that much of what she believed is similar to what others believe as well.

While there is nothing wrong with being for any one candidate, the reasons should be well defined. Let me clarify.

These are the reasons she felt McCain was a bad choice. He is too old, he had cancer, he must suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), he is another President Bush, he is a warmonger (my paraphrase), he is non-partisan, he won’t change anything, and he has a temper. This is the summarized version of her reasons why Obama should be President.

Now while Senator McCain is old, it is well known that he is very physically fit. Many pundits and politicians admit that he is in excellent shape for his age, more than many that are decades his junior. And his genetics – as viewed by looking at his mother who is in her 90’s – show a propensity to remain active and mentally intact for another 20 years. Add to that the fact that Presidents have served at his age before.

And by the way, is Senator McCain is senile for calling Sunnis Shiites, then what is Senator Hillary Clinton when she repeatedly comments on barrel rolling planes and sniper fire that never existed? If that is not senility, or a lie what do you call that? As opposed to mixing up the names of 2 groups of people that most Americans can’t tell you the difference between or even spell.

In looking at his cancer, he had a skin cancer that was non-lethal. It was removed. He is currently free of any cancer and has been for years. There is no reason to believe that he would get cancer again, but there are many politicians that have fought cancer and continued to serve in office. There has been Presidents that have suffered ailments during their Presidency and still governed effectively.

But to combine the 2 questions of age and cancer into one solution, that is why there are Vice-Presidents.

As for being a warmonger, that is a harsh inaccurate and politically driven perception (though again I note that she did not call him that - others I've spoken with have). Groups like Moveon.org and Code Pink may feel that such a title may applie to McCain, but then again they felt the same about Senator Clinton and EVERY other politician that has not advocated the immediate retreat from Iraq. It would be far more accurate to say that as a former military officer, a decorated veteran, and a former POW Senator McCain has a far greater appreciation of what it means to fight for our country than most politicians or civilians. Considering that he has a son that has actively served in Iraq recently, he appreciates as much as any parent the fears of an active war. Thus I am left to conclude that if he believes that it is important for America to win if possible, and/or to exit in a manageable manner – and is willing to risk his own son – that he believes such steps are in the nations best interest long-term.

It’s well known that Senator John McCain has a temper. He has had words with many Senators and politicians over his 25 years of political service. Then again so have many Presidents. In fact it is now more publicly acknowledged that President Clinton had a horrible temper. According to Dick Morris, who used to work for President Clinton, he was struck in anger by the President. Since Mr. Morris said this on national cable television and has not been sued or asked to retract his statement I am led to believe it was true. So we have evidence that recent Presidents have tempers, which did not prevent them from their duties.

To go back to the military past of Senator McCain, which Senator Obama has never had a day of, I was told he had to have PTSD. This was a point that was brought up multiple times. The woman I spoke with could not see how anyone that went through what McCain has could not be so afflicted. Yet in 25 years in the Senate there has been no incidence ever reported. Not one politician, of either party, or an aide has ever noted anything that would be likened to PTSD. I wouldn’t say that McCain never has a bad memory, but like many veterans he has lived a productive life without incident. So why is that a fear? PTSD is not like LSD. It doesn’t suddenly crop up one morning with a cup of coffee. There are symptoms and signs. This is what my father dealt with, and as a man that did have PTSD, suffered from Agent Orange, and lost an arm and leg most would never have been able to tell as he worked on his small farm and daily interactions. But when things were bad, there were always signs.

Suffice to say that I feel this is an unwarranted and probably politically motivated issue.

I’ll combine the question of whether McCain is another President Bush and whether he is non-partisan. Don’t take my word on this but look back a year and a half. Look back 2 years. Read how the liberal media lauded Senator McCain, and Republican were angry with him, for breaking party lines on various issues. Look at how the media positively covered McCain as the most bi-partisan Republican and as the kind of Republican Democrats could work with. Look at the multiple laws he has passed and tried to pass. Count the number of times McCain was called a moderate, and conservative groups that backed President Bush whole-heartedly were angry with McCain.

The fact is that the main thing that has changed is the media and pundit perception of Senator McCain. What he did has not changed, but the perception has been molded by the media, just in time for people who don’t follow politics daily to just notice.

Last is change. Everyone is speaking about change. Which is just dumb. No matter who is elected change is guaranteed. Neither man is President Bush so change is a fact.

But on one hand we have a candidate without experience (relatively) as compared to one with over 3 decades of service to the nation. Of course I was told that Senator Obama can surround himself with people that have experience and he can make decisions based on their knowledge.

So why is McCain faulted for his experience, and that of those he would have around him, since Senator Obama would be drawing from a pool of politician that are just as embedded in “old” politics as McCain? The only real difference is that McCain has his own experience to balance against the opinions of those around him, and Obama does not.

Now I don’t fault anyone for picking any candidate. I am happy that many are getting involved because I agree that this is an important election. But I want to emphasize something. Picking a candidate based on current soundbites and a set of rules that apply only one way is not picking a candidate that is in the best interest of America.

Check the facts, learn about the candidates for yourself. Look at the vote where Senator Obama voted to raise the taxes of everyone making $31,850 or more (and Senator McCain voted against) and ask if that is rich. Ask why every multi-millionaire and billionaire that advocates higher taxes have never given a single extra dollar to the government than they were required to – in fact a few have preferred to give their money to charities instead. Ask how Senator Obama will pass bi-partisan laws with a record of voting highly partisan and liberal. Ask if you prefer a President that is historically moderate or liberal – with a populace that in all honesty is middle of the road depending on the issue.

If you look for those facts, and ignore the pundits and polispeak; if you ask those questions and come to an answer for yourself, then that is who you should vote for. And it’s when you vote on that basis that America will truly get the best choice for America’s future.

Moment in time 40 years after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - repost

**originally posted at Black Entertainment USA**

Today, 40 years after the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and 2 days before my birthday I pause to reflect on what has happened and what could have.

I’ve read a lot on Dr. King in the recent days, far more than what was written during this past Black History Month. And I’m reminded of comments made by Jeff Johnson when I saw him at Ithaca College this year. I consider what Dr. King was moving forward to do at the time he was killed, and how he has been frozen in time. I look at the society of America and of African Americans.

I am a child of the Civil Rights era. I have benefited in numerous ways from the struggles and strife made by those before me. And there are numerous things today that have gone backwards in time or have wasted the efforts made. Those children beyond my generation have no idea of what has changed, and seemingly few have an appreciation that they don’t know things have changed only recently.

If Dr. King had not been killed 40 years ago, do you think there would be a BET today? Perhaps there would be, and a TV One as well – but not the only 2 and not in the manner that we see now on Black Entertainment Television I imagine. I doubt that Bob Johnson would have been the first with a national cable channel, and it would not have been built upon the back of scantily clad Black women gyrating to lyrics promoting drugs and violence.

If Dr. King had lived, he honestly would have diminished in some of his stature – as all great leaders do as they age. Yet his voice would hold more power than all the so called Black leaders of today combined and then some. He would long ago have questioned the infusion of drugs into our communities, the ridiculous face value actions of “Just say no”, and the promotion of money over education values that have integrated into our communities via music videos, video games, and other genres.

If Dr. King had lived, there would be a voice to speak with fanatical Muslim extremists. Perhaps there would never have been a 9/11, nor a war in Kuwait, nor a bombing in Lebanon. And even if these events did happen, there might have been a voice to provide an alternative just a step short of war.

If Dr. King had lived unions would be far different than they are now. There would have been a powerful voice questioning America’s involvement in Viet Nam, and questioning how the Government ran the war.

I imagine that television networks and movie studios would have rushed to integrate the big and small screens for fear of boycotts. Today there would not be worlds of imagination segregated to a virtually uniform racial make up of the world. There would not be just 2% of the entertainment industry representing every person of color combined. Spike Lee would not have to be heralded as a unique and groundbreaking director (based on his color), but just a great director among others.

I imagine that the African American middle class would not be a ghost, but a viable and growing community. I imagine that I would not have been able to get through high school with a college preparatory physics class textbook that was 3 years older than me. I imagine that a better alternative to Affirmative Action may have been found.

I would hope that had Dr. King lived, America would have come to terms with the need to apologize for slavery, something that I think still festers in the background causing separation and ill-will. I would hope that America could realize that reparations are part of that contrition and the fact that every American today benefits from the 246 years of work that built the foundations of everything that exists today. I would hope that we all would further realize that another 100+ years of segregation and prejudice were instead built upon the back of slavery with Jim Crow laws and that the cycle of judgment based on skin color needed to be broken.

I believe that as some of these things came to pass the history of the nation, the full history, would be revealed. Men like the Tuskegee Airmen and every other African American that has fought in every war America has ever had would not be new revelations to our children today. That the innovations and inventions that make life modern would be attributed to the Blacks that created them. That no person in America would wish to use a word like the N-word because it had no relevance and its meaning is too vile to repeat.

I believe that there would be no need to be distinguished by skin color when being described as an American. I would not need to be African American or Mexican American and so on. We could simply be Americans, one and all.

I believe that the Tuskegee Experiment would not have lasted until 1972, and that the Government would have been smitten for such actions. That there would not need to be a question of whether the government had made AIDS and brought it into communities of people of color because we could be sure they would never act in such a manner again.

I believe that Dr. King would never have become a politician, but other people of color would have been inspired, supported and welcomed as such. That there would be no place in America that could still herald the fact an African American ran for or was elected to a political office. That the first viable Black Presidential candidate would have ran, and possibly been elected long before the 21st century – 388 years after the first recorded slave was sold, 235 years after creating America, 142 years after abolishing slavery, 85 years after lynchings became a crime, 42 years after Jim Crow and segregation laws were declared illegal, 23 years after the first Black Miss America, 8 years after the first Black Secretary of State, 7 years after the first African American President of an Ivy League College and first Black billionaire, and 1 year after the first Black American (and youngest person) that flew around the world solo [which went virtually unreported].

There are many things I think that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. could have done had he lived, and others that he would have influenced that would have benefited America. But I am left with one other thought.

Why haven’t these things happened even without him?

Religion in politics for election 2008

I recall stating in recent weeks,

“I have yet to hear any of the sermons of the religious leaders of the churches of Senator McCain, Senator Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, President Bush, or anyone else.”

It was a comment that reflected the fact that the media focus on 30 second soundbites – compiled from 5 – 10 second clips of 5-6 speeches made by Rev. Wright – of polispeak are being used as a tool to deter voters from joining the Senator Obama camp. My conclusion was that the comments were not friendly to Whites and the American Government, but were taken almost completely out of context. The media molded an impression of the words of Rev. Wright, and then extrapolated that impression onto Senator Obama and the entirety of the impetus for this was based in race and prejudice.

But the real stark fact was that the media, that sought out the videos and slips of words of Rev. Wright, made no noticible effort to cover or learn of the comments of the pastors of any other Presidential candidate. There is the bias. If the views and comments of a religious leader is important for one candidate, then it must be important for all of them. Yet only the African American pastor and candidate have fallen into this skewed interrogation.

That is until I found this information recently.

It seems that Senator Hillary Clinton’s former pastors have had a few things to say. Now you may wonder why they have made comment and what they had to say – as well as the reason why the major media threw a wet blanket on these relevant and newsworthy comments.

By the way, Senator Hillary Clinton has not been a member of any church for 16 years. That matches the time that she has been out of the White House. Thus there is no current pastor to listen to for her, nor is there a church for her to leave as she stated in this quote

“He would not have been my pastor," Clinton told a gathering of the campaign press corps, repeating a line she used earlier in the day on a Pittsburgh radio program. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” – Speaking about the video clips of Rev. Wright used by the media.

So for the religious that think Senator Clinton reflects their faith or is setting a morale stance, keep the facts in mind.

But of the pastors she did have while her husband was President and watched every Sunday have made comments.

Dean Snyder, senior minister at the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington D.C. - which the Clintons attended while in the White House – stated,

“The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.”

Reverend Edward Matthews, who opposed both Iraq wars, supports same-sex marriage, opposes the death penalty, and has been a passionate critic of American foreign policy, served as pastor of First United Methodist from 1990 to 1998. The Clinton’s attended his church for the last 2 years prior to entering the White House. First United Methodist remains the only church of which Mrs. Clinton is a member.

He also attended prayer meetings at the White House while they were there. In addition to that he campaigned with Senator Clinton prior to the Iowa Caucus, and made a video testimonial for her. And he has said that at one time he even shared the views of Rev. Wright.

Rev. Matthews has actually heard a sermon of Rev. Wright. His comment on that was,

“If you are very close-minded, you would have gotten up and walked out of that. But I appreciated what he was saying." Rev. Matthews said. "I wouldn't have said it that way. I wouldn't have been so animated.”

As for whether she would leave his church because Senator Clinton disagreed with Rev. Matthew’s position on same-sex marriage, the death penalty, the Iraq War, or supporting Isreal he stated,

“She's disagreed with me on several things, but she remained a member of the church. We've remained close friends”

So it would seem that those preachers that can be identified as knowing Senator Clinton have made themselves clear. They support and defend Rev. Wright. To varying degrees they agree with him. They, in degrees, disagree with Senator Clinton’s political views. And she has not disavowed any of their comments in the past or present.

Thus I have to ask where is the major media coverage of this? Where is the controversy of the comments that Rev. Matthews made about America during the Viet Nam war? Comments that would have been viewed as strongly as those of Rev. Wright today. Where are the questions about how these pastors affected the politics of the Clinton’s?

Where is the investigation into the comments of Senator McCain’s pastor?

I am left with a single thought. This is all polispeak, meant to obfuscate the reasons to nominate Senator Obama, and assured to be brought up if he gets the nomination. It is racism under the guise of religion – 2 areas that are mostly taboo to question unless you are African American it seems.

There is nothing that justifies the manner and degree to which Rev. Wright has come under fire. Nor is there a reasoning, beyond that which I have mentioned, to attribute those misquoted, out of context, 2 – 3 word video snippets to the politics and character of Senator Obama. Thus anyone that would alter their voting due to all of this should also alter their voting for Senator Clinton, and perhaps Senator McCain. In effect none of the religious leaders for any of the candidates, as can be ascertained, are above reproach or question.

This is well disguised racism and prejudice. America should not have their votes determined by such paltry, disgusting, and meager reasons.

Vote for the nominee you believe in. Vote for the President you think is best for America. Vote because it is your Right, and far too many have died and bled for that Right. But don’t vote because someone, other than the candidates in question, spoke 3 words that by themselves sound uncomfortable to you.

Primary race results chart - 2.21.2008.2

This is part of the I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign.

For those wondering exactly how popular the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates have been so far, I found something that makes it very clear. At a glance you will be able to see exactly who won a state primary or caucus and what percentage of the voters.

I hope that this tool will help encourage those that have not yet had the chance to be involved to get out to the Primaries. Especially in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island on March 4th.

For those that have voted already, I hope that you stay involved in the election process. Whether your candidate or some other winds up as the nominee for President of America, your vote counts. The more each and every American is involved, the better the future for America becomes. I truly believe that.

If you have not registered to vote, please go to I Love America That’s Why I Vote! and see the information for registering from anywhere in the nation.

Presidential Candidates Lies: Update

**This is part of the I Love America That's Why I Vote! campaign. It's long but worth it.**

Back in November 2007, amid the huge number of Presidential candidates and the multiple debates I found the need to decipher all the polispeak and misinformation that was being bandied about. In the process I found a site PolitiFact that verified many of the issues that I was questioning.

I presented many of the outright lies that candidates of both parties had made. [In the post The lies Presidential candidates say, and the facts that prove it] Now with far fewer candidates, and more critical decisions being made by the remaining Primaries and Caucuses I feel it’s time to revisit and identify the current back of outright untruths, misstatements and polispeak intended to obscure the best candidates for America.

In alphabetical order I present the 3 remaining candidates of significance:

Senator Hillary Clinton - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/

“I was fighting against those (Republican) ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.”

Besides the fact that the Clinton’s may have accepted contributions from this same individual, and definitely had taken photographs with him (as found after this statement) there is this…

“Clinton’s claim is Barely True. Obama, by his own admission, did some, albeit very little, legal work that helped Rezko’s company obtain properties that would later be neglected. But the allegations that Rezko was a slumlord did not arise, at least not publicly, until years after Obama performed that work.”

“

---

"In her short time in the United States Senate, the senator from New York, Senator Clinton, got $500-million worth of pork barrel projects. My friends, that kind of thing is going to stop," McCain said.

Get ready because Senator McCain only got it partially right.

“Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks congressional spending, has identified about $2.2-billion in Clinton projects in her seven years in the Senate.”

---

“The Bush administration sends mixed messages,” Clinton said during the Democratic debate in Las Vegas. “They want to recruit and retain these young people to serve our country and then they have the Pentagon trying to take away the signing bonuses when a soldier gets wounded and ends up in the hospital, something that I’m working with a Republican senator to try to make sure never can happen again.”

Sounds vital and horrendous. But the facts are

Defense Department policy is clear: Bonuses already paid should not be recouped if “injury or illness of the service member was not the result of the service member’s misconduct.”

The Army contends Fox’s was an isolated case. In fact, when it set up a hotline for pay problems, it received just two calls on that issue.

So are we talking about legislation to fix a problem that may have affected just three people? As it relates to wounded soldiers having to return portions of paid bonuses, perhaps. And certainly a lot of politicians made a lot of political hay about that…
So while Clinton highlights a legitimate issue — paying future installments of enlistment bonuses even after wounded veterans have been discharged — her wording is somewhat misleading, suggesting wounded veterans are being forced to return bonus money. There is little evidence to suggest that happened to more than a couple veterans, and the Army admitted its mistake.

Also misleading is her suggestion that there was some kind of Bush administration effort to deny future bonus payments promised to wounded vets…”

---

“You’ve changed positions within three years on ... a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate,” Clinton said. “You said you would vote against the Patriot Act, then you came to the Senate, you voted for it.”

Careful where you point that finger.

“A closer examination reveals that while Clinton’s charge is technically correct, Obama went further than she did in trying to expand civil rights guarantees and give Democrats more chances to change the law…

Clinton, in contrast, joined 14 fellow Democrats and all of the Senate’s 55 Republicans in voting to shut off debate and proceed to a final vote on the compromise…

Once Obama’s faction lost the bid to keep the debate going, he voted for the compromise. The final tally was 95-4. Clinton was also among those senators voting yes…”

---

“Well, actually, Tim, the (National) Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20-million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that. Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available.”

Are they really?

“Clinton must be misinformed. It’s true that many of the documents from the unsuccessful health care effort that Sen. Clinton helmed are available, but there are several gaps in the record, such as her calendar and internal memos….

Also missing from the records are any correspondence on health care between her and former President Clinton.”

---

“So that 2005 energy bill was a big step backwards on the path to clean, renewable energy,” said Clinton. “That’s why I voted against it. That’s why I’m standing for the proposition — let’s take away the giveaways that were given to gas and oil, put them to work on solar and wind and geothermal and biofuels and all of the rest that we need for a new energy future.”

Backwards?

“While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 did give the oil and gas industry tax breaks and incentives to boost production, the law also mandated 7.5-billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels to be blended into gasoline by 2012 — the largest such mandate ever enacted and one widely credited with sparking an ethanol plant construction boom across the Midwest. The law also funneled hundreds of millions of dollars toward biomass research and the production of biofuels derived from the leaves, stems and stalks of a plant rather than corn kernels used to make ethanol.”

---

Senator John McCain - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/

“John McCain has attacked Hillary Clinton, saying she wants to “wave the white flag of surrender” in Iraq. He said it again in response to a question about Iraq at the Jan. 24, 2008, Republican debate in Boca Raton.”

Perhaps a bit overzealous

“McCain is right that Clinton is setting a time frame to start withdrawing troops, and that does imply giving up and waving a metaphorical white flag. Saying there is no military solution as she does could be seen as a form of surrender. But technically, there is no ruling army to surrender to, which is really what a white flag means. Clinton just wants the troops to come home.”

---

“Congress just passed another huge, pork-filled spending bill. The Democrats allowed less than a day to read all 3,400 pages and stuffed it with nearly 10,000 earmarks costing about $10-billion dollars,” McCain said in remarks delivered to the Americans for Prosperity Michigan summit in a Detroit suburb.”

Wasteful spending yes. Just Democrats or the correct amount?

“The gist of his charge is true about spending, but his numbers are off and it's misleading to suggest all the parochial spending is being done by Democrats. When we add it up, we get Half-True.”

---

"Our tax code is so complicated it extracts $140 billion in extra tax preparation costs every year - one thousand dollars for every American family. It’s offensive that six out of every ten taxpayers have to pay someone else just to figure out how to pay the government."

True but the numbers aren’t what you think

“A 2005 study by the Tax Foundation puts the value at closer to $111-billion. That would put the per-family cost at about $822.

But this is worth noting: The dollar figure for spending on tax preparation is a calculation of the value of the time people spend working on their taxes, which the Tax Foundation put at about $39 an hour, not how much they pay to tax pros. That’s not clear in McCain’s statement.”

---

"The failings in our civil service are encouraged by a system that makes it very difficult to fire someone even for gross misconduct."

Pretty accurate there

“…McCain wisely faults not an individual but a "system." That puts him on pretty solid ground, where even a study by the federal government had difficulty finding supervisors who had attempted to take action against poorly performing employees.”

---

Senator Barack Obama - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/

“They've never paid more for gas at the pump."

Not true, even looking at the past

“We might have been inclined to cut Obama some slack for speaking in general terms about the price of gas, but he is still wrong when you look at historical levels. If you adjust for inflation, the current national price is still 41 cents below the peak of $3.39 per gallon, set in March 1981.”

---

“They don’t want political talk. I’ll just give you one example. Sen. Clinton and I were debating and she was asked about the bankruptcy law that she voted for in 2001. . . . During the debate she said, you know, ‘I voted for it, but I hoped it wouldn’t pass.’ That was a quote on live TV. That kind of talk, I think it makes people not trust government.”

Close but it’s not accurate

“Here’s what Clinton said: “Sure I do, but it never became law, as you know. It got tied up. It was a bill that had some things I agreed with and other things I didn’t agree with, and I was happy that it never became law. I opposed the 2005 bill as well.”

---

"If we went back to the obesity rates that existed in 1980, that would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars."

Health nuts must have loved this. Too bad it’s a made up number.

“We tracked down one of the authors of the study the CDC cited: Eric Finkelstein, a health economist with the research group RTI International who has studied the issue extensively and written several papers on the topic. Finkelstein said obesity accounts for excess health spending of about $90-billion a year. About half of that — about $45-billion — is billed to Medicare and Medicaid together.

Medicare's share of obesity spending therefore is between $20-billion and $25-billion. If obesity rates rolled back to 1980s levels, Medicare spending would be about half that, or about $12-billion a year.”

---

I would list more items, but in general the candidates have, of late, been accurate in many of the comments they have made. Or at least accurate to some degree.

As noted via PolitiFact (check it out for yourself), the 3 candidates have a total of 15 outright lies and 31 barely or half true statements between them. The actual breakdown is as follows:

• Clinton – 3 outright lies, 13 barely or half true statements
  


• McCain – 5 outright lies, 10 barely or half true statements
  


• Obama – 7 outright lies, 8 barely or half true statements
  

Not too bad as politicians go, and perhaps as good as we can expect. Sad as that sounds. But now you know. Keep it in mind as you go to the Primaries. Think about it as you decide who you wish to have as President of the United States.

But no matter which you choose, make a choice. Decide who the best choice for America is and use your Constitutional Right to get that person elected. Your vote matters. Use it.

Results of the 2007 Presidential election poll - 2.12.2008.1

For those that might have noticed that my poll covering who you my readers believe should be President is down, it’s because I have replaced it with several other polls, including those found at the I love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign.

The final numbers of this poll were quite revealing. Running from 2007 until February 2008 the poll covered virtually ever major candidate in the Republican and Democratic Parties – with the exception of Fred Thompson and Ron Paul. The results are as follows:

Senator Barack Obama – 51%
Senator Hillary Clinton – 21%
Senator John McCain – 16%
Rudy Guiliani – 4%
Mitt Romney – 3%
Senator Joe Biden – 3%
John Edwards – 2%
Mike Huckabee – 1%
Representative Tom Tancredo – 1%

All others – 0%

I find it interesting that this poll consistently stated that Senator Obama lead all other candidates since the 3rd quarter of 2007, and doubled the votes of Senator Clinton from December 2007 on.

When I asked the sex of those who took the poll the results broke down as follows:

Total Men – 49%
Total Women – 51%

In terms of ages

18 – 35 were 42%
35 – 66+ were 58%

Now some might question if race was a factor in the results of the poll. I can state that while the poll did not ask the race of respondents, the general data for my blogs is that I have more African Americans viewing my blogs, but have no lack of readers of all races. Comparative to general internet averages I receive a standard average percentage of Whites and Hispanic/Latinos with a roughly 25% underweighting of Asians, and a 75% overweighting of African Americans.

Based on that I presume that the poll results, while skewed somewhat to the opinion of African Americans, is a fair approximation of the nation. Respondents were not asked about party affiliation, as I feel that is unimportant to who people would vote for.

If you are wondering about the other questions in the poll (which are non-political) the results can be seen below:

90% liked the look of the site to some degree
10% disliked it to some degree

93% found navigating through the sites somewhat to very easy
7% found navigation difficult

69% enjoyed my poetry section
31% did not

87% had visited the online store and found the products (t-shirts, mouse pads, mugs, sweatshirts, journals ect.) interesting at least
13% had visited the online store and found the products unappealing

I always enjoy hearing the comments of you my readers about the various aspects of the site. Even though the poll has changed it’s focus to target the up-coming election (if you have not registered yet you still can, just go to the I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign for National government registration information), you can still contact me about your thoughts on the look of the site and/or the products in the online store.

You can email me at info@vassconsult.com

I look forward to your responses on the current polls, which I will announce periodically, and please remember to get out and let your voice be heard. Vote!

What Senator Ted Kennedy endorsing Senator Obama means

Well the Clinton political machine seems to have finally got in a pissing match they could not win. Polispeak aside, the endorsement by Senator Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan is a massive action. The entire Democratic nomination race may have taken a new direction that no one expected.

The power of the Kennedy family is without question in American politics. They stretch from New England to California. They include Congressmen, Senators, and the Guvernator. Their supporters range in age from the pre-baby boomers to the first time voters that are a force in this election. The name of the family alone has more political clout than most candidates have had.

According to some sources the Clinton machine had been looking to court the Kennedy endorsement. But they assumed too much. With the constant attacks on Senator Barack Obama based on the divisive issue of race, the insult to Dr. Martin Luther King and the slighting of JFK’s role in the Civil Rights movement, and the potential of driving a wedge in the Democratic party separated by race I think the Kennedy’s got fed up.

I have no doubt that all of the above played a part in the decision of JFK’s daughter in endorsing Senator Obama. Then came what may have been the final straw if it’s true. President Clinton supposedly called Senator Ted Kennedy and asked him not to say anything. Which led to 3 Kennedy’s endorsing Senator Obama today.

Arrogance can only take you so far. Manipulation and derogatory comments are only so effective. Especially when the Kennedy political machine spans the nation and decades in public office.

The Northeast is now probably Obama country. California may be a new stronghold. Older Democrats, liberals, poor and all the other categories that the Kennedy name affects, that Hillary Clinton has previously had an edge on, are all in question. The Clintons must be as angered by these events as they are unsure of the win a mere year ago they presumed.

Ted Kennedy’s speech was powerful and clear. He is a Democrat. He will support the nominee of the Party. And he is dedicated to do everything he can to make sure Senator Obama is that nominee.

I’ve said before that I felt Senator Obama might not win. I’ve mentioned that the use of race as a tool to divide the Democratic Party and provide Hillary the win is an effective strategy. I know that the comments by Bill and all the various staffers have angered many. I know the attempts by Bill to minimize the wins of Senator Obama, and a great leader that was Dr, Martin Luther King polarized the Democratic Party. But this was unexpected. This is a wildcard that could be the beginning of a landslide that is enormous.

Will this be close? Of course. Is momentum changing sides? I don’t think it’s stopped since the nominations process started on January 1st. But this is the first time I seriously think that the math and support behind Senator Obama is enough to give him the win.

Regardless of political affiliation or guidelines you may hold, this must be impressive. And you have to say that now, more than ever before, that Rev. Jesse Jackson is not Senator Obama. That 2008 is not 1984. That we may see a Black President and that first Black President will actually be African American.

It’s not exciting because I may or may not agree with Senator Obama, or that I may or may not want/need him to win. Rather it’s exciting because it means that in the highest office, and in the most visceral manner, America is becoming a land of the free and equal. And that is something that I think every American can appreciate and look forward to.

I Love America! That's why I vote - first step - 1.25.2008.1

The Presidential election is an import even in America. The up-coming 2008 election is even more important than most in my opinion. Readers of my political commentary at VASS are familiar with the fact that I believe this is a crucial point in the future of America.

Given this belief, I have followed and commented on various aspects of the Presidential candidates, the issues, my observations of average people discussing their concerns, and the truth that is often shaded or avoided by pundits, media and the candidates. Since 2006 I have dedicated an extreme amount of time trying to stay abreast of all the most relevant issues and news. More importantly I have tried to be neutral in my coverage of all of my posts.

But that is not enough.

My comments and observations are meant to provoke thought and inspire those readers that have not voted to be involved. I do not question the reason for anyone to not have voted before, or for some time. I do not question the choice anyone might make for President. I respect everyone’s ability to go into the voting booth and choose whomever they wish, and for whatever reason.

But considering that this up coming election will be so critical on a multitude of issues that will affect every American directly for the next decade at least, I feel more is needed. Again, I am not asking anyone to choose what I believe. In fact I have yet to endorse ANY candidate. But I implore you to be involved and to vote.

I truly believe that it is thru your vote, that America will be able to pick the best choice for the nation and our collective future. Anything less will leave us all with a leader of the free world that is lees than what is needed. With what is at risk in the next 10 years that is too dangerous to ignore.

So I will be taking further steps to get American citizens to vote. Again, I’m not asking anyone to pick a side that I believe. Just to vote for what YOU believe.

To that end, I have created a line of 61 consumer products that emphasize the importance of our votes. You can see a few of the products here, and each one will link you to my online store where you can see the full product line.

Be proud, stand up and be counted. Don’t sell your vote, or allow it to be bamboozled from you. Show that pride and interest in the greatest good for America with the various t-shirts, mouse pads, mugs, kids clothing, pet cover, aprons, magnets, stickers and so much more.

And don’t think this is the only thing I will be doing. There is much more planned, and already a few other bloggers have voiced their support and interest. I will be going for the support of several institutions as well. I plan to work towards increasing the number of voters, because when all of America acts together we do the best things for our nation and the world.

Keep an eye out for press releases and events coming soon. And they will continue all the way up til the votes are all counted and the winner announced.

And if you like what you see spread the word, display the products, and remind people that the difference in the last several elections was a mere handful of Americans. Your vote counts and it can make a huge difference.

Presidential candidates try to buy cheap votes with money and religion

And the political games go on. It’s a toss up between religion and money. Seriously, that’s what the Presidential candidates are selling, and your vote is the purchase price.

On the Democratic candidate side we hear so much on how to fight the impending recession. There have been stimulus plans offered by Senator Clinton and Senator Obama that are all about money. The plans are very similar, Obama offering $250 and Clinton $500. Sounds great right?

If you vote for either of those candidates on that basis, I am deeply offended. It’s one of the cheap tricks that politicians use to get a vote. In effect they offer nothing and hope to gain a lot.

What the offer amounts to is a rebate on your taxes, one time. Sounds nice right. An extra $500 in your pocket. Except that it won’t stay in your pocket long. The hope is that you will go out and spend the money on buying something, thus helping the economy. But I think most Americans would rather spend the money on paying down on the car, mortgage and/or credit cards. You want to clear your bills, especially when the economy looks shaky and your job is questionable.

So that won’t help the economy, your job won’t be more stable, and you end up with the same bills the next month. An example is say you own a home. You are behind on the heating bill, because of the huge increase in oil prices. You spend the money on the heating bill bringing you even, until next month when you have another high bill to pay. That rebate was a waste.

Now if the stimulus plan was really meant to help you, you would get an extra $50 a week from your paycheck. That would likely mean a tax cut. You never hear that term from Democrats because it means less money for social entitlement plans. But if they did you would get an extra roughly $200 a month or roughly $2,500 (taking out a 2 week vacation). Which would help you more? Getting an extra (assuming the average American income is $27,000) 1.9% once, or 9.3% over a year?

Mind you that this is simply a plan. Once elected there are innumerable reasons why the plan will not actually happen. So not only are you betting on the candidate winning, you are betting on them giving you a pat on the back versus actually helping you and the economy.

Oh and if you think this is a new idea look back on any election year with a possibly bad economy and you will hear it. Even as recently as 2007 Senator Clinton came up with a cheap vote plan that got her some quick television advertising and fell of the earth as soon as she didn’t need it. You do recall that she wanted to give every child in America a college bond of $5,000 right?

“Fifth, if the average college tuition is $22,218 (private) or $5,836 (public) and we assume 10% annual growth for just 18 years that means (forgive my math it’s been a while) $98,973 and $32,380 respectively. Taking $5,000 for 18 years at 10% (current rates are 4.75%) then Senator Clinton’s generous gift of your money generates $27,936. Now if my math is correct (which I’m sure I will be told if I am not) and interest rates go up to and stay at 10% (not going to happen) there is still a shortfall of $4,444 just for public school.”

Of course the Republican party is little better. We are watching as every candidate is trying to implore to us that they are more devout than the other. They want us all to believe that their religion is a cornerstone of their moral base, while at the same time denying it could have any impact on how they would run the nation.

Hogwash.

First of all since when is religion of a candidate a factor in the qualification of a Presidential candidate? Besides the huge question posed to President Kennedy when else has it been an issue? Where do they connect?

When you have a President you have a leader of a nation of dozens of religious faiths. He cannot favor one as that would alienate a swath of the nation. And it’s not his job. His job is to ensure the safety and prosperity of the nation. The spiritual health of any individual citizen is their own issue.

I mean seriously, if candidate X can quote a religious tome does that make them any smarter? Will they be able to avert a mortgage crisis any better? Will they prevent the loss of jobs overseas, or prevent illegal immigration any better? No.

The reality is that while we may be sure that candidate X may be more spiritually at ease with themselves it gives us no guarantee they are a good person or effective. To presume that a religious belief confers such is idiocy in my view. It just gives away a vote for nothing.

I mean how do we know that because candidate X was in a church on Sunday, or whatever holy day applies, that they were devout? That they truly believe. That they weren’t just hoping, and planning, on a bunch of television cameras to be outside the event waiting for them to exit. That they didn’t take a nap during the religious on-goings.

Cheap attempts to get your vote are popular, moreso now with 24 hour news and cable networks in the hundreds. There are so many opportunities to showcase an act that looks good but equates to nothing that deals with the actual function of the nation.

I don’t dispute the religious belief of any candidate. In fact I discount all of their beliefs as I an not capable of understanding what they believe in their core. In addition, with the seperation of church and state in this nation, their religious faith is without any importance to their actions if elected.

So when you think about it, there are many attempts to gain your vote on the cheap. Realize that and instead consider the actual plans, comments and history of each of the candidates. Race, gender, age, are all irrelevant factors. What they have done, and spent their lives doing is.

South Carolina primary debates on Fox News and the potential winner Part 2 - 1.10.2008.2

Continued from South Carolina primary debates on Fox News and the potential winner Part 1...

A bit later in the evening the discussion went to the issue of change. It’s a popular polispeak term, which is used now by both parties without signifying anything of importance. That was highlighted best by Rudy Giuliani when he stated

I paraphrase – “Change is not enough. We must go 1 step further and ask what kind of change. When we speak about change on education, taxes, socialized medicine we need to ask is that change good or bad?”

Of course throughout the debate Giuliani reflected on his 9/11 experience and how it gave him an edge the others did not possess. To which McCain responded once that he has been involved in every security issue that has occurred in the past 20 years, in addition to having served and fought in wars for this notion. His time as a P.O.W. in the Hanoi Hilton was unmentioned but obvious.

At the end of the debate the issue was illegal immigration. While every Republican candidate believes in throwing out the 2 million criminal (beyond being in the nation illegally) immigrants, and strong borders (actually just the southern border – to my annoyance no one speaks about the troubled and dangerous northern border with Canada) McCain had no answer on what to do about the 10 million illegal immigrants in the nation now.

Mitt Romney believes we should look at each case though all 10 million must return to their home nations before being allowed back in the nation.

Thompson stated that we need to ensure that employers are responsible in their hiring and that they are penalized for getting illegals. He also advocates the end of sanctuary cities, threatening to end their discretionary federal funding if they maintain their status. This he believes will not only force illegal immigrants out of the nation and prevent future generations from coming.

Paul felt we should enforce the law and stop subsidizing the illegals with free healthcare and education for their kids. He also wants to get the troops back from Iraq and watch our borders.

Huckabee can best be summed up in that he believes the immigrants will go home on their own. He also mentioned his 9 point plan which involves a 120 day period, which he did not elaborate on further.

And when Giuliani was asked if he would allow mayors and governors to act in the same manner with respect to illegal immigrants as he did in New York (specifically the police not asking about immigration status). He refused to answer the question and instead defended his reasoning that the illegals helped to lower crime by reporting it. He also mentioned (which I agree with) that it was better to have the 70,000 kids in school rather than in the streets.

Overall I will say that Fred Thompson won the debate. He was strong and the only person with plans for each issue consistently. He really stood out from the group, and had solid challenges to the other candidates, many of which that went without response.

Ron Paul was ineffective. He had a couple of interesting points, and one or 2 quotable thoughts. But overall he really came off weak and less of an oddball compared to many debates I have heard him in previously.

Keep an eye on John McCain though. I really think he was solid and consistent even though he did not win tonight.

If I had to guess I would expect the South Carolina Republican primary to go in this manner:

John McCain wins
Fred Thompson a strong second
Mitt Romney third
Mike Huckabee fourth
Ron Paul might get a couple of percentage point but definitely dead last

South Carolina primary debates on Fox News and the potential winner - 1.10.2008.1

I’m watching the Republican Presidential debate, in South Carolina on Fox News tonight, and a few very important issues are coming up.

Of course the debate started with the question of the economy. Is there going to be a recession (or as Ron Paul stated it’s an ongoing recession with real estate in a depression) and how long will it last? Will cutting taxes help the average American? Do we need to cut government spending?

All of these are important issues. And I would say that yes a recession is probable. No it’s not a bad thing, though it won’t feel good in the short term. Housing is not in a depression (with all due respect to Ron Paul), rate cuts by themselves are not enough, and keeping the Bush tax cuts prevents a de facto tax increase to the American public. Those are my thoughts, though some of the candidates agree.

One of the bigger moments I think that will be talked about a lot is the challenge made by Fred Thompson to Mike Huckabee on his record. The points made, including Huckabee being pro-immigration, and anti-school vouchers among other things, went unchallenged by Huckabee. He deflected the answers and mentioned his 94 tax cuts and work on education. Honestly Fred Thompson won that point and the crowd knew it.

Another big point was the question by the moderator, Tim Russert, to Ron Paul. Paul was asked if he would ask the 9/11 truthers that support Paul to stop their claims. Ron Paul stated he does not endorse the truthers, or their ideas. He refused to ask them to stop advocating it on his behalf though.

When the question of Pakistan came up Fred Thompson had a great reason why we need to be involved. Because Pakistan is a nation with nuclear weapons, and is Islamic. We need to know who has control of those weapons in our own national interest.

On a similar response, asked to Ron Paul later in the evening about electability,

I paraphrase – “Let me see if I can get this straight. We borrow 10 Billion from China, to give it to Musharef (who overthrew a democratic government) who is hiding terrorists, and then get into a war to bring democracy to Iraq? How aren’t Republicans interested? Why couldn’t asking about that make me unelectable?”

John McCain made a good point, when challenged by Ron Paul as I recall, that having a presence in Iraq is

“A question of presence, not casualties.”

He correctly mentioned that we have troops in Germany since WWII, and in South Korea, and even Kuwait. That is not the same as having fighting troops, so a long term plan with troops in Iraq is not a bad thing or a plan without end.

Continued in Part 2...

Mike Huckabee, Senator Barack Obama win Iowa

This has been quite the remarkable night. You may not have heard this, but the Iowa caucus is over. More importantly is the advent of history that has occurred.

I realize it’s 2007, so many may not notice but an African American has taken the forefront in the Democratic race for the Presidency of the United States. Others will likely focus on the more decisive win by Mike Huckabee in the Republican race, which is a surprise, but it’s not historic. Yes, historic and a massive statement about America.

Never before has an African American done so well in an election bid. Never before has a state with an approximately mere 2% of the population being African American stated that the Black candidate is their first choice for President. Thank god we have come so far from the days of segregation, Jim Crow and random lynchings without any pursuit of criminals involved.

Seriously, America is taking a step forward and it is needed. I was just commenting in a separate post, found at Black and White Blog, about the fledgling trend in states stepping up and making half-hearted attempts at apologizing for their role in slavery. I spent a good part of the night discussing the issue with friends. I felt that this was something that is the first step in America finally healing the festering wound that is racism in this nation. But this is far more in that direction.

Just one year ago pundits were laughing, almost literally, at the prospect of Senator Obama running. Just 2 months ago, the pundits guaranteed the sweeping victory and absolute nomination of Senator Clinton as Democratic candidate for the Presidency. For the entire year there were constant cries of if Senator Obama was too Black or not Black enough. And today he stands in position to realistically win the nomination.

Is America ready for a Black President? Not the crap assigned to President Clinton by pundits that obviously have ocular issues, but a real Black President. That question is more viable than ever before. I must admit a personal rush at the thought. That isn’t an endorsement, just an observation.

Is he the best candidate for the Presidency? That’s a question I will answer only after all the primaries are done, and the candidates are announced. But he is an indication that the ‘old boys club’ of America is coming to an end. That’s something I never expected in my lifetime.

The fact is that America must deal with the inequalities that minorities face everyday, and the closer Senator Obama gets the closer that day of reckoning comes. This is not a radical or bad thing. It’s a day that is 143 years overdue. Whether he wins the nomination or not, the closer he gets the closer America comes to being truly unified and approaching a better future for all Americans at the same time.

There are many questions facing Senator Obama. There are many issues that America faces and he has not presented any plans or platforms that address these issues. As we go forward we will see if this was just a signal of what will come, or a real challenge to the glass ceiling that most minorities know. That ceiling has long been referred to as

“If you’re White the sky is the ceiling, but if you’re Black the ceiling is the sky.”

This is not the most political analysis I have ever made. I am excited about thoughts that have little to nothing to do with the actual potential of the Presidential race. I’m honest enough to admit that. But is America willing to admit that perhaps, after this adrenaline rush passes and the real questions get answered, a Black man may be the best choice for America? Would America still elect him?

Well that my more emotional thoughts based on the Iowa results. Tomorrow I’ll get back to seriously evaluating the results, and the potential nominees.

The question is who to vote for in 2008

I was speaking with a young former military man today, and the subject of the 2008 election came up. This man is 22, a former Navy Seal, and interested in what will happen to America in the near term. He also has no idea who to vote for.

Sometimes I forget that many people, of all ages, have not been following the Presidential race since 2006 like I and other bloggers have. That’s not because of a lack of interest, or intelligence. It’s because there is so little information out, and so little to get behind. There are plenty of YouTube video clips, charts on the net to chart where each candidate stands, and 30 second soundbites galore. But there is little substance and platforms for the average American to sink their teeth into.

To an extent I hope that my lists of Pros and Cons of Republican and Democratic candidates are helpful. I hope that my letters to several of the candidates (of both political parties) helps to give further insight to what each offers the nation. But even if all that I have written over the past year and almost a half on this has been read by every undecided voter in America I don’t think it is enough. That is because all the candidates are failing America.

They are failing us because they are playing partisan games, one-upmanship and preening like celebrities (with issues) more than attempting to be political leaders. And that benefits none of us.

One example of this failure is in the question given to me by this young man. The question was

“This war has gone too far. Especially since it was started over oil. I’m concerned about that.” – paraphrased but the essential elements of the question.

My answer is simple, and not one politician has ever said this that I am aware of.

Let’s say that the war was done only for oil, which is easily debated and proven incorrect. Why is that bad? Right now, estimates state that there may only be another 40 years or so of oil left in the Middle East. At this time there is not another alternative energy source that works. Not one. Lot’s of theoreticals but they are all only effective on paper.

Given that fact, and there is no debate it is fact, then oil is the only reliable energy source in the near future. America has reserves and access to several major oilfields that have never been tapped. The reason is that we are using all the oil in the Middle East while developing alternatives for the future. If OPEC were to run out of oil, most every nation would be unable to continue to provide for the safety and quality of life of their people virtually overnight. Except for America and a few other nations. That’s because of our use of foreign oil.

Taking a long term view, it is strategically important that we use oil from everyone else as much as possible, to guarantee that when the reserves start to dry up we will still be able to defend our nation, and continue to seek and create improved energy sources.
So, having an ally in the Middle East that provides America cheap oil in large quantities is vital to our long-term survival. It makes sense for us to want to have control over a major oil producer.

In addition, there is the question of money. Many want to point at President Bush and say it’s about him making money. The theory is that only oil companies will make money from Iraq. Those claiming this fail to recall that those same oil companies help fuel the American economy. They are part of the stock market, where tens of millions have invested their retirement funds, based on the thought they will bring in a profit. These companies employ thousands of people. They are paid to find, refine, and transport this fuel. This oil is used by hundreds of businesses that create cars, plastic, tires, perfumes and other products.

Oil companies making more money, means that America makes more money. And for those that might want to “take the profits away from the oil companies and give it to the people,” they are both liars and ill-advised. If the profits are taken from the oil companies, you will not receive a check for your share of that money. In addition, your mutual funds, and the stock market will drop. Jobs will be lost, in dozens of industries. America will be hurt.

It’s true, and all you need to do to see it is to look at the big picture and the long term view.

But politicians won’t say that.

How about tax reform that so many want to have. Several presidential candidates claim they will “remove the IRS” and completely convert the tax code. I feel they are misguided in the worst manner.

Not that I think the IRS is a good thing, or that the tax code is working. But if it were to be removed it would impede the entire nation. Of the roughly 40% of the nation that is employed by the Government let’s say that the IRS, or any department, makes up 5% of all the people employed. Without the IRS they are all out of work.

In addition you lose all the people that do oversight on the IRS, all those that do research on the effects of the tax codes, those investigating the loopholes of taxes, and those that prepare taxes for the average American.

Say good bye to H&R Block and other similar corporations. And with their loss goes the benefit and impact they provide to the stock market. Unemployment skyrockets, and the stocks, mutual funds and retirements of millions plummet.

The big picture, long-term view really takes all the wind out of the sails of a cute popular soundbite. But it’s far more honest. Because the fact is that any department of the Government is incapable of being removed or revised substantially. There are just too many lives, and economic implications tied to it to happen.

What does that mean when evaluating Presidential candidates? That when you look at all the information and comments made you have to take a moment to review what they are really saying. You have to look at the long term effects. And you have to throw out all the feel good fluff soundbites they all make. Because there isn’t a human being alive, ever, that can discuss all the implications of say nuclear weapons in Iran or illegal aliens in 30 seconds.

A point of caution for Iowa Democrats

As has been shown constantly since it happened, the most important part of the Iowa Debate has now hit YouTube. It’s very important for more reasons than just the joke that Senator Obama wittily made. Take a look at the video clip, and watch for the details. I’ll explain my points right after.



Now at the beginning we get the question. This is very important because of what it does not state. The fact is that many long-time supporters of the Clinton’s have abandoned them and joined Senator Obama. I have to wonder why these people, who personally know the Clinton’s, would end a decades long relationship. What do they know that would cause them to switch? And en masse at that.

The next thing we hear is the laugh. Or cackle if you prefer. [The 23rd second of the video] This is not a joyful laugh, but one that directly implies superiority and advantage. It’s clear that Senator Clinton felt this was an embarrassment to Senator Obama. That it proved his lack of experience and ability, in her mind. Her laughter was at him and not with him, it was mean-spirited and for once an honest reaction from a normally very well scripted and calculating politician. [I’ll address the experience issue in a moment]

Senator Obama responded in defense and with class. [The 28th second] Rather than snapping at Senator Clinton’s implied slap in the face, he retaliated with jest. He emphasized his growing support and the fact so many of her initial supporters have joined him. He mentioned and declared that like all great leaders, he too would seek advice from those around him and make the best decision.

If you notice the reaction from Senator Clinton, which is brief, is opposite everyone else. EVERYONE else laughed. Senator Clinton caught herself in the middle of a scowl. [The 32nd second of the video clip] She showed part of another real reaction. She is angry about her attempt to embarrass was used against her, well. That a moment she thought would stand for her benefit turned into a moment of her obvious weakness.

I am not saying that Senator Obama should be the choice of anyone. I am not endorsing any candidate, Republican or Democrat, at this moment. But I am highlighting facts that are going unspoken in this race of the primaries.

Oh, and as for experience. In the mid-80’s Senator Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago. In the 1990’s Senator Obama ran a voter registration drive. From 93-96 he represented communities and voter rights as a lawyer and lectured on constitutional law from 1993 until 2004 when he was elected to the Senate. Oh, don’t let me forget to mention that Senator Barack Obama served in the Illinois State Senate from 1996 until 2004 when he was elected to the Senate.

Now that might not be executive political experience, but it is experience. It is serving the public. It is a commitment that spans roughly 20 years.

As for Senator Clinton. She campaigned for a year in 1973. She researched impeachment procedures in 1974. She taught something at Fayetteville School of Law, for 3 years until she got a job working on patent infringement. When President Bill Clinton was elected Governor she got to work on getting federal funds to expand medical facilities. After President Clinton lost re-election she joined Arkansas Educational Standards Committee and did eventually change school policies.

When President Clinton was elected First Lady Clinton took on healthcare, a familiar area for her. She failed miserably.

Essentially Senator Hillary Clinton has consistently had minor experience serving the public. She has done very well making money in dubious actions. But her roles helping the public have consistently come from her connection to President Clinton. That includes being elected in New York, where she is not from and has no connection to.

Senator Clinton has not lead a life of public service. President Bill Clinton has, Hillary has not. Consistently Senator Clinton has had the claim that she was around public service, and dabbled with it a bit, while being the wife of someone who did serve the public.

If sleeping with public figures qualifies as public service, executive experience, then expect Monica Lewinsky to win a Senate seat shortly. But if actually serving the public is the criteria, Senator Clinton is lacking all the candidates.

Oh, a last thought. From 1978 until roughly 1992 Senator Clinton made at least $100,000 a year. She was on multiple corporate boards. When was it that she, or Warren Buffett, or John Edwards and so on, wrote a check from their excess funds to the government just because. Not paying taxes but just paying more than their share, which she claims the rich, which she qualifies as for over 2 decades, don’t do.

Suffice to say, be cautious at the Iowa Caucus. 41 seconds in the past might have a lot to say about what 4 years in the future could be like.

Pros and Cons of Republican Presidential candidates Part 3

Concluded from Pros and Cons of Republican Presidential candidates Part 2...

Mitt Romney

Pros –


• Former Governor
  
• Strong Business Experience
  
• Very Religious
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• For Privatizing SSI
  
• Waterboarding (Torture ok)
  
• Pro-Education
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Few understand his religion
  
• Flipped Abortion
  
• Flipped gay marriage
  
• Unknown position about minorities
  
• Pro-GPS tracking of convicted criminals for life
  
• Mixed Gun Control
  
• Mixed Immigration policies
  
  
  Fred Thompson
  
  Pros –
  
  
• Former Senator
  
• Anti-abortion
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Pro-Education
  
• Anti-Gun Control
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• Waterboarding (Torture ok)
  
• Reform SSI
  
• No Nukes in Iran
  
• Anti-Flag Burning
  
• Anti-Immigration
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Known for TV/Movie Roles
  
• Mixed on gay marriage
  
• Mixed on Minorities
  

Well there you go. I know I did not include the internet favorite Ron Paul. The fact is that while he may be popular on the net, his views are generally seen as extreme and nutty. He has no real following around the country on any poll. And as for Alan Keyes, where the hell did he come from? Are you kidding?

I hope this helps, because the most important decision in the last 3 decades faces the nation in this next election. In my opinion the Presidential Race of 2008 will determine the direction of the country for the next decade or longer, and most of the things done will be irreversible.

Your vote counts, don’t give it frivolously or cheaply.

Pros and Cons of Republican Presidential candidates Part 2

Continued from Pros and Cons of Republican Presidential candidates Part 1...

Mike Huckabee

Pros –


• Governor
  
• Anti-abortion
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• Anti-gay marriage
  
• For Privatizing SSI
  
• Anti-Gun Control
  
• Very Religious
  
• Fair Tax
  
• Pro Education
  
• Decent Minority Rights
  
• Against 3 strikes laws
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Virtually unknown to the general public
  
• Very Religious
  
• Anti-Torture
  
• Ok with Pathway to Citizenship
  
• Fuzzy on Immigration in general
  
  
  Senator John McCain
  
  Pros –
  
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Anti-Torture (he has huge conviction and reasons)
  
• Current Senator – Long term position
  
• Military Hero
  
• Anti-gay marriage
  
• Anti-Gun Control
  
• Strongly Finish Iraq war
  
• For Privatizing SSI
  
• Anti-Flag Burning
  
• Pro-Minority Bills
  
• Limit Judges Legislating
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Flipped on Abortion
  
• Mixed on Education
  
• Anti-Torture
  
• Pro-Pathway to Citizenship
  
• Pro-Immigration Reform
  

Continued in part 3...

Pros and Cons of Republican Presidential candidates

Not long ago I created a list of Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates. To be fair and to see the differences I have complied a Pros and Con list for the leading major Republican candidates.

I do not presume that this list is all-encompassing. I recognize that while I have tried to be neutral, just as I was with the Democrats, I’m sure there are areas where my personal views entered. I do not claim my list is complete or how everyone feels. But I believe it is accurate.

Some issues may fall on both sides, because depending on personal views it is a positive or negative. Most are far more easily categorized. If you disagree, please make a comment and give your reasons why. You may be right, so why not share your thoughts?

You can see some of my source information at On The Issues and 2008 Election ProCon.

Now for the breakdowns (in alphabetical order):

Rudy Giuliani

Pros –


• 9/11
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• No Nuke Iran
  
• Waterboarding (Torture ok)
  
• Mayor of largest U.S. City
  
• Lower taxes
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Mixed on Gun Control
  
• No International experience
  
• Flipped on gay marriage
  
• Mayor was highest level of public service experience
  
• Relies heavily on 9/11
  
• Flipped on Immigration policies
  
• Horrendous Civil Liberties (Amidou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, ect)
  
• Sold out 42nd Street to corporations
  

Continued in Part 2...

The polispeak on experience

Experience. It is defined as to have firsthand knowledge of states, situations, emotions, or sensations. In politics it is the difference between the records of one politician and another, allegedly. In the political world, having secondhand or peripheral knowledge is equal to firsthand. And that is enough to get elected on.

Amazing isn’t it. That is to say if you are married to a scientist that cures a disease, you too are qualified as an expert. The fact you know nothing about the subject besides knowing co-workers and colleagues only adds to your experience.

Imagine writing a resume and saying that

“My brother (or whomever) worked as a certified electrician and I went with him on jobs for several years. So I am applying for work as a certified electrician.”

Your application/resume would be thrown in a dumpster. That’s the real world that most Americans live in.

But if you are a politician, you live in a world that is separate of the real one. A world in which osmosis and standing next to important people is just as good as doing something. Want to get popular and you’re an unknown, stand next to a movie star. Want to seem important, get seen talking to a famous politician or dignitary (even if the actual conversation was about how they like their coffee).

For those that would scoff at this, or wonder how it applies to Presidential politics consider the current argument between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. Both claim to have international experience. In fact neither does.

For Senator Obama, the fact is that 4 years lived overseas as a pre-adolescent is not political experience. I submit that it can and does broaden life experience and that it can help to widen views about different cultures. But that’s about it.

I mean I spent a year and a half in Moscow, witnessed the coup attempt on Michial Gorbechev and the start of the civil war in Soviet Georgia firsthand. That does not qualify me as an expert in coups, civil wars, Soviet politics, revolutions, or Russia. But if I were running for political office you can bet your ass that it would be a confirmation written in stone that I have international experience.

Looking at the facts of the matter, according to how politicians equate experience, I have more experience than Senator Obama (I was 23 while in Moscow) and arguably Senator Clinton.

For Senator Clinton, there is no question that as First Lady she visited several nations and met with several dignitaries. That is fact. Of course she never discussed the politics of America with these Heads of State. That was the job her husband, President Bill Clinton did.

Do the spouses of leaders of nations have influence? On fashion trends, absolutely. On whether there will be sanctions against terrorist nations, no. That’s just a fact. No one asked First Lady Clinton how America should deal with export taxes, or Qadafi, or the no-fly zone over Iraq. Because she had no influence, power, or experience in the matter. Whether President Clinton spoke to her about these matters or not, it’s not experience.

In the same manner that First Lady Bush (either), Carter, Reagan, Ford, or Nixon had any experience because of the office their husbands held. So of the 8 years of Executive Office experience Senator Clinton claims, none is really valid except a short period of time when she tried and failed miserably to reform healthcare. A miserable failure that arguably was because she had no influence or political power/experience. She doesn’t have 15 years of political experience, because if including the time that President Clinton served counts so should his time as Governor, which she does not include (rightly).

So for all the hogwash that’s being spun out there, the fact is I and many Americans have more real firsthand knowledge of international politics and events. Those Americans do not include the Presidential candidates. It may sound great for a soundbite, but it’s just polispeak and another cheap way to buy your vote.

Video clips of candidate flips: Polispeak in action Part 2

Continued from Video clips of candidate flips: Polispeak in action Part 1...

Hillary Clinton on troops in Iraq – [She is the “frontrunner” so she gets more attention here]





Mike Huckabee on Taxes –





There are other examples, and I have no doubt every candidate has to some degree taken opposing sides of many issues. One pundit has stated this is just the

“difference between campaigning and trying to govern and legislate” – Chris Cillizza

But if you ask me it’s just a way to lie to the public. If you are for something, then you campaign on it. If you are trying to get votes you omit facts and your intentions. Perhaps I’m unique being from the Bronx, but omitting things is considered lying. Hiding part of my actions is considered shady and duplicitous. Telling part of the story, and acting contrary to what I vehemently stated is considered manipulation.

The election for 2008 is very important. Many critical issues affecting America for the next decade are in play. Essentially it seems that this election will come down to the lesser of 2 evils, which still leaves us with an evil. But given that, keep in mind when you go to the primaries that virtually every Presidential candidate has lied, answered in the grey, or outright taken both sides of the argument.

Because of that you need to pay attention to what seems to be their real positions and what you think is best for America. If not, we all may regret the President we get, because once the votes are cast we can’t go back and try again.