THE IDEALOGUE VS. THE PRAGMATIC

As we come down to the final days of the 2008 election cycle, perhaps we should make a close examation of why we choose to vote the way we do. Our country has managed to divide itself fairly equally between two different and vastly opposing ideologies. And as tends to be the case with extreme idealogues...the more committed they are, the more vocal and uncompromising they are. And this is NOT a good thing. No ideology whether liberal or conservative fits all situations all of the time. The result is a blind committment to what may be a good idea in theory but simply doesn't work in a pragmatic way.

The idealogue will follow the party line all the way....regardless of where it leads. The gay rights idealogue will insist that gay marriage is a right...and nothing less than legal marriage is acceptable. He will continue to insist on his right, even turning down the compromise of "domestic partnership". That means that when his partner lies near death in a hospital, that partner can be kept from the hospital bed by the partner's parents. The pragmatist says, "what's in a name"? Domestic partnership would give you the rights you deserve without incurring the anger and conflict that the term marriage will bring to the discussion.

The idealogue will insist that "gun ownership" should have NO limitations and that any law curtailing your right to a weapon is unconstitutional and must be fought! The pragmatist asks, "what happens when a 14 year old boy walks into your daughter's middle school with an automatic weapon and an attitude?"

The idealogue believes in "my way or the highway" while the pragmatist looks for the compromise solution.

One of the greatest complaints I hear about our government is the assertion that they don't get anything done. But that's to be expected. We vote our ideology. And as a nation we are pretty evenly split down the middle between conservative and liberal. We have reached a national road block with neither conservatives or liberals being enough of a majority to make any progress on real solutions to real problems. And that is why I am supporting Sen. Obama for President.

Two years ago I read both of the Senator's books and was especially impressed with THE AUDACITY OF HOPE. In it he discusses his political philosophy which is very dependent upon the belief that policy only works with a majority concensus. He wrote of two incidents that stuck in my mind that illustrate how a President Obama would approach policy. Both anecdotes involved "hot button" issues designed to upset both the right & the left. But the Senator's take on the Death Penalty and Separation of Church & State was what first led me to think that a President Obama might be a good idea.

While an Illinois State Senator, Obama worked on a bill concerning the death penalty. On a personal level, Senator Obama is against the death penalty in most cases. A liberal group had brought up the issue of Chicago cops who would allegedly beat a confession from a suspect and then have him charged with a death penalty crime based on that coerced confession. The liberal idealogue would insist on trying to ban the death penalty. Obama instead stated the obvious, most Americans support to one degree or another the death penalty. He sat down with representatives of the police and with those advocating the end of the death penalty. He then passed legislation that limited death penalty convictions to cases where the confession is video taped. If a confession was given without the videotape, then the man would only be sentenced to life imprisonment. He found a solution based on the limited common ground of the two sides. Neither was completely happy with it but both sides agreed that it worked better than the status quo.

He also addressed the issue of separation of church & state. As he put it, you can't let the government endorse a particular religion or religious belief. But the flip side is that those who watch that "line in the sand" need to be aware that the world does not stop is someone mentions "God" in public. There needs to be a balance that reflects the differing opinions of the public.

One of Obama's favorite sayings is, "I know you want to go to the moon, but we only have enough gas to get this far". He is pragmatic about what can and cannot be done. I would be willing to bet that all of the screams of outrage against his candidacy from the right will be nothing compared to the screams from the left when they realize that he listens to both sides before acting.

I would prefer to vote for the candidate who is going to realize that America is made up of many differing opinions. I will vote for the candidate who considers the middle ground when enacting policy. To be honest, I think McCain has many pragmatic traits about him. It was one of the things that attracted me to his candidacy in 2000, but he is definitely an idealogue on foreign policy. More importantly, he is an old man and his number two is an unprepared idealogue. And that a recipe for disaster!

DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE PALIN WARDROBE FUND?

Just a quick question for donors to the Republican Party. It's been difficult economic times for everyone. Do you mind that the McCain Campaign spent $150,000 on a new wardrobe for Sarah Palin or would you like your money back?


Or as Mike Murphy (McCain's 2000 campaign manager) put it:

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PITBULL & A HOCKEY MOM?

YOU CAN FEED A PITBULL FOR 368 YEARS ON WHAT IT TAKES TO CLOTHE A HOCKEY MOM!

WHY I SUPPORT OBAMA: STEWARDSHIP

I have many reasons for supporting Sen. Obama's campaign. Some of those reasons are because I support specific policies that he has proposed. Some of the reasons are less distinct. An example of such is my belief that Sen. Obama would show the best stewardship of the country. Stewardship is defined as the act of caring for another's property or interests. It is an often neglected aspect of the job description of President. But ultimately the concept that the President is responsible for the wise use of the resources of government is one of the most important ideas to the running of good government.

Many people believe that the government should have NO influence over their lives. They have a "survival of the fittest" mentality which denies any need of government influence in thier lives. Other people strongly feel that the government should solve every problem for them. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. We may not want to be taxed: but without those taxes there is no revenue to run the country. Without those revenues bad things happen...bridges fall down, military endeavors fail and economic failings can leave society at a standstill.

So we need government and we need the administration of that government to be wise and responsible. The degree to which we need that government is and always will be an issue of contention among Americans. There are many who believe that Sen. Obama will tax and spend us all into poverty. And that is an issue that has been discussed on many blogs, talk shows and at every bar in the country. The degree to which government needs to be involved is a matter for argument, the need for responsible use of those resources is not.

Simply put, I believe that Sen. Obama will be the better steward of America's resources. You may disagree with how much to give him, but he is the one who will best administer what he is given to work with.

I believe strongly that people fall into two categories as they grow older. Some see the future as a fragile gift to our children and grandchildren. Others believe (regardless of what theology they profess) that when they die....the world for all practical purposes STOPS! I do not profess to know for sure how Sen. McCain sees the future, but I am certain that the father in Sen. Obama looks to the future legacy he leaves his children.

It's much like the Biblical proverb: One servant buried his master's money to make sure that it stayed safe and wasn't lost. He was rebuked for the waste of potential. The wise servant cared for the money as if it were his own. He used it responsibly and produced a profit for his master. He wanted something better for the future...not just to maintain the status quo.

Many have called Obama a socialist or suggested that in "re-distributing the wealth" he would take from the rich to give to the poor. In many cases, this is a thinly veiled assertion that Sen. Obama will "look after his own" and give your hard earned money to those "other black people." The labels & name calling are merely a way to form divisions among us. A way to keep us from examining the real issue: How do we use our resources to our best advantage?

The truth is that Sen. Obama feels ALL Americans are hurting now. And some are doing more than hurting. They make just enough to pay the rent and keep the lights turned on but there is no "extra" to be cut. Under an Obama plan, the ones who make a quarter of a million dollars or more per year will pay more money towards our national upkeep. Why? Because that extra payment will not result in their utilities being turned off. I once listened to a woman ahead of me at the bank who was complaining that the economy was so bad that she couldn't afford to go to Europe for vacation and would have to settle on Mexico this year. I hope you don't mind if I don't get all misty eyed over her loss.

We are a nation at war...on two fronts. We are a nation that has ignored it's infra-structure to the point that it is falling down around us. We are a nation facing a severe recession. We must increase our revenues and we must use those revenues wisely. Never has our nation staged a war paid for by credit and now we must pay the bill. The manner in which that bill is payed is of extreme importance to our future.

All sides, whether they support Obama's bid for presidency or not, have commented on the way his campaign has been run. There have been conservative Republicans who have publicly held the Obama Campaign as a shining example of executive management. The same cannot be said of the McCain campaign. When Obama was asked by the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, "why when you have no executive management experience, should we believe you can run America?" And Obama replied, "Watch how I run my campaign."

So on Nov. 4th, I will look to the future and cast my vote for Sen. Barack Obama. The Senator summed it up best today in a speech:

"We can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo...In one week, we can come together as one nation, and one people, and once more choose our better history. That's what's at stake."

"The change we need isn't just about new programs and policies...It's about a new attitude, it's about new politics _ a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts."

NEW ENDORSEMENT FOR McCAIN

Sen. John McCain's presidential bid received a new endorsement today. Several bloggers on a web site called al-Hesba have endorsed Sen. McCain as the best choice for an American President to promote their agenda. Normally, the McCain campaign would be thrilled at a new endorsement....but this web site is a password protected site sponsored by Al-Qaeda!

They feel that a President McCain will continue to occupy American military resources in Iraq and that his "impetuous" character will lead him to make decisions that will increase the Anti-American sentiment that feeds Al Qaeda funding and recruitment.

It's very easy to make light of this "endorsement". Many on the left are having a field day with it. Look to see it as the "joke of the week" on any number of late night shows. But it alludes to an extremely serious issue that many would like to ignore. We still live in dangerous times! One of the many pro-McCain quotes also suggests that an attack before the election could swing the vote enough to allow McCain to win.

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

As a liberal, I am often accused of being blind to the dangers of the world we live in. That is simply not correct. Al-Qaida IS still a danger. But it is important to consider how the next President will react in a moment of crisis. Conventional wisdom suggests that the ex-military pilot would have a better grasp of what is necessary to combat the enemy. Unfortunately, all we have seen from Sen. McCain are knee-jerk reactions to events as opposed to a clear, concise response to a situation. (Look at the economic crisis.) When you examine the irratic manner in which he has managed his own campaign, it calls into question his judgment in managing a military operation. We should also keep in mind that our actions in Iraq have been one of the best recruitment tools Al-Qaeda has ever had.

You see, it is not enough for a President to only understand the military aspects of a conflict. He must be equally versed in the political ramifications of his actions. If you blow up a building to kill a terrorist, you will probably also kill civilians. That action may strengthen the resolve of the people to support the terrorists you are trying to defeat. The importance of the target may outweigh the political risk of killing civilians. That is a matter to be judged each time by the President. I have no doubt that McCain can blow up the building. I am no longer sure that he has the wisdom to see the end result of his actions or the political impact they will have on the situation. (Remember, McCain is one of those who insisted that we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people.)

While it has been suggested that an Obama Presidency would be "tested" to see how he would react early in his term, it could also be suggested that the predictability of McCain's temperment is equally dangerous. The first rule of war is to understand your adversary's strengths & weaknesses in order to exploit them. McCain's predictability is very easily exploited.

There is danger in the world today. An "impetuous" president will NOT help us navigate the dangerous waters of the world we find ourselves living in! A new direction is needed!

WHY I SUPPORT OBAMA: THE CONSTITUTION

When I was in grade school it was required that every student memorize the Preamble to the Constitution. In middle school we were required to read the entire document...test on Monday. We were taught the three branches of government and how they were to be a system of "checks & balances" on each other. And in high school, we discussed the implications of that document in a class called Comparative Political Systems taught by a man who took great pride in his nickname..."BETTER DEAD THAN RED" CHARLIE. This was during the Reagan years and the end of the Cold War, it was a class that left an impression.

"Charlie" is dead now. And as conservative as he was, I can't help but think that he would be horrified to see what has happened to his favorite document during the past 8 years. Because the greatest casualty to 9/11 has been the Constitution! Under the guise of "homeland security", President Bush has used the attack on the Twin Towers to justify the gutting of the most impressive document of government written since the Magna Carta.

It can now be stated of America that under the leadership of President Bush, we have legalized the following acts that are considered by many to be unconstitutional:

* The government can imprison ANY AMERICAN whom the government has determined to be an "enemy of America". There is no need for a warrant.
* Suspension of Habeas Corpus. The right of an individual to petition the court for release from incarceration. This is the right to a trial. You can't simply be held indefinitely without a court appearance.
* While Congress has passed laws during the Bush Administration prohibiting torture, the President has issued a "signing statement" allowing it under his own interpretation of the law but in violation of the Constitution.
* Up until the passing of the most recent FISA Bill, President Bush authorized warrantless domestic wiretapping of American citizens.

The argument offered by the administration to justify these acts consists of the establishment of the never ending War on Terror. Then the President claims the additional powers offered to him by the Constitution in times of war and national emergency. The problem with this is that it has become a very open ended commitment on the part of the President. If the war never ends....you don't have to give up the extra power you wield.

President Bush & Vice President Cheney have long felt that the Executive Branch was stripped of it's power following Watergate. They have used the excuse of 9/11 to take power that Nixon never dreamed of.

Please don't misunderstand, I am aware that we face many dangers in today's world. But I fear anything that disrupts the delicate balance established by our founding fathers between the duty of the Executive Branch to execute the laws and the oversite obligation of the other branches.

These changes can be as dangerous in the long run as the threat of terrorism is in the short term. It sounds good to say that the President won't be bothered with liberal courts and evidence when terrorists stalk our streets to kill us. But in a few years, we could find that the "terrorists" are no longer Muslim but something much closer to home. You see the Patriot Act doesn't discriminate between citizen and non-citizen. So the next time it's used to arrest an "enemy of America" it might be you! And then you have no right to a trial or even to see the evidence presented against you.

This may sound silly, but if you have been called traitor and un-American as often as I have by bloggers, you get a little nervous when a candidate for vice-president starts talking about the "REAL AMERICA". I often argued in 2005 that you should never give President Bush power that you would not want a President Hillary Clinton to have.

I don't mind wiretapping of citizens. I do mind when it is done without a court order. I know I should trust the government to act responsibly, but as we learned last week...it often doesn't. We now know that countless American service men were listened in on while they called home. And instead of catching terrorists, we established a military intelligence 900 number. Military Intelligence was listening to phone sex between soldiers and the partners left at home. Worse, they were passing the BEST calls on to others to enjoy! Please explain to me how this is either making me safer or is protecting my constitutional rights.

Earlier this year, Sen. Obama showed that he understood the tightrope that must be walked between keeping the country safe and protecting the rights of its citizens. When the FISA bill was first presented, he worked to ensure that it required a court order be obtained for any wire tap. FISA was a very hot button issue for the liberal side of the Democratic party. He upset many of them when he voted for the FISA bill because he felt the need for safety outweighed the minor problems of the bill once oversight was established. In this, he showed a clearer understanding of the true intent of the Constitution than our current president has.

As a Constitutional Law professor for one of the best law schools in the US, Senator Obama offers our best hope for restoring the mindset of government to one that believes in the importance of the Constitution. He understands that it is our Constitution that makes America different from the rest of the world. We have seen this recently when the Supreme Court overruled a ban on handguns within a municipality. Sen. Obama disagreed with their ruling, but pointed out that while he didn't like it, once the Supreme Court makes a ruling....that's the law. How nice that he accepted it when he didn't get his way. Refreshing after the last eight years.

The Constitution is the single most important legal document in the history of our country. Sen. Obama is the candidate most inclined to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (and not just the parts that he likes!)

REST IN PEACE

"Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That's not America. Is there something wrong with a seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion that he is a Muslim and might have an association with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel particularly strong about this because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay, was of a mother at Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone, and it gave his awards - Purple Heart, Bronze Star - showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death, he was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the head stone, it didn't have a Christian cross. It didn't have a Star of David. It has a crescent and star of the Islamic faith.
And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was fourteen years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he could serve his country and he gave his life."

Ret. General Colin Powell, MEET THE PRESS, October 19, 2008

Thank you, Sir. For reminding us what it means to be an American. There are over 20,000 Muslim-Americans currently serving in our Armed Forces. We must remember them and their sacrifices with all due honor and respect. May the blessings of God & Allah be upon you.

MUCH ADO ABOUT ACORN

It's October of an election year. And as predictable as the turning of the autumn leaves, comes the Republican cries about the evils of ACORN and voter fraud. Now don't get me wrong, I am not trying to make light of what could be a serious problem. But listening to the Right will cause you to confuse the crime of Voter Fraud (a major offense) with the lesser crime of voter registration fraud. They are screaming about the potential problems of the oak when all they really have in hand are a few nuts.




ACORN is an organization dedicated to being a political voice for the poor. They are involved in a number of projects that include working on housing issues, rebuilding New Orleans, school lunch menus, etc. The most visible arm of their work is their voter registration drives. Both in 2004 & 2006 there were allegations that ACORN was submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registrations. These allegations have resurfaced this election cycle as well. The Right would have you believe that these registrations are being done in order to alter the results of the election. They will remind you that Sen. Obama once represented ACORN as an attorney and has worked for them repeatedly over the years. They then allege that the Obama campaign is behind this "conspiracy". They point out that the Obama campaign gave 830,000 dollars to ACORN and on an FEC report listed it for "event management" instead of voter registration. (We know this because the Obama campaign amended the report without prompting. If they hadn't we would never know this.)




I have a lot of trouble with "conspiracy theories". For a conspiracy to be big enough to make a difference in the real world, it requires a lot of people's active participation. It also requires them to keep quite about it. (And nobody has ever accused Democrats of being "quiet" or of being able to keep a secret.) What I think has happened instead is an organization with lofty goals being bogged down in the nuts & bolts operation of their agenda. The incompetence of the organization is then used as "evidence" of massive wrongdoing with large leaps of assumption thrown in to smear both the organization and the Democratic candidate. A review of their operations is not out of line, but to condemn them for "fixing" an election is a stretch of the imagination.




It is a fact that ACORN has submitted many fraudulent voter registrations. We know this in part because ACORN flags many of these when they turn them in. But the law requires them to turn in all registrations they take, regardless of ACORN's belief in their authenticity. (If this was not the case, you would be hearing cries that ACORN throws away any registrations they think would vote Republican.) The legal requirement to turn them in is a safe guard to protect both sides.




The next major question is why take fake registrations in the first place if not to alter an election? Well, the fraud is not being perpetrated by the organization on America, but by the workers of ACORN on ACORN itself. ACORN hires out of work people to do the registration. They are trying to give a "hand up" to the poor by giving them a paycheck. In many cases this is a great thing, but some of the people they hire are more interested in getting a paycheck than in helping out. If you are told you must get 25 registrations per day to keep your job, then a few will always decide to take the cards home, look through the phone book and make up the names. This way they can keep their paycheck (without going through the hassle of the work). Eventually they are caught & fired...but the law requires that they submit their registrations regardless.




Now Sen. Obama did as an attorney represent ACORN in Illinois. What the right doesn't want you to know is that his co-council for this was the UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. And his involvement with them afterwards has been as a guest speaker twice to the Chicago branch as a motivational speaker to a group of about 50. Now if the fact that he still spoke to them twice bothers you, keep in mind that in February 2006, John McCain was the keynote speaker at a major immigration rally in Florida sponsored by (drum roll please) ACORN. It is even more interesting to note that much of the speech was to praise the work of ACORN. Talk about flip-flops!




It is also interesting to note that while voter fraud registration is evident.....THERE HAVE BEEN NO CASES OF TRUE VOTE FRAUD! No trials, no convictions, not much of anything except cries of cheating ALWAYS timed just before the next election. And that brings me to my final observation. Does anyone really believe that if this was a true danger to Democracy, that Republicans would just drop it every year after the election is done? Wouldn't they spend the next two years making sure that they weren't cheated again?




This is nothing more than a distraction. Republicans have controlled the House & Senate for so long that they don't want you to look at issues. They don't want you to think about the economy or Iraq or any of the real problems facing America. They want you to believe that Democrats are stealing the election by registering fictional cartoon characters in a Disneyland vote drive. But until Mickey Mouse shows up at the polls to vote: ACORN's stealing the election is just an urban myth. Much ado about NOTHING!

A PICTURE'S WORTH A 1000 WORDS

They say that "a picture's worth a thousand words". A thousand words. I've written that many and more over the past year trying to explain to people my support for Sen. Obama. And while there are a lot of reasons I support the Senator, one of the most difficult to explain is his unflappability and why it's important. Whether you like the man or not, many would agree that the man is a very cool and detached individual. That is one of the things that many people dislike about Sen. Obama.

But I prefer a President that is a bit detached. I don't need a "beer buddy", I'm hiring a President. I want someone as President who can sit at a negotiation table (across from both our friends and foes) and who doesn't wear his emotions on his sleeve. I want him to be cool and collected. Giving nothing away.

I don't want a man who appears out of control or angry. Or wandering around lost. I don't think it will do America any good to have another President who sneers or rolls his eyes. Giving everything away with his "tells". In poker, a player like this is called a "fish". And a fish (and his money) are always welcome at any table. I don't want a "fish" for President.

A "detached" poker player doesn't let his emotions rule his play. He maximizes his wins when the cards are good and minimizes his losses when lady luck goes to lunch. When helpful, he bluffs. But the bottom line is that he wants to walk away with all the chips on the table! I want a President that gets "all the chips" for America! To do that, you need to be calm, collected and careful!

I've spent a lot of time and a lot of words trying to explain this to people over the past year. And then today, I saw this photo from last night's debate. It said it all.....without the thousand words!

WHICH MAN DO YOU WANT TO BE SITTING AT THE TABLE?







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

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/443/slide_443_10841_large.jpg

RATS AND THE GOOD SHIP "GOP"

Each day more and more CONSERVATIVES are speaking out about their doubts concerning the McCain campaign. The liberal media has termed them "rats deserting the ship" and these are their comments!




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

"[McCain] knows, in his gut, that he put somebody unqualified on the ballot. He knows that in his gut, and when this race is over that is something he will have to live with... He put somebody unqualified on that ballot and he put the country at risk, he knows that."

Matthew Dowd, Chief Strategist for George W. Bush's Re-Election Campaign


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

"I voted for Bush, father and son, but this time I'll vote for Obama...."I pray God, Barack Obama is elected,"

Dennis Hopper, Movie Star & Long Time Republican currently starring in AN AMERICAN CAROL. (I don't know which is scarier...Dennis Hopper voting Democratic or Dennis Hopper praying?)


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

"Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear had to feel sorry for the old lion on his last outing and wish that he could be taken somewhere soothing and restful before the night was out. The train-wreck sentences, the whistlings in the pipes, the alarming and bewildered handhold phrases—"My friends"—to get him through the next 10 seconds. I haven't felt such pity for anyone since the late Adm. James Stockdale humiliated himself as Ross Perot's running mate. And I am sorry to have to say it, but Stockdale had also distinguished himself in America's most disastrous and shameful war, and it didn't qualify him then and it doesn't qualify McCain now.

Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke."

Christopher Hitchens, Conservative writer & Iraq War Supporter


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

It's time for John McCain to fire his campaign. He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama’s. The Obama team is well organized, flush with resources, and the candidate and the campaign are in sync. The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic.

William Kristol, Fox News Commentator


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

"Obama-Terry Voter, anyone?" I’ll admit it: I’m voting for Obama and Lee Terry. Why? Because I want our officials to work hard, to be honest, exhibit strong ethics and be accessible. That’s Lee Terry. Ever talked with Lee? I have. You ask him questions, you get straight answers. I like that. Please join me in voting for Lee Terry. Paid for by Lee Terry for Congress"

Campaign Ad paid for by Lee Terry, incumbent REPUBLICAN running for re-election to Congress in Nebraska's second congressional district.


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

"Do I believe in John McCain? Not as much as I used to. Do I believe in Sarah Palin? Despite my early enthusiasm for her, now not at all. Do I believe in the national Republican Party? Not in the slightest -- even though I see no meaningful alternative to it. So, my choice for President in 2008, scrawled in my ballot as an act of futile protest, is Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. If nothing else, I am confident this is the first of several votes I will cast for him in years to come."

Joshua Trevino, RedState co-founder


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

"Sorry Dad, I'm voting for Obama"

Christopher Buckley, Son of William Buckley


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

Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions require her promotion.

Palin didn't make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

Kathleen Parker, Conservative columnist for the Washington Post


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

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

George Will, Fox Commentator & Washington Post columnist


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



Perhaps it is important as we laugh at them for being "rats" that we keep in mind why rats desert a sinking ship. Because it is SINKING! It's called survival. And many of the best minds of the Conservative movement are beginning to suspect that the election of their own candidate, Sen. John McCain could seriously endanger our chances as a nation for survival!

It only makes sense. When your boat is sinking....SWITCH BOATS!

WHY I SUPPORT OBAMA: LEADERSHIP

I am often asked WHY “I SUPPORT OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT?” This is usually followed by the comment that he doesn’t give a plan and I probably only support him because of his pretty rhetoric. So, I would once again like to address one of the many reasons he has my support...leadership and our country's need for it.

Now immediately those on the Right will rise up in arms asking how I can claim that a "community organizer with no experience" can be a better leader than a decorated war hero? The answer is simple. The complexities that will face our next president will require a wide range of talents that have been seen much more clearly in Sen. Obama than Sen. McCain. The recent financial crisis has given us an excellent example of this.

Sen. McCain has exhibited a wide variety of ever changing views on the crisis. First he tells us that "the fundamentals of the economy are sound"! Then he tells us that there are problems but he is suspending his campaign to go to Washington to solve them. (Oh, and can we cancel the upcoming debate while we're at it?) Each day brings a new idea or the promise of a new plan. But mainly Sen. McCain attacks Sen. Obama. I wouldn't mind the fact that he is continually changing his mind...this has been a rapidly growing problem that requires quick, adaptable response. But I have never felt that McCAin's views were evolving into a better solution. Instead they appear to have been a "shotgun" approach that relies on luck to find the answers. But as McCain has said before, the economy really isn't his strong suit. And as his campaign has stated, if the discussion continues to focus on the economy....McCain loses!

Sen. Obama's response has been calm and measured. Some have criticized him for not immediately releasing a statement to tell America how he would handle the situation. But this has been a national crisis and Sen. Obama is not currently the President. Any immediate response before the President's would be overstepping his authority and possibly causing further problems.

Newsweek recently did an in-depth article on the initial meetings that each campaign held to discuss the responses of the candidates to the crisis. The differences in their style lend a great deal of credence to the idea that Sen. Obama is a leader to be trusted with America's economy.

So Sen. Obama waited for President Bush to offer his plan....all three pages of it. Then speaking as the Senator from Illinois and the Democratic nominee, he offered his party's suggestions to improve the plan (addressing home mortgages, CEO compensation and oversite of the trillion dollar goverment initiative) and began working the phones to gather the votes needed.

Once the bailout was passed and the Dow continued to fall, it was Sen. Obama who spoke to the press (and the people) to explain that the bailout was only the start. He made it clear that this was not a problem that could be solved unilaterally. In a global market it would require the cooperation of other countries to calm Wall Street's jitters. Yesterday the G-7 issued a joint plan and today the Dow had a record day.

Today was also the day that Sen. Obama offered his revised economic plan taking into consideration the recent changes in the world economic climate. The plan focused on Middle Class economic relief. (A subject that McCain can't even bring himself to say; much less address.) It is designed to be a comprehensive approach to stimulating the economy through a variety of targeted financial incentives. It addresses foreclosures, U.S. infrastructure and the need to keep city and state governments financially viable. The plan has aspects that should please conservatives by giving tax breaks to start up companies and companies that create US jobs. It helps to keep city workers employed instead of being layed off due to budget cuts. And while it may not be perfect, it is a better and more comprehensive plan than any proposed by either McCain or Bush.

OBAMA'S MIDDLE CLASS RESCUE PLAN
JOBS.
(1) Tax breaks for companies that create jobs in U.S. (not new)
(2) Eliminate capital gains taxes for new small businesses and start ups. (new)
(3) Fast track loan guarantees for car makers (not new)
(4) Jobs/Growth fund -- aimed at local municipalities to keep jobs that might have otherwise been cut for budgetary purposes. (new)

FAMILIES.
(1) Middle class tax cut (not new)
(2) Calls on Congress to give rebates by Winter (new)
(3) Extend employment benefits for those who lost their jobs (not new)
(4) No taxes on unemployment benefits (new)
(5) Retirement Savings: Welcomed McCain's proposal to let people withdraw from their 401Ks, but went further: proposing people could withdraw without penalty up to $10,000 from their 401Ks through 2009. (new)

HOMEOWNERS.
(1) Mortgage Tax Credit -- worth 10% of mortgages
(2) Three-month moratorium on foreclosures (new) -- "give people breathing room to get back on their feet.

INCREASED $ FOR BANKS
(1) Have Treasury move faster on his plan to inject money directly into banks.

MAKE LOANS AVAILABLE.
(1) Create a Small Business Lending Fund (already proposed)

The latest word is that Sen. McCain will release a new plan as well. We will see what his proposed solutions are. But regardless of what they are, we have now seen the manner in which these candidates approach problem solving.

Simply put, Sen. McCain's irratic journey to solutions scares me. As candidate McCain: he is only a danger to himself. But the problem with a President McCain is that we are all along for the ride with him. He might get us to where we need to be on the economy or he might put us in a ditch, but regardless his drive will be a terrifying ride that leaves me with the sinking feeling that even if his latest plan is great...he only got there through luck and lack of oncoming traffic.

This has been a chance to watch how both candidates would handle a true emergency. This is an economic 3 AM call...and it's Sen. Obama who has answered the phone!

BROTHER, CAN YOU SPARE ME A DIME

Remember the "Good Ol' Days" in the 1950's that everyone wants to go back to. (Whether you were alive during those times or not.) Back when everyone worked hard and made a good living. There were jobs for everyone and life was good!

Fast forward to the next century. Everyone seems to have one question regarding the economy lately...are we heading towards another Great Depression? People are scared and they should be. I am way too young to remember the Depression but I do remember that until the day she died at 80, my grandmother lived in fear of another one. So today, while watching the seemingly ever falling Dow numbers, I stumbled across an article that quoted a variety of figures from Paul Krugman, a noted economics professor & writer. And they were very troublesome. Not because they show the same type of slide that we experienced in the 30's (after all back then 1 out of every 4 Americans were out of work). But they do seem to indicate one set of numbers that correlate to the time BEFORE the Depression started. Those numbers revolve around the distribution of wealth in America.

In 1928, one year before the crash that started the Depression, 1% of the population owned 40% of the nation's wealth. Once FDR's new deal started, you saw between the years of 1930 and 1947 that the working class wage rose an average of 67% while the income of the wealthiest 1% dropped 17%. (I would feel bad for the top 1% but they still made more money than everyone else by far.) This was the birth of the middle class and it was a direct result of unionization of manufacturing jobs and the New Deal.

Between 1947 and 1973 the inequality of income lessened even more. With working class wages rising 81% and the income of the top 1% rising 38%. (Note: These numbers reflect "real wages" adjusted for inflation.)

Then came the 70's! More bad times that were shared between both the richest and the middle class. Between 1974 and 1980, a combination of higher oil prices, too much influence of unions and a generally bad world economy meant that the working class lost 3% in real wages while the wealthiest 1% lost 4% of income. Proving that too much of a good thing, be it unionization or tax breaks are not necessarily a good thing. You never want the pendulum to swing too far to either the right or the left.

Enter the savior Ronald Reagan! His tax revamps once again helped the wealthiest 1% to earn a larger percentage piece of the pie. Under Reagan & Bush tax plans, the real wage for the working class fell by 1%, but the income for the wealthiest 1% increased by 135%! This difference is a direct result of "trickle down economics" and the tax policies that "trickle down" represents.

The inequity slowed slightly during the first years of a Clinton presidency and then skyrocketed again once the Republicans gained control of Congress. By 2006, under President Bush and a Republican controlled Congress the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans controlled 34% of America's wealth! The wealthiest 5% of Americans now control over two-thirds of America's wealth as well as 88% of the nation's business interests & almost 80% of America's stock wealth (After today's market close, you are allowed to chuckle a little if you like the thought that they now own four fifths of "not much"). (But don't chuckle too much since your retirement is tied into this mess as well.) This is where you are allowed to notice the similarities to 1928.

Now the argument of the top 1% is that they spur the economy on with thier purchasing power. But it doesn't seem to work well that way. If a really wealthy man spends ten million on a new yacht...it helps the yachting industry. If a million working class Americans spend $10 each on food...it helps thousands of restaurants and grocery stores across the country. It takes less time to spread through the economy to help society as a whole. When the distribution of wealth varies so much between the working class and the wealthy, the economy gets top heavy...and falls! Only certain very limited sections of society patronized by the rich make a living.

Now don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with making lots of money and becoming wealthy. That's the American Dream. But there are limits. The average CEO of a Fortune 100 company makes on average 17.6 million dollars per year. That's approximately $8,461.00/hour! That means that the average Fortune 100 CEO goes to work on Jan. 2nd and by the time he knocks off for lunch he has earned more on his first day of work by lunchtime than the minimum wage employee will earn all year. Now it may be that his expertise is worth that much to the company...though one would think that if they were THAT good at their jobs, we wouldn't be bailing them out now!

We need to look at CEO pay. We need to restore tax equality to our nation. We need to stop rewarding companies with tax breaks who outsource jobs overseas! Otherwise the question will not be...is another Depression coming? The new question on everyone's lips will be "Brother can you spare me a dime? and "Which way to the nearest soup kitchen"?

YOUR PAL, "AL"

There have been many stories commenting on the crowd reaction at the latest rallies of VP candidate, Governor Sarah Palin. She has gone on the offensive against Sen. Obama in an extremely personal way. The attacks have been very inspiring to the crowds. There have been numerous reports of people yelling "terrorist" and at least one man has screamed "kill him" at yesterday's rally.


The anger of the crowd has also been directed towards the media. At least one African-American technician was called a "racial ephitaph" and then was told by another crowd member to "Sit down, BOY!".

Most people just see personal attacks as a sign that the McCain campaign is desperate and would rather talk about anything than the economy. And that is probably true! But to work a crowd up to the point where there are cries to KILL the opposing candidate takes this election into a very scary place. This is not the type of discourse that our founding fathers had in mind when they dreamed up this exotic scheme called "Democracy".

Because of Sen. Obama's unusual background he is very open to character attacks. His father is foreign born. Less than 8 years after the attacks of 9/11, his years in Muslim Indonesia give us even more to fear because we don't "know him" that well. His college teachings make him seem elitist and not "one of us". Many on the left would have you believe that these fears of Americans are nothing but blatant racism. But they are wrong. It is more than that and it is less than that. More because there are a great many Americans with legitimate objections to Sen. Obama's policies. Less because it is not just "rascism" like we think of during the Civil Rights Movement. There are no dogs & fire hoses or burning crosses. It's a kinder, gentler form of bias. But it is still a bias against that which we are not familiar with.

I think it is the combination of all of these things that make some of us wonder about Sen. Obama. He's not like other candidates we grew up with. But it is too simple to pin the problem on any one thing like racism. And lucky for John McCain because it gives him plenty of ammunition to attack with.

I think our fears have more to do with our buddy, Al! Who is Al, you ask? I don't know him...you do. We all know an Al in our life. "Al" is the person we see to be the exception to the stereotype.

We may not like immigrants because they are lazy and steal jobs and don't pay taxes...they're not like my pal Al, who I work with. He's ok. (Cause you know him.)

We like working for Al, he's not like most white people who try to keep a "brother" down. He's always got your back!

"AL" plays on my school's baseball team, his family eats funny food but he's a great pitcher!

"AL" just moved here from New York City, but he's pretty smart for a "city slicker"

I go to church with Al's wife and she's so sweet, not angry like a lot of "those" women!

You know Al. Maybe he's the gay man who's not like the "rest". Maybe he's the Hindu who waits on you at your favorite restaurant. But Al is the great hero in the battle against racism & predjudice in this country. He's the ONE you KNOW that helps you realize that all ethnic & cultural groups are composed of people. Some good and some bad. All you had to do to realize this is to get to know AL. He's basicly like you and me. Loves his wife and kids, wants to provide for them, wants to see his children grow up in the greatest nation on earth. It's hard to continue believing something about a culture, race, gender or whatever when you actually KNOW someone who is a part of that group. The "idealized" group becomes a little less real than the PERSON you know.

As Sen. Obama has become better known to more and more of the electorate, his favorability ratings have also increased. He's not so strange and foreign anymore to a larger portion of the electorate. He's becoming a political "AL".

This is natural. What is not natural is to try to stir up hatred and fear for a fellow American. It's wrong. Debate the issues. Discuss the failings of Obama's policies, but remember that he is still one of us. He may be wrong in his judgment but he is NOT a terrorist infiltrator. That's just silliness that gets promoted when someone gets behind in the polls.

So in the hopes of reminding everyone that Sen. Obama is an American, a father & a husband: here are some photos from his past. They look a lot like photos all of us have. They are part of America's Story. They should not influence you to vote for or against him because there is nothing special about them. They are a part of "Al's Story" and not the photos of a terrorist or traitor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/the-obama
s-anniversary-al_n_131721.html?page=12&show_comment_id=

16417017#comment_16417017

We must focus not on the personal for this election but on the issues. We must vote for who we think will promise the best future for our children & grandchildren.

POTS, KETTLES, AYERS & FRIENDS

A long time ago, like last year, John McCain spoke a great deal about the importance of running a civil campaign that focused on the issues important to the American people. Now sources within the McCain campaign have been saying for several days that McCain would go REALLY NEGATIVE because changing the discussion off the economy is his only way of winning. McCain's own campaign believes that when the focus is on issues: OBAMA WINS!

It also seems that the sources were right. Shortly after this news was posted, Gov. Palin began quoting a New York Times article discussing Sen. Obama's association with 60's radical William Ayers. "Palling around with terrorists" is how the Governor characterizes the issue. The facts are clear.

1) William Ayers was a member of the WEATHERMEN UNDERGROUND in the 60's.

2) He was on the run for years because of the bombings done by the group.

3) He has never been convicted of a crime...his trial was thrown out for "prosecutorial misconduct".

4) He is currently a Professor of Education at the University of Illinois.

5) He has authored or edited over 15 books and is a nationally recognized authority on school reform.

6) He is consulted by the city of Chicago on school reform.

7) He did work with Sen. Obama on projects in Chicago.

8) He did host a fundraiser for Obama early in his career. They both live in the same neighborhood.

9) Sen. Obama has condemned his past activities publicly on several occasions.

The same news article that Palin quotes also definitely states that while Sen. Obama has "underplayed" their relationship there is NO "close connection" between the two.

The reality is simple. The whole idea of politics is to meet as many people as possible and to convince them to support you. (It doesn't necessarily mean that you support them back!) POLITICS MAKES STRANGE BED FELLOWS. And "guilt by association" is a dangerous tact to take in a political campaign because few politicians have spotless records and all fall victim to S.B.S.

"Strange Bed-Fellows Syndrome (S.B.S.) is all about the people the candidate meets along the way. It means Sen. McCain goes on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show proclaiming Liddy to be "an old friend". G. Gordon Liddy has contributed frequently to John McCain's campaigns including his current one. G. Gordon Liddy is a convicted burglar. He has also confessed to the following:

1) plotting to kill the journalist Jack Anderson

2) plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institute

3) developed a plan for the Nixon Administration to kidnap "leftist guerillas" (read that protestors) to keep them away from the 1972 Republican National Convention

4) acknowledged his willingness to kill anyone who tried to stop him from his second break-in of a psychiatrist's office

5) has on numerous occasions instructed his radio audience on how to shoot federal A.T.F. agents

Not exactly the kind of friend your Mom wanted you to hang out with when you grow up! The difference between Obama/Ayers & McCain/Liddy is that Obama will discuss the issue and the McCain campaign ignores all requests for comment on G. Gordon Liddy and his relationship with the Senator. Senator Obama condemns the past activities of Ayers while McCain pretends it didn't happen.

STRANGE BED-FELLOWS SYNDROME (S.B.S.) could also require asking about Sen. McCain's connection with his father-in-law whose money helped fund his first Senate campaign and who has been linked to underworld figures out west.

S.B.S. could also re-look into Sen. McCain's associations with Charles Keating and the KEATING 5! It was a long time ago and he was only reprimanded by the Senate but hey it's still out there. And as Sen. McCain once said, "if Americans want to talk about a subject...we should"

Governor Palin is also susceptible to S.B.S. Her current minister is from Africa and got his start there with "witch hunts". And we're talking real witches. He drove a woman from his village who was casting spells on people to cause car wrecks! Became quite famous for that episode in Africa. Rev. Thomas Muthee has recently had a guest speaker in his church that made questionable statements on Jews from the pulpit with Palin present in the audience. Rev. Muthee has blessed Palin's bid for Governor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg (Notice the references to witches about 1:45 into the clip)

You could also ask why Gov. Palin was willing to address the annual convention of an Alaskan Indepencence Party whose goal is succession for Alaska from the United States of America. (How does this work with "Country First"?) Maybe she addressed them because her husband was once a member. And while it's never been PROVED that Palin was a member, several members of the group seemed to think she was!

Do ANY of these associations mean you SHOULDN'T vote for McCain/Palin? Probably not. The issues McCain/Palin represent as a ticket are much more important to me than the people they have met along the way to becoming a ticket. But it's only fair to look at them if you look at everyone that Obama has had contact with.

The truth of the matter: The McCain campaign wants to turn your focus from policy comparisons to a referendum on the character of Sen. Obama. And Sen. Obama is no "dirtier" than the McCain/Palin ticket. If there was real "dirt" on Sen. Obama the Clinton Campaign would have found it and used it!!! McCain can't argue that he's more "presidential" than Obama because the world saw how he handled the bailout crisis. All that's left are personal attacks. Perhaps McCain/Palin should heed the words of Christ and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone!"

As Americans it is important that we ignore the "silly" in this election cycle and instead look to the future. When you hear the upcoming attacks & smears, when you read the chain e-mails proclaiming "Obama is a muslim, the anti-christ or even Donald Duck" the question to ask is: Who's policies will best help our country? Who will leave a more stable and stronger country for our children and our grandchildren? But if you are listening to McCain/Palin question the associates of Sen. Obama, it's nothing more than "the pot calling the kettle black".

PALIN DEBATE STRATEGY

DICK 'N SARAH: A TALE OF TWO VEEPS

The much anticipated Vice-Presidential Debate is now over & the spin has begun. Just like the last debate, Republicans say Palin won & Democrats say Biden won. It was actually a bit anti-climatic. He didn't gaffe, she didn't freeze, the "biased" moderator didn't wear an OBAMA MAMA t-shirt. In a few days we will see if the polls shift any and that should show us who really won and lost.

I spent a lot of time today explaining to people that I didn't really expect her to be as horrible as she was for the Couric interview and I was right. She appeared much better tonight than she did on CBS. Palin gave us lots of folksy charm and even a cute little wink at the camera....I hope you felt as special as I did. But we didn't get lots of real information from her.

And that I find both sad and frightning! Sad because I feel that it is important that she answer questions to prove she is ready to take over on day one. (You may not think Obama is ready, but you have had over two years of non-stop interviews, speeches and media stories to make your decision: we've had five weeks to make that same decision about Palin) I realize that many believe that MSM is biased against her, but if she can't stand up to MEET THE PRESS, how will she stand up to _________? (Insert the name of your own favorite dictator.)

What frightened me was when she did answer a question. Especially the question concerning the Constitutional role of the Vice-President. Palin wants the office to "have more authority". She feels the Constitution is “flexible,” allowing a McCain-Palin administration to “do whatever we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans for this nation.”

This is especially scary since Dick Cheney does not believe that the office of the Vice-President falls under either the legislative branch or the executive branch of government. That (according to Cheney) means that the Vice-President is not responsible to either branch. Instead the office is a island unto itself. That philosophy has allowed him to advocate for torture, develop energy policies behind closed doors, refuse to answer oversight questions from the legislative branch under oath, etc. In short, he has made the office a law unto itself...and we have suffered as a nation for his arrogance.

Today's CBS interview let us know that Sarah Palin thinks that the only mistake Cheney made as Vice-President was while he was hunting! When you look at Troopergate (and her refusal to answer questions) you have to wonder how far she would be willing to take the Cheney philosophy. You also have to wonder if we should be even more worried about the similarities between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney than the similarities between John McCain and George Bush.

THE DAY I MET PAUL NEWMAN

Many years ago Kansas City was visited by Paul Newman & his wife during the filming of MR. & MRS BRIDGES. I was working downtown and my wife was working at Fedora's on the Plaza at the time. Mr. Newman developed a fondness for Fedora's and my wife saw him there frequently. He was always friendly with the staff, liked all types of food but preferred hamburgers. He also liked his privacy. Very rarely did he ever speak to other guests or care to meet them.

I happened to be walking down the street on Baltimore one day just as he and his entourage came walking past. I knew he valued privacy, but I couldn't resist. I called out, "Mr. Newman, I watched SHADOW BOX (a movie starring his wife & directed by him) last night and it was incredible!"

To my complete surprise he stopped short and spun around asking, "Where did you see that at?"

I explained that I had rented it and asked a couple of questions about some of his choices as a director. He answered the questions and asked me a couple of questions about the film. Then the door to his trailer opened and Joann Woodward stepped out looking for him. The look on his face was incredible. You could tell that he loved her greatly. He turned back to me, flashed me that movie star grin and said, "Isn't she lovely?"

He then realized that other people has noticed us and he nodded to me, said "thank you" and walked quickly away.

I've always remembered that brief meeting. Not so much because he was famous, but because he so obviously loved her. I'm sure she knows that. I hope she also knows that his love for her was one emotion that this intensely private man didn't mind sharing with a complete stranger on the street.

Our thoughts are with you, Ms. Woodward.

God Speed, Mr. Newman.

OBAMA AND THE BAILOUT

On Sunday, Sen. McCain attacked Sen. Obama for not having offered a plan to solve the latest financial crisis to hit Wall Street. He accused Sen. Obama of once again playing politician and not offering the leadership the country needed from a president. This would have a certain level of humor if the subject was not so serious. McCain is a man whose first reaction was to threaten to fire the head of the SEC. (Which is not something the President can do.) Even George Will called McCain's behavior "unpresidential" But in one respect Sen. McCain was correct, Sen. Obama did not offer presidential leadership! This may have had something to do with the fact that Sen. Obama is not currently the President of the United States and this is a crisis.

Sen. Obama's response was to stay calm and wait for the designated leader of the country to make the decisions that are his to make. Obama made frequent calls to many legislators on both sides of the aisle to discuss the problem. Then on Sunday after the President had offered his plan, Sen. Obama spoke on 7 principals that he felt the plan must meet to be approved by Congress. He did not say he would not support a bailout. He stressed the importance of this legislation passing Congress quickly, but he refused to write the President a blank check. He spoke as a Senator entrusted to be the legislative branch of the government. He also showed us what would be important to a President Obama if he were faced with a similar situation as President Bush is currently. (It should also be noted that several of these principals are things he has spoken on in the past on the campaign trail as early as last year. Unlike Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama seems to have seen some form of this problem coming.) So here are those principals taken directly from a transcript of Sunday's speech.

No blank check. If we grant the Treasury broad authority to address the immediate crisis, we must insist on independent accountability and oversight. Given the breach of trust we have seen and the magnitude of the taxpayer money involved, there can be no blank check.
Rescue requires mutual responsibility. As taxpayers are asked to take extraordinary steps to protect our financial system, it is only appropriate to expect those institutions that benefit to help protect American homeowners and the American economy. We cannot underwrite continued irresponsibility, where CEOs cash in and our regulators look the other way. We cannot abet and reward the unconscionable practices that triggered this crisis. We have to end them.
Taxpayers should be protected. This should not be a handout to Wall Street. It should be structured in a way that maximizes the ability of taxpayers to recoup their investment. Going forward, we need to make sure that the institutions that benefit from financial insurance also bear the cost of that insurance.
Help homeowners stay in their homes. This crisis started with homeowners and they bear the brunt of the nearly unprecedented collapse in housing prices. We cannot have a plan for Wall Street banks that does not help homeowners stay in their homes and help distressed communities.
A global response. As I said on Friday, this is a global financial crisis and it requires a global solution. The United States must lead, but we must also insist that other nations, who have a huge stake in the outcome, join us in helping to secure the financial markets.
Main Street, not just Wall Street. The American people need to know that we feel as great a sense of urgency about the emergency on Main Street as we do the emergency on Wall Street. That is why I call on Senator McCain, President Bush, Republicans and Democrats to join me in supporting an emergency economic plan for working families – a plan that would help folks cope with rising gas and food prices, save one million jobs through rebuilding our schools and roads, help states and cities avoid painful budget cuts and tax increases, help homeowners stay in their homes, and provide retooling assistance to help ensure that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built in America.
Build a regulatory structure for the 21st Century. While there is not time in a week to remake our regulatory structure to prevent abuses in the future, we should commit ourselves to the kind of reforms I have been advocating for several years. We need new rules of the road for the 21st Century economy, together with the means and willingness to enforce them.

As a Senator, these points clearly show a legislator who understands his role in the process. The executive branch has proposed a solution, the legislative branch discusses the idea focusing on how the plan solves the problem and makes recommendations and changes before making it a law for the executive branch to enforce. Sen. Obama played his part in the process during a crisis. Sen. McCain campaigned.

WHY I SUPPORT OBAMA: ENERGY

I am often asked WHY “I SUPPORT OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT.” This is usually followed by the comment that he doesn’t give a plan and I probably only support him because of his pretty rhetoric. So, I would like to address one of several areas that Sen. Obama has a plan for that is better than Sen. McCain’s plan: ENERGY. This is not the only reason I support his candidacy, but it is a major reason for that support.

Both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain have fairly similar plans for a comprehensive national energy policy. Both want to improve auto mileage standards (although the Obama plan is more aggressive), both want to make better use of alternative energy sources that include bio-fuels, wind and solar. Both see alternative energy as the “space race” of the new millennium, a way to increase American technology and to create jobs for a struggling economy. Leading Americans forward to develop new resources is a goal of both men. The differences are mainly found in their stance on drilling and their view on nuclear energy.

So why is this one of the MOST important reasons I support Sen. Obama? Because it is so important and we are so short of time to make progress. The issues we discuss today are issues that we knew were issues in the 70’s….we just did nothing about them. And that is one of my fears of McCain. He has been in Washington as a Senator for 28 years and has done nothing to develop alternative sources. In fact, Sen. McCain has voted AGAINST bills that would have promoted their development on at least nine separate occasions. Drilling, nuclear energy, new sources will all take time to bring on line. We don’t have much time. The longer that we wait for the RIGHT solution, the harder it will be to break our dependence on foreign oil. The Middle East is extremely unstable and unfortunately our livelihood as a nation is tied directly to our need for foreign oil. Due to the Iraq War, we have lost what little diplomatic influence we had. The Iraq War has proved the difficulty of using military force to stabilize one country much less the entire region.

It will be essential for the next president to lead us into a new way of thinking about our energy usage. That requires both vision and the ability to inspire Americans to support the changes needed. I think Sen. Obama is the one best suited to inspire us to change. I also think that his younger age gives him the ability to think outside the box more than Sen. McCain. I feel he is more in touch with the younger generation who will ultimately have to change their lifestyle to adjust to the new technology.

One of the greatest critiques of alternative energy is that the technology has not been available. But now it really may be. Over the past two years there have been two massive developments concerning alternative energy. The first is the development of a flexible solar panel. It is made of a flexible film that converts ALL wavelengths of light from ALL angles. It can be bent to fit any shape and placed anywhere. It currently has limited availability but will be widely available in three years. The second is the plan proposed by T. Boone Pickens to turn large areas of the Midwest into wind farms. These wind farms are located in remote areas and have the added advantage of bringing a viable industry to rural America. Having a major business figure behind a company designed to seriously promote alternative energy is a major asset that has been missing from the equation for too long. Both McCain & Obama have expressed interest in his plan.

But if the plans are so similar, why do I support Obama on his energy policy? Because of the differences! Sen. McCain is too intent on drilling to solve our problems. While more drilling is going to be necessary in the future, it is not the answer to our problems. For one thing we don’t have enough oil to make a significant difference. America uses 25% of the world’s petroleum, but we only control at best estimate 10% of the world’s oil. No matter how much we drill, we will need to come up with other sources of energy. Not only would it take years to drill, we do not currently have the refining capacity to make the oil useful. There is also a backlog in the industry of new well installation as it is. (Just because you authorize more drilling doesn’t mean that the drill platforms will get set up any quicker.) Also, the oil will be placed on the world market for bid, not kept solely for U.S. consumption. So drilling would be advantageous for oil companies, but Americans get no such promises.

There are those who insist that we have more oil than the experts think. “How do we know how much oil we have until we drill”, they ask. The problem with that philosophy is that we don’t know. This philosophy is a little like going “all in” on a poker hand without knowing for sure what your hole cards are. It’s a suckers play.

Sen. McCain also favors nuclear power. The problem with that is three fold. One, if an accident happens the consequences are unbelievable for anyone nearby. While I realize that we have gone for many years without an accident at a nuclear facility…it only needs to happen once. Two, we have to store the used uranium somewhere safe. That becomes a real issue as the French are discovering. (They supply most of their energy needs through nuclear power, but are discovering that they are running out of space to store the waste. Never confuse the term “LOTS” with infinite. Eventually you have more waste than safe places to store the waste.) Three, the cost and time to build ONE new reactor is huge. Sen. McCain’s energy plan calls for 45 new reactors at a total cost of 315 Billion dollars! There are other avenues that will show results sooner and cheaper than we can bring new reactors on-line. Those are the options we should focus on.

Senator McCain has also seen a tendency to pander to us with silly energy ideas. He offers a huge reward for the first American to build a better battery for auto use. The reason this is silly is simple. Anyone who invents such a battery will make a fortune off of the patent rights! People are already researching hard to achieve this goal without the “reward” because the idea is worth so much on its’ own. His battery reward is a trick of smoke & mirrors to make you forget that Sen. McCain has been in the Senate for 28 years without working on this issue before.

He also advocates a “gas tax Holiday”. But those gas taxes are what we use to maintain and build new infrastructure for our highways. So while I am able to save about $100 a summer (I drive a lot for my job) it won’t save me money if I bust an axel on a road that hasn’t been properly maintained. Sen. Obama has been honest with us about why he sees it as a bad idea and that is refreshing in this election.

It seems that most of America falls within two camps now, those who feel that drilling will save us because we have more oil than we realize and those of us who think it is essential that we move away from an oil based energy policy. At this stage, nobody really knows who’s right or who’s wrong. The difference is that if I’m wrong and we build this great infrastructure that emphasizes alternative energy...we have the alternative sources and more oil. That means the price of oil goes down. If I’m right and we run out of oil (or are cut off by embargo or the wells are damaged in a hurricane) then your children will spend some future winter night sitting in a very cold and very dark house telling stories to your grandchildren about the “good old days”.

THE EXPERIENCE OF JOHN McCAIN

We are often told in this election that only a fool would vote for an untested politician like Sen. Obama. In these times of crisis the man with the most experience is the one who must be President. But experience is useless without the virtue of learning from your experiences. And here I think John McCain comes up short.

One of the original Reagan foot soldiers, John McCain has held a life long belief in the private sector being unfettered by government regulation. In the late 1980's that lack of regulation led to the collapse of the savings & loan industry. (It also earned the young Senator from Arizona a reprimand from the Senate Ethics Committee, but that's another story.)

Now some 20 years later, following six years of a Republican Congress and Republican President, we have had the opportunity to again test the principal that ALL government regulation is bad. And in the last few weeks we have seen the results. The bailouts being proposed now make the Savings & Loan Bailout look like small change.

But up until 48 hours ago, Sen. McCain continued to insist that we MUST DEREGULATE! Which of course is the teachings of his top economic advisor Phil Gramm who engineered the original deregulation of the banking industry some 10 years ago.

Sen. McCain has even proposed putting Social Security into privatized hands (which of course meant your retirement was in your hands, same as your mortgage and your mutal fund.). Looking at the ups & downs of the market this last week make that a bit scarier today than it was six months ago.

But the best is this quote that will be appearing in an upcoming magazine article written by the EXPERIENCED John McCain. The title of the article is BETTER HEALTH CARE AT LOWER COST FOR EVERY AMERICAN from the Sept/Oct 08 issue of Contingecies.

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

I don't know about you but that quote makes me feel a little ill. (Note: He also plans on making your health care contribution taxable as opposed to both the present system & Sen. Obama's health care.)

So what we have is an article that was written so recently that it is yet to be published that describes a health care system with all the safe guards of the banking industry. It trumpets the wisdom of deregulating the banking industry. Current events seem to call into question his judgement, since for the last 48 hours he's been "Mr. We-Need-To-Regulate-This-Problem McCain". We know he promises to fix it "so it never happens again", but wouldn't it had been nice if he had learned his lesson during the 80's?

And we know he also wants to do the same thing to Social Security. DOES THIS SEEM WISE TO YOU? Experience without wisdom is nothing to brag about.

OBAMA DELAYS WITHDRAWING TROOPS?

The latest Obama news story to sweep the internet is one that comes from that bastion of excellence in journalism, THE NEW YORK POST. Amir Taheri wrote that in July, Sen. Obama spoke with members of the Iraqi government and urged them to delay any agreement with the US to begin troop withdrawals. Every conservative blogger (and several major news sources, including Fox News) not only ran with the story but they all expressed similar outrage over the indignity of wanting to keep the troops there. “WHAT??? Sen. Obama is willing to keep our soldiers over there longer because it helps his political career? It only goes to prove he doesn’t “put country first”! He’ll do ANYTHING to win an election! And besides, he’s a Muslim too!”

Taheri wrote a great article for the Post. Very in-depth, with quotes attributed to the Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari that claimed Sen. Obama made the delay a focal point of his talks with the Iraqi government.

Being a supporter of Obama’s and knowing the less than sterling reputation of the Post for journalistic standards, I wondered about truthfulness of the story.

So I googled the author of the article; Amir Taheri, and found some interesting facts about the man. He was a Senior Editor for a major Iranian newspaper under the Shaw of Iran’s government. He is now a political refugee from Iran who has advocated for the overthrow of the present government. He is also an advisor to Pres. George Bush. Here is a man who’s ONLY hope of returning to his homeland rests on the hopes that either the US or Israel will overthrow the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (Now if that doesn’t raise an eyebrow and make you question the authenticity of this story I don’t know what will.)

Unless of course it’s the number of times he has been caught fabricating sources, quotes and story lines before in his writing. What you ask? He lied? How could that be? I read in on the internet!

Here are the real facts about the man accusing Sen. Barack Obama of meddling in George Bush’s foreign policy.

1) Most famously, on May 19, 2006, Taheri wrote a story for Canada’s NATIONAL POST about a new Iranian law requiring Iranian Jews and other religious minorities to wear colored badges at all times while on the streets of Tehren. This caused an immediate sensation and was picked up by many mainstream media sources and ran as a legitimate story. The bloggers went crazy with this story. But the story was simply NOT TRUE! Within hours the NATIONAL POST was alerted to the problem and had pulled the story from their website, blaming Taheri for misleading them.

2) In 1989, Taheri published a book about the rise and fall of the Shah of Iran entitled “NEST OF SPIES”. Larry Cohler-Esses wrote of the book in THE NATION, that it cited "nonexistent sources," it fabricated "nonexistent substance in cases where the sources existed," and distorted the facts "beyond recognition.” Other than that it was a really nice read.

3) In 2005, he said that Iran’s Ambassador to the UN had taken an active part in the takeover of the US embassy in Tehren in 1979. This too went all over the internet. It was however disproven by the Ambassador’s teacher! "This allegation is false," San Francisco State University professor Dwight Simpson wrote to the New York Post (which had published a Taheri column making the claim). "On November 4, 1979 [the day of the seizure], Javad Zarif was in San Francisco. He was then a graduate student in the Department of International Relations of San Francisco State University. He was my student, and he served also as my teaching assistant." Somebody is obviously lying, and I know who I’m betting on.

So we now have a highly provocative story written by a questionable source with no outside confirmation by any other news source. But that hasn’t stopped Fox News and other media outlets from running with it as if it were gospel. It hasn’t kept it from being the blog of the hour on numerous sites.

It’s hard to decide who you want to blame more for this type of shoddy journalism: The media that doesn’t do it’s job in checking sources or the conservative bloggers who happily spread rumor without thought to truth. Or maybe as Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy and they is us.” You know; US, people like you and me who know better but don’t demand the standard of excellence from our media that we deserve both individually and as a nation.

So if you see this story printed anywhere, let the person promoting it know that you know who Amir Taheri is…and you expect more from them than slander, innuendo and lies. You expect NEWS!

MORE LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS?

Many in the media have recently begun to question some of the claims of Sen. McCain. Some have dared to call him a flip-flopper or even liar. And the response from the conservative right has been predictable. It's not Sen. McCain's fault, it's the liberal media's bias that is really behind these accusations. It has nothing to do with lies and false statements on the part of Sen. McCain...and besides Obama's worse!

But apparently it's not only the liberal media that is starting to call him out. Recently, Sen. McCain spoke in Lee's Summitt, MO. This resulted in McCain being written up as a flip flopper and fibber by THE ARMY TIMES?

At the rally he attacked Obama for trying to "slow our development of Future Combat Systems" McCain excalaimed, "This is not a time to slow our development of Future Combat Systems."

Now Future Combat Systems (FCS) is an Army program that is exactly what it sounds like, research into new weapons. The program is constantly behind schedule and overbudget. Nobody denies that fact. But to hear Sen. McCain tell it, Obama has already cancelled the program and given our soldiers socker boppers to defend themselves with.

The truth is that Sen. Obama wants to “cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending....I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems.”

The Army Times then went to an Obama military advisor for followup questioning. “Obama had said that he wanted to review FCS and he thought that he might want to slow the fielding,” former Sec. of Air Force F. Whitten Peters (and Obama advisor) said. “His feeling is there really needs to be an overall strategic review of larger weapon programs to decide which ones are sufficiently important to keep going and which ones may need to be scaled back.”

So McCain lied about Obama's stand on the issue. But even worse is that as recently as July of this year, McCain was telling the Washington Post that he wanted to cut FCS entirely from the Pentagon budget. No review, no tweaking the program....JUST CUT IT!

The Army Times then quoted Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute (a conserative think tank) who compared the two Senators views on the military budget.

“Future Combat Systems is the centerpiece of Army modernization. However, McCain has been more critical of it than anyone else in the chamber. Obama has been much more detailed and thoughtful in his comments about future military investment than McCain’s very superficial statements.”

So we end with a news outlet associated with the military quoting a conservative think tank spokesman who says Obama is detailed & thoughtful while McCain is superficial. It must be media bias! That's what made the Army Times run a headline reading "Flip Flop or Fib"!

And to no one's surprise, the McCain campaign declined to comment to the Army Times regarding the article.

In this next election Americans must decide between a leader who looks to "detailed and thoughtful" analysis versus the "grill buddy" who's "superficial" views decide the direction of our country. But hey, that's probably just more liberal media bias.

EATING BOOGERS & BRIDGETTE McCAIN

In the last 24 hours I have seen two different people ask Sen. McCain the same basic question. "Why do you approve the message of campaign commercials that are proven lies?" I've wondered how the engineer of the "STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS" would answer this question. I have had no idea how he could reconcile his sense of fairness with the lies being put out by his campaign presumably in his name. And I have not been alone in my wonderment. Many of McCain's friends on the left (most notably James Carville and Chris Mathews) swear that it must be the campaign and not Sen. McCain. "He's too good for that", they say. Well now we know.

Sen. McCain's answer was in two parts both times and the same both times. First he tells us that the tone of the campaign would have been different if Sen. Obama would have done town hall meetings with him. Then he tells us that "this is a tough campaign". How incredibly first grade of him! You remember back in grade school, when you didn't want to play at someone's house so they told the rest of the class that you "eat boogers"! It's pretty much the same mentality. Whether Sen. Obama was right or wrong to turn down the town hall meetings, it should not influence your personal behavior. Come on Senator, show some personal responsiblity.

This is something new for McCain. He really didn't start these "swift boat-esque" attack ads until his campaign hired the same people who smeared Sen. McCain in the 2000 primary. You know the people who claimed he was crazy and had an illegitimate black daughter? Worked for Karl Rove & George Bush. Now they work for McCain and they are still very good at their job!

I suppose that the bottom line is that it's politics. But I had hoped for better from Sen. McCain.

One does wonder what Bridgett must think about this? Who's Bridgett you ask? Bridgett McCain is the adopted daughter of Sen. John McCain. She is never seen on the campaign trail (and rarely mentioned). Years after the 2000 election, she googled her father's name on the internet and was horrified by the terrible things said about her. She was embarrassed. Cindy McCain said that to protect her, they don't take her out on the trail anymore. (And I'm not blaming her for that. It shows parental responsibility) But I do wonder what Bridgett thinks about this. How must it feel to know that your step-father wants to win so bad, he's willing to hire the man who smeared his daughter.

Sen. McCain, you probably do eat boogers!


UPDATE:

This Sunday on Fox News, Karl Rove weighed in on McCain's attack ads.

"McCain has gone in his ads one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100-percent-truth test," said Rove. "Both campaigns ought to be careful about... there ought to be an adult who says: 'Do we really need to go that far in this ad?"

WHEN KARL ROVE THINKS YOUR TV ADS GO TOO FAR, YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY "JUMPED THE SHARK"

REMEMBERING

Seven years ago, at just about this time of morning....our world changed forever. Today, is to be a day of rememberance and mourning. A day that we should remember not only for the loss and the terror, but for that fleeting time that we as a nation came together in common cause. For in the days following the attack, we as Americans became one nation, united in purpose.

So let us put aside our differences today to remember. Remember Flight 93. Remember the Pentagon. Remember the towers crumbling while filled with the brave souls of the firemen and office workers. Remember the pain we felt as we asked each other, "did you know anyone...?"

But most of all remember...that we as a nation are greater than the sum of ourselves. That we are the greatest nation on earth and that is a reputation that we have earned, but must re-earn each day. Remember, reflect and let us honor those who died with the actions we take today and tomorrow. Remember!

VOTE YOUR POCKETBOOK

Those tax & spend Democrats are at it again. Recently, the Tax Policy Center did a review of the tax differences between Obama and McCain. We’ve all seen the ads that tell us that Obama will raise your taxes and Sen. McCain will lower your taxes. Obviously, it is in your best interest to vote for McCain because it will save YOU money! In fairness, Sen. McCain is not lying! He will lower the tax rate for every American!

The catch (because there’s always a catch in politics) is HOW MUCH your taxes are lowered depends upon how much you make. For instance if you make $50,000.00; your taxes will go down by $319.00 or 0.6%. But if I make $600,000.00 my taxes will decrease by $45,361.00 or 7.6%. Huh? Pardon my cynical nature, but why does the man who is making TWELVE times more than you GET A TAX CUT THAT IS 7% MORE THAN YOURS? (Guess I must have worked harder for my $600,000 than you did for your paltry $50,000.)

Now under the Obama plan, the taxes on my $600,000.00 WILL go up. I will spend an extra $115,974 in taxes. So McCain didn’t lie! Sen. Obama will raise taxes ON EVERY AMERICAN MAKING OVER $600,000.00. How dare he? And how much will Obama raise taxes on your $50,000.00? NOT AT ALL. In fact, if you make $50,000.00, under the Obama tax plan you will pay $1,042.00 less than you do now. (That’s a 2.1% decrease in your taxes as opposed to Sen. McCain’s 0.6% decrease.) And how does Senator Obama plan to make up the difference? By cutting the tax breaks given to the rich by President Bush!

If you want to see where you will fall under each plan go to the following link:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidat
es_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113

Another difference between the two plans: If you are retired and making less than $50,000 per year, under the Obama tax plan you won’t pay taxes on that $50,000.

And another: Currently if you receive employer-based health insurance it is not taxed. Under the McCain health care plan you WILL pay taxes on the money paid towards your health care. (This doesn’t get much mention in his stump speech but it is in his Health Care Plan.)

Several years ago, multi-billionaire Warren Buffet made an offer to donate $1,000,000.00 to the charity of choice of any Fortune 500 CEO who paid the same percentage tax rate as the CEO’s secretary. The money remains unclaimed to this day. Senator Obama may cost Warren Buffet a million dollars by leveling the tax rate in America.

Some people will try to tell you that it is not fair for the rich to have to pay more than anyone else. But the reality is that during the Bush Administration we have been fighting a war in Iraq on credit. Borrowing as much money as we have has caused the dollar to plummet. This means different things to different classes. I recently listened to a woman in a grocery store with two small children try to decide between milk or meat because she couldn’t afford both. That’s what a weak dollar means to the poor. Today, I stood behind a woman at the bank who was forced to cancel her vacation to Europe. So instead, she’s going to Latin America for vacation because the dollar is so much stronger there. That’s what a weak dollar means to the wealthy.
Bottom line, regardless of what the Republicans try to tell you…Sen. Obama is much friendlier to the middle class than the McCain Campaign ever dreamed of!



VOTE YOUR POCKETBOOK!