Happy Reformation Day! Often forgotten in the shadow of ever shrinking "fun size" candy bars is the anniversary of Martin Luther posting his 95 thesis on the Wittenburg Door sparking the Protestant Revolution! Thanks Marty!
While we anticipate neither our Full House nor Wild Card will participate in Halloween in the traditional sense, it was always my favorite "Holiday." It was the only one where effort had a direct correlation to reward. Sure "Santa" might give you coal (you've got some sick parents if you ever actually received coal) and nobody doesn't get stuff for their birthday, but, with proper planning, Halloween could end in a massive haul.
Seriously, I would game plan for a week before. I couldn't wait to get out of school to prepare for my super bowl. I had maps of my neighborhood that were color coated with categories such as best candy givers, open early, close late, skip this house, friends live here -- all of these had an impact on the route that I would take. I'd plan to pass my house several times during the evening to drop off my loot and pick up a new pillowcase (They were strategically placed for quick transfer). In my stragetery, I came up with a few perennial rules that never failed me. Now that I'm no longer out there, for the first time ever, here is my list of rules. Those of you who still participate in this ritual, feel free to imitate how an expert once did Halloween. Read and learn:
Rule 1) Use a pillowcase! Not a plastic pumpkin, not something that goes with your costume theme, not a bag. Pillow cases hold a ton without limiting the grabability near the top. It's difficult for candy-givers to determine how much candy you already have because pillowcases don't show off your current amount of loot. You can run with a pillowcase and not have to fear that anything is going to fall out. Ever try running with one of those plastic pumpkins?
Rule 2) No Masks! If you must wear a mask, it comes off between houses. You can't run in a mask because your breath condenses inside, it limits your vision and stumbles could cost time and candy.
Rule 3) Hit the rich houses last! That's right, last. Why? The houses that give out the king sized bars are gonna give out one at a time unless they think the night is almost over. That's when they tell you to take a few, or, if you've arrived at the perfect time, the rest. The houses that you missed because they've run out of candy is more than made up for with the extras that you've received from the other homes.
Rule 4) Home-made costumes only! Your generic American candy giver is much more likely to drop a few extra pieces in your pillow case if it looks like you put some effort into your costume rather than went out an purchased that years version of the Harry Potter costume.
Rule 5) Do NOT go in a group! If you must, be with a sibling, but whenever possible, go as the only trick-or-treater with a parent visible standing several yards back. When there are eight pillow-cases held out, each gets one piece. When there's one, more candy falls.
Rule 6) Take two When the bowl is held out and the giver tells you to take a few. Ponder your choices and politely take two. My experience shows that approximately 60% of the time, the giver will drop two or three more into your bag because you were polite and didn't grab a handful. Had you grabbed, you might have gotten 3 or 4. Politely taking 2 nets you a possible 4 or 5.
Rule 7) Make a pit stop! Always make at least one stop back home to empty your pillowcase. If you look like you haven't gotten much, you'll get more. Depending on how late you are starting your final run, leave a little in the bottom of your loot-bag so it looks like you got a late start, not that you are just starting out.
Now, I give these rules in the hopes of sparking a little nostalgia, cause a few chuckles and to raise the following question:
How long will this tradition survive? With fear we send our children to schools where they are greeted with metal detectors. We request that they text us repeatedly when they are at the mall. And yet we allow them to dress up and meander the streets knocking on the doors of neighbors (who we don't know) in the dark with hundreds of other strangers walking about supposedly chaperoning other children.
One of two things must be true: Either we are unnecessarily uber-paranoid 364 days out of the year and Halloween night is actually how our society would be if given the opportunity. Or our daily concern is warranted and we are recklessly irresponsible on Halloween night.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Voting Booth, Volume XIII
Orson Scott Card a self proclaimed "card carrying Democrat" has slammed the media for their coverage of this "economic crisis." If you'd like to read it from his blog you may do so here. It was also printed in the Rhinoceros Times in Greensboro, North Carolina. For your convenience, I've reprinted it below:
This isn't even my opinion! What's yours?"Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?"
-- An open letter to the local daily paper
-- almost every local daily paper in America:
by Orson Scott Card
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know. This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration. It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans. What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating. They end up worse off than before. This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them. Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans.
(Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.) Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending? I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. 'Housing-gate,' no doubt. Or 'Fannie-gate.'
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed. As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay ... 'Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury.' These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was the Democratic Party.
The party that tried to prevent it was the Republican Party. Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout! What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame? Now let's follow the money right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was. But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an 'adviser' to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign. You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican. If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis. There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.) If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper. But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to. If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate. Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing. Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months. So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all," in journalism, left? "Do you even know what honesty means? Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for? You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women.
Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles. That's where you are right now. It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there. If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices. Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way. This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion. If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe -- and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie. ... You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Voting Booth, Volume XII
Things bugging me
There are several things about this political season that are driving me to Anarchy. Here are a few:
Bias: I'm so sick of seeing the side by side images of McCain and Obama pictured like this: Obama clearly looking forward and McCain, backward. Obama bathed in a backlit halo, McCain lit from the front accentuating his wrinkles. Obama practically posed, McCain mid word.
These images are hand picked and assembled in a computer, you tell me there's no bias here.
This one is from ABC.
Think that's the only one? Think again:
So's this one
Here's one from TIME:
US NEWS
Top news
NY TIMES
Here's another example:
Is this because McCain is the candidate on the "right" and Obama on the "left"? Ok, let's switch them.
Whoops. I guess that didn't work.
It's these subtle biases that seep into undecided voters' psyches and cause them to lean one way or another.
ACORN: For those that don't know ACORN is an organization that has been registering people to vote; primarily people who will most likely vote democratic. They are currently being accused of voter fraud. Why, you ask? Here are a few facts to consider:
Did you know that all 11 of the Dallas Cowboys offensive starters were registered to vote in Nevada until ACORN came under attack? All of them "registered" through ACORN. Guess which party they were regestered in.
Wisconson has registered convicted felons to vote ~ through ACORN.
Indiana has 105% of it's population registered to vote. This is amazing seeing as the national average of voting eligable people that are registered to vote is 72%.
Why does this voter fraud enter into the equation? Isn't this just an isolated agency acting on it's own? Well, what would you think if a candidate were giving money (not even receiving money... giving money) to this fraud riddled group?
Barack Obama gave $800,000.00 to ACORN for their "Get out the vote" effort. Nearly $1 million. A) That's how much he's raking in during his "I'm only going to use public funds, just kidding" campaign and B) that's how much he thinks this organization will help himbuy I mean steal, I mean win the election.
You know, now Obama's been disassociating himself with Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN. combine that with such the short period of time that he's been in the public eye... That's a lot of disassociating for such a breif period. I wonder then, who WAS he associated with?
Ads: The other complaint I have is with Obama's "90%" attack ad (which is somehow not negative according to the media) that has emerged since the final debate.
It opens with McCain's scathing comment, "I am not George W Bush, if you wanted to run against George W Bush you should have run four years ago." The narrator then tries to claim that McCain votes like him. The most deceitful moment of the ad is the end: A shot of McCain stating, "I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my -- even Republican -- colleagues."
Before I continue, here is a direct comment by Obama when he was campaigning in a Red State, "And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there." (I mean a bunch of balogna, but it doesn't seem to be such a big deal for him, now does it?)
Back to the ad: With that video clip of McCain it's right from the horses mouth, right? WRONG! This nearly expertly edited clip has removed two key words, one at the beginning and one at the end. Listen closely and you can hear the first word: "That." and watch his lips and you can see him beginning to form the last, "But."
The full quote is, "My opponent likes to claim that I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my -- even Republican -- colleagues, but this is simply not the case." He is obviously stating the allegations in order to refute them.
Nothing like deceiving the American public to gain the office in which they desire someone with integrity. Maybe, just maybe, all of the politicians play the same game and McCain is watching this ad chuckling and thinking, "good shot!"
If this isn't enough for you, here's a great website to read on the full Obama story.
Well, it's all just my opinion. And it's one I'll be exerting at the voting booth.
There are several things about this political season that are driving me to Anarchy. Here are a few:
Bias: I'm so sick of seeing the side by side images of McCain and Obama pictured like this: Obama clearly looking forward and McCain, backward. Obama bathed in a backlit halo, McCain lit from the front accentuating his wrinkles. Obama practically posed, McCain mid word.
These images are hand picked and assembled in a computer, you tell me there's no bias here.
This one is from ABC.
Think that's the only one? Think again:
So's this one
Here's one from TIME:
US NEWS
Top news
NY TIMES
Here's another example:
Is this because McCain is the candidate on the "right" and Obama on the "left"? Ok, let's switch them.
Whoops. I guess that didn't work.
It's these subtle biases that seep into undecided voters' psyches and cause them to lean one way or another.
ACORN: For those that don't know ACORN is an organization that has been registering people to vote; primarily people who will most likely vote democratic. They are currently being accused of voter fraud. Why, you ask? Here are a few facts to consider:
Did you know that all 11 of the Dallas Cowboys offensive starters were registered to vote in Nevada until ACORN came under attack? All of them "registered" through ACORN. Guess which party they were regestered in.
Wisconson has registered convicted felons to vote ~ through ACORN.
Indiana has 105% of it's population registered to vote. This is amazing seeing as the national average of voting eligable people that are registered to vote is 72%.
Why does this voter fraud enter into the equation? Isn't this just an isolated agency acting on it's own? Well, what would you think if a candidate were giving money (not even receiving money... giving money) to this fraud riddled group?
Barack Obama gave $800,000.00 to ACORN for their "Get out the vote" effort. Nearly $1 million. A) That's how much he's raking in during his "I'm only going to use public funds, just kidding" campaign and B) that's how much he thinks this organization will help him
You know, now Obama's been disassociating himself with Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN. combine that with such the short period of time that he's been in the public eye... That's a lot of disassociating for such a breif period. I wonder then, who WAS he associated with?
Ads: The other complaint I have is with Obama's "90%" attack ad (which is somehow not negative according to the media) that has emerged since the final debate.
It opens with McCain's scathing comment, "I am not George W Bush, if you wanted to run against George W Bush you should have run four years ago." The narrator then tries to claim that McCain votes like him. The most deceitful moment of the ad is the end: A shot of McCain stating, "I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my -- even Republican -- colleagues."
Before I continue, here is a direct comment by Obama when he was campaigning in a Red State, "And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there." (I mean a bunch of balogna, but it doesn't seem to be such a big deal for him, now does it?)
Back to the ad: With that video clip of McCain it's right from the horses mouth, right? WRONG! This nearly expertly edited clip has removed two key words, one at the beginning and one at the end. Listen closely and you can hear the first word: "That." and watch his lips and you can see him beginning to form the last, "But."
The full quote is, "My opponent likes to claim that I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my -- even Republican -- colleagues, but this is simply not the case." He is obviously stating the allegations in order to refute them.
Nothing like deceiving the American public to gain the office in which they desire someone with integrity. Maybe, just maybe, all of the politicians play the same game and McCain is watching this ad chuckling and thinking, "good shot!"
If this isn't enough for you, here's a great website to read on the full Obama story.
Well, it's all just my opinion. And it's one I'll be exerting at the voting booth.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Review: Juno
2007/PG-13/Drama
The biggest complaint I've heard about this film is that it is going to encourage teenage girls to get pregnant. When there was a rash of pregnancies in Gloucester MA, the media and others questioned whether movies like Juno (or Knocked Up) were partially to blame for the outbreak of teen moms.
Ridiculous.
If this movie were a catalyst for more teen moms it is solely that those teens chose to keep their babies, rather than abort them. There is no way that a young teen is going to watch this film and think, "What a great idea!" At one point Juno mentions she's being referred to as the "cautionary whale." Too true.
The first beneficial thing about this film is that it debunks a few common myths regarding teen pregnancies: 1) You can't get pregnant your first time. 2) All parents are gonna freak out and disown their kids. 3) Abortion is the only option.
Here's what I liked about this movie: Juno's parents weren't "stupid adults." If you watch movies for teens the adults are always dumb (usually with one sage exception, most often the adult the teens should least be spending time with). They are either irresponsible, oblivious, over bearing, selfish, addicted to something, etc. (Notable exceptions: Pretty in Pink, Freaky Friday, Juno) Juno's parents are Christians (a fact that has to be inferred, which is more rewarding than when it's spoon-fed to you). They are supportive without condoning Juno's actions. They love her without condition. Mark and Vanessa [the couple who wants to adopt Juno's child (I didn't make that up, that is their names)] are well thought out characters and not simply vehicles for the plot. I could completely understand their origins, present situation, and future. In Mark we find the adult who is irresponsible, selfish, and dumb. In a typical teen flick, he's the "hero-adult." Not so in Juno. I also enjoyed that pregnancy wasn't glorified or down played. She dealt with the shock, the decisions, the hormones, the ridicule, the uncomfortability, the pain of giving up the baby, the strain on relationships. There was little to nothing that made her situation look desirable. Possibly the best part of the movie is that she decided not to abort the baby in the abortion clinic. She showed that it is never too late to choose life. It even gives a bit of insight as to what might lead someone to do what she did (have sex with someone she wasn't romantically involved with). Repeatedly, Juno says, "I don't know who I am." It's a major subplot that mysteriously dances just under the surface of the movie. Juno doesn't know who she is, or what she wants. The confusion that comes with adolescence is magnificently represented. Juno does things that confuse even the viewer as she continues to confuse herself.
Only three things stand out to me as taking away from this movie (It started out as one thing, but with each revision, I found another). First, while Ellen Page (Juno) did a great job as a 20 year old playing a 16 year old, and while her grasp of the slang and vernacular was exquisite, so was her articulation, and that was a problem for me. Her pattern of speech was too precise. A 16 year-old tossing around phrases such as "I'm forshizz up the spout," and "Banana! Shut your freakin' gob," with expert pronunciation was a little jarring. Second, I didn't really like the way Juno's relationship with "the dad" ended. It made sense in the big picture, but there needed to be an epilogue or something to let us know how it all turned out. The final thing that I didn't really like was the PG-13 rating was probably pushing the envelope.
All in all, Juno is a cautionary tale. It is doesn't come off as a movie about abortion or pregnancy or even teen pregnancy. It is a well crafted film that tells the story of a confused teenaged girl who makes a mistake and chooses to do the right thing. Even when her perfect vision of the end result disintegrates, she still finds a way to work through it. The film deals with the pain, ridicule, emotion, confusion and ramifications of a teen pregnancy.
3 out of 5.
The biggest complaint I've heard about this film is that it is going to encourage teenage girls to get pregnant. When there was a rash of pregnancies in Gloucester MA, the media and others questioned whether movies like Juno (or Knocked Up) were partially to blame for the outbreak of teen moms.
Ridiculous.
If this movie were a catalyst for more teen moms it is solely that those teens chose to keep their babies, rather than abort them. There is no way that a young teen is going to watch this film and think, "What a great idea!" At one point Juno mentions she's being referred to as the "cautionary whale." Too true.
The first beneficial thing about this film is that it debunks a few common myths regarding teen pregnancies: 1) You can't get pregnant your first time. 2) All parents are gonna freak out and disown their kids. 3) Abortion is the only option.
Here's what I liked about this movie: Juno's parents weren't "stupid adults." If you watch movies for teens the adults are always dumb (usually with one sage exception, most often the adult the teens should least be spending time with). They are either irresponsible, oblivious, over bearing, selfish, addicted to something, etc. (Notable exceptions: Pretty in Pink, Freaky Friday, Juno) Juno's parents are Christians (a fact that has to be inferred, which is more rewarding than when it's spoon-fed to you). They are supportive without condoning Juno's actions. They love her without condition. Mark and Vanessa [the couple who wants to adopt Juno's child (I didn't make that up, that is their names)] are well thought out characters and not simply vehicles for the plot. I could completely understand their origins, present situation, and future. In Mark we find the adult who is irresponsible, selfish, and dumb. In a typical teen flick, he's the "hero-adult." Not so in Juno. I also enjoyed that pregnancy wasn't glorified or down played. She dealt with the shock, the decisions, the hormones, the ridicule, the uncomfortability, the pain of giving up the baby, the strain on relationships. There was little to nothing that made her situation look desirable. Possibly the best part of the movie is that she decided not to abort the baby in the abortion clinic. She showed that it is never too late to choose life. It even gives a bit of insight as to what might lead someone to do what she did (have sex with someone she wasn't romantically involved with). Repeatedly, Juno says, "I don't know who I am." It's a major subplot that mysteriously dances just under the surface of the movie. Juno doesn't know who she is, or what she wants. The confusion that comes with adolescence is magnificently represented. Juno does things that confuse even the viewer as she continues to confuse herself.
Only three things stand out to me as taking away from this movie (It started out as one thing, but with each revision, I found another). First, while Ellen Page (Juno) did a great job as a 20 year old playing a 16 year old, and while her grasp of the slang and vernacular was exquisite, so was her articulation, and that was a problem for me. Her pattern of speech was too precise. A 16 year-old tossing around phrases such as "I'm forshizz up the spout," and "Banana! Shut your freakin' gob," with expert pronunciation was a little jarring. Second, I didn't really like the way Juno's relationship with "the dad" ended. It made sense in the big picture, but there needed to be an epilogue or something to let us know how it all turned out. The final thing that I didn't really like was the PG-13 rating was probably pushing the envelope.
All in all, Juno is a cautionary tale. It is doesn't come off as a movie about abortion or pregnancy or even teen pregnancy. It is a well crafted film that tells the story of a confused teenaged girl who makes a mistake and chooses to do the right thing. Even when her perfect vision of the end result disintegrates, she still finds a way to work through it. The film deals with the pain, ridicule, emotion, confusion and ramifications of a teen pregnancy.
3 out of 5.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Voting Booth, Volume XI
Pop Quiz! How well do you know the presidential candidates?
1) True or False: When Barack Obama won his election to the IL State Congress, he was the only name on the ballot for that seat.
2) How did McCain endorse Bush in 2000?
A) With great excitement
B) Dutifully
C) With reluctance
D) The Press practically had to force him to say "I endorse Gov. Bush"
E) He didn't endorse Bush
3) How many combined years has Obama been an IL State Congressman and US Senator?
A) 8
B) 12
C) 16
D) 20
E) 24
4) During his tenure as a Senator, McCain has openly opposed:
A) George Bush
B) Donald Rumsfeld
C) Dick Cheney
D) None of the above
E) All of the above
5) True or False: Barack Obama has run for a new office following the completion of every term to which he's been elected.
6) During the 2008 Primary Season, which of the following supported John McCain?
A) Rush Limbaugh
B) Sean Hanity
C) Laura Ingram
D) None of the above
E) All of the above
7) When Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 (when John Kerry was nominated for President) he was a:
A) Law student
B) Community Organizer
C) IL State Congressman
D) US Senator
E) None of the above
8) True or False: In 2001 McCain was seriously considering switching to the democratic party.
9) Financially, Obama has raised:
A) Enough money to out spend McCain three to one
B) Enough money to buy 1/2 hour TV spot on all major networks
C) More money than has ever been raised before for a political campaign
D) No "public" funds (even though he announced that was all he would use originally) allowing him to spend as much as he can raise.
E) All of the above
10) In 2004, McCain was considered for Vice President for:
A) George Bush
B) John Kerry
C) John Edwards
D) Hilary Clinton
E) None of the above
11) True or False: Barack Obama has held public office longer than Sarah Palin.
Answers:
1) True. Obama had basically been handed the seat as the incumbent was running for Governor. When she was badly defeated, the Democrats asked Obama to step down and give her the seat. He refused. There would be an election. Obama had his staff check the signatures on the petitions of all of his opponents. He found enough ineligible signatures that he was able to have all opponents removed from the ballot. He ran unopposed.
2) D) The Press practically had to force him to say "I endorse Gov. Bush." In his "endorsement" speech, McCain looked awkward as though he was there against his will. He didn't use the phrase "I endorse Gov. Bush" until pressed to do so by a reporter.
3) B) 12. He first won his unopposed seat in 1996.
4) E) All of the above. He opposed Bush's original tax cuts. He opposed how Rumsfeld was handling the war. And he opposed Cheney when it was suggested that he fall in line with the party.
5) True. in 2000, Obama ran for IL State Senate after his first term as a State Congressman. He was soundly defeated with the help of Bill Clinton. In 2004 he ran for US Senate and he is now running for President.
6) D) None of the above. Not one Republican pundit wanted to see John McCain as the Republican Nominee.
7) C) IL State Senator. He wasn't even a US Senator when the Democrats last Presidential candidate was nominated.
8) True. McCain was actively courted by the Democratic party as they sought someone who might switch sides, giving them the 1 vote edge in the Senate. McCain eventually declined.
9) E) All of the above. I guess this proves that you sure can buy the Presidency.
10) B) John Kerry. Just as Lieberman was considered for McCain's running mate. It was designed to draw some voters across the aisle.
11) False. Obama won his first election in 1996. Sarah Palin was first elected to public office in 1992.
So there you have it. Obama has yet to hold a position long enough to really know what he's doing in it, let alone what would be required in his next position. And he had a plan in place to elevate himself to the place where he could run for president this year when he arrived in the Senate in 2004. Year 1: keep your head down and your voice quiet. Year 2: Help out other Democrats. Nothing like earning some IOU's by helping people get their bills passed. Year 3: Gain prominence. Start to speak out a little louder. Year 4: Run.
McCain, on the other hand, is not the darling of the right as the Left is trying to paint him. He is the Maverick, so much so that the Democrats tried to get him to switch parties and considered putting him on their ticket. He is not Bush III and is obviously an independent thinker who stands up for what he believes in.
I ask again: Who would you rather see in the White House. The restless ambitious inexperienced politician? Or the principled, experienced, independent statesman?
1) True or False: When Barack Obama won his election to the IL State Congress, he was the only name on the ballot for that seat.
2) How did McCain endorse Bush in 2000?
A) With great excitement
B) Dutifully
C) With reluctance
D) The Press practically had to force him to say "I endorse Gov. Bush"
E) He didn't endorse Bush
3) How many combined years has Obama been an IL State Congressman and US Senator?
A) 8
B) 12
C) 16
D) 20
E) 24
4) During his tenure as a Senator, McCain has openly opposed:
A) George Bush
B) Donald Rumsfeld
C) Dick Cheney
D) None of the above
E) All of the above
5) True or False: Barack Obama has run for a new office following the completion of every term to which he's been elected.
6) During the 2008 Primary Season, which of the following supported John McCain?
A) Rush Limbaugh
B) Sean Hanity
C) Laura Ingram
D) None of the above
E) All of the above
7) When Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 (when John Kerry was nominated for President) he was a:
A) Law student
B) Community Organizer
C) IL State Congressman
D) US Senator
E) None of the above
8) True or False: In 2001 McCain was seriously considering switching to the democratic party.
9) Financially, Obama has raised:
A) Enough money to out spend McCain three to one
B) Enough money to buy 1/2 hour TV spot on all major networks
C) More money than has ever been raised before for a political campaign
D) No "public" funds (even though he announced that was all he would use originally) allowing him to spend as much as he can raise.
E) All of the above
10) In 2004, McCain was considered for Vice President for:
A) George Bush
B) John Kerry
C) John Edwards
D) Hilary Clinton
E) None of the above
11) True or False: Barack Obama has held public office longer than Sarah Palin.
Answers:
1) True. Obama had basically been handed the seat as the incumbent was running for Governor. When she was badly defeated, the Democrats asked Obama to step down and give her the seat. He refused. There would be an election. Obama had his staff check the signatures on the petitions of all of his opponents. He found enough ineligible signatures that he was able to have all opponents removed from the ballot. He ran unopposed.
2) D) The Press practically had to force him to say "I endorse Gov. Bush." In his "endorsement" speech, McCain looked awkward as though he was there against his will. He didn't use the phrase "I endorse Gov. Bush" until pressed to do so by a reporter.
3) B) 12. He first won his unopposed seat in 1996.
4) E) All of the above. He opposed Bush's original tax cuts. He opposed how Rumsfeld was handling the war. And he opposed Cheney when it was suggested that he fall in line with the party.
5) True. in 2000, Obama ran for IL State Senate after his first term as a State Congressman. He was soundly defeated with the help of Bill Clinton. In 2004 he ran for US Senate and he is now running for President.
6) D) None of the above. Not one Republican pundit wanted to see John McCain as the Republican Nominee.
7) C) IL State Senator. He wasn't even a US Senator when the Democrats last Presidential candidate was nominated.
8) True. McCain was actively courted by the Democratic party as they sought someone who might switch sides, giving them the 1 vote edge in the Senate. McCain eventually declined.
9) E) All of the above. I guess this proves that you sure can buy the Presidency.
10) B) John Kerry. Just as Lieberman was considered for McCain's running mate. It was designed to draw some voters across the aisle.
11) False. Obama won his first election in 1996. Sarah Palin was first elected to public office in 1992.
So there you have it. Obama has yet to hold a position long enough to really know what he's doing in it, let alone what would be required in his next position. And he had a plan in place to elevate himself to the place where he could run for president this year when he arrived in the Senate in 2004. Year 1: keep your head down and your voice quiet. Year 2: Help out other Democrats. Nothing like earning some IOU's by helping people get their bills passed. Year 3: Gain prominence. Start to speak out a little louder. Year 4: Run.
McCain, on the other hand, is not the darling of the right as the Left is trying to paint him. He is the Maverick, so much so that the Democrats tried to get him to switch parties and considered putting him on their ticket. He is not Bush III and is obviously an independent thinker who stands up for what he believes in.
I ask again: Who would you rather see in the White House. The restless ambitious inexperienced politician? Or the principled, experienced, independent statesman?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Judges, Motorcycles, and more Politics
As it always seems to happen when I have a slightly extended absence: here is a multi-topic post. I'll organize from least interesting to most. Feel free to skip around.
Legislating from the Bench: The Connecticut Supreme Court has done the same illegal, cowardly, usurpation that the Mass courts did. Gay "marriage" is now legal in CT. If you live in CT, whether you agree with the ruling or not, you ought to vote Yes for the Constitutional convention so that the judges will learn that they don't actually run the government. They don't have the right to make new laws. And this government of the people by the people for the people is truly going to be that. Here is my biggest beef with Gay "marriage." Marriage is a religious concept. Now, if the church is supposed to keep it's nose out of the state, why isn't the reverse true? Let the state give whatever rights/benefits/tax breaks they want to gay couples. But don't require the church to bestow the title "married" on them.
Motorcycles: I used to see the bumper sticker with an image of a motorcycle that said "Share the road" and think that it was a reminder to motorists to share the road with motorcyclists. Now I realize the truth. It's reminding motorcyclists two things: 1) They don't actually own the road and 2) There are cars on it. I have had several situations where I've nearly taken out a motorcycle because he decided (and the jerks on bikes to tend to be universally men) that the dotted white line on the highway is the motorcycle lane. The reason drivers don't see motorcyclists is because they weave in and out of traffic at 3 times the speed limit. One of my favorite things about CT is that helmets are optional. Talk about social Darwinism. God bless the freedom to be stupid, but don't endanger my family while you're at it! So, hey motorcycles, "share the road, will ya?!"
Spin: My new biggest beef with Obama's "honorable" campaign is his "Tax Break" ad. In it he claims that 101 million American families will not receive a tax break under McCain's economic plan. During this assertion there are two images on the screen, assumedly representing the type of "families" that won't receive any tax break. Both images are families with kids. Whoops. McCain's plan will double the tax credit for children. Golly Gee, Barack, are you being deceitful to the American people again? See, it looks like the people pictured will receive a tax break. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, you certainly aren't in the business of misleading America. Of course, you don't explicitly say that those pictures are representative of those who would be left tax breakless, but we'll just let the American people believe that they won't, right?
Campaign Signs: I've noticed a few trends with the campaign signs that I've been seeing in my neck of the woods. The first thing I've noticed is the incredible lack of campaign signs. Either people don't care as much as they have in the past, this campaign is more contentious than previous ones and people don't want to upset their neighbors, or the candidates are charging too much for the signs and people don't want to buy them. I, personally believe the second to be the least likely. Another observation is that the people supporting the Democrats choice for President appear to be embarrassed by the Vice Presidential selection. Easily seven out of ten signs that I see do not have Biden's name on them. I have news for those who will vote for the D's: You can't have Obama without Biden. I haven't seen the same shying from the running mate with the McCain/Palin signs. Perhaps 2 out of 10 list only McCain. The other thing I've noticed is that there are more "cross-over" voters this year voting for McCain. Remember this is based entirely on campaign signs. I've seen "Democrats for McCain" "Women for McCain" I've even seen one that said "Hilaryocrat for McCain." Obviously these are people who traditionally vote for the Democratic party.
More of the same: While in conversation with a voter she expressed a thought that I found to be poignant and worth sharing. She said, "I would have liked to have seen McCain/Palin just to see if anything would have been different." What does this admission reveal? She expects nothing but more of the same partisanship, deadlock, and disappointment from an Obama Administration as we've gotten from Bush II. What she said in her defeated, resigned comment was in complete agreement with what you've been reading on Just My Opinion: Obama will not bring change. Partisanship is the same be it left or right. True change is someone not beholden to any one party. Someone who's record shows that he or she votes with their conscience, not with the letter by their name. Who might that be? I think I'll just refer to one candidate as Mr 66% and the other as Mr. 97%. You tell me, which would you rather have in office?
So, what's your opinion?
Legislating from the Bench: The Connecticut Supreme Court has done the same illegal, cowardly, usurpation that the Mass courts did. Gay "marriage" is now legal in CT. If you live in CT, whether you agree with the ruling or not, you ought to vote Yes for the Constitutional convention so that the judges will learn that they don't actually run the government. They don't have the right to make new laws. And this government of the people by the people for the people is truly going to be that. Here is my biggest beef with Gay "marriage." Marriage is a religious concept. Now, if the church is supposed to keep it's nose out of the state, why isn't the reverse true? Let the state give whatever rights/benefits/tax breaks they want to gay couples. But don't require the church to bestow the title "married" on them.
Motorcycles: I used to see the bumper sticker with an image of a motorcycle that said "Share the road" and think that it was a reminder to motorists to share the road with motorcyclists. Now I realize the truth. It's reminding motorcyclists two things: 1) They don't actually own the road and 2) There are cars on it. I have had several situations where I've nearly taken out a motorcycle because he decided (and the jerks on bikes to tend to be universally men) that the dotted white line on the highway is the motorcycle lane. The reason drivers don't see motorcyclists is because they weave in and out of traffic at 3 times the speed limit. One of my favorite things about CT is that helmets are optional. Talk about social Darwinism. God bless the freedom to be stupid, but don't endanger my family while you're at it! So, hey motorcycles, "share the road, will ya?!"
Spin: My new biggest beef with Obama's "honorable" campaign is his "Tax Break" ad. In it he claims that 101 million American families will not receive a tax break under McCain's economic plan. During this assertion there are two images on the screen, assumedly representing the type of "families" that won't receive any tax break. Both images are families with kids. Whoops. McCain's plan will double the tax credit for children. Golly Gee, Barack, are you being deceitful to the American people again? See, it looks like the people pictured will receive a tax break. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, you certainly aren't in the business of misleading America. Of course, you don't explicitly say that those pictures are representative of those who would be left tax breakless, but we'll just let the American people believe that they won't, right?
Campaign Signs: I've noticed a few trends with the campaign signs that I've been seeing in my neck of the woods. The first thing I've noticed is the incredible lack of campaign signs. Either people don't care as much as they have in the past, this campaign is more contentious than previous ones and people don't want to upset their neighbors, or the candidates are charging too much for the signs and people don't want to buy them. I, personally believe the second to be the least likely. Another observation is that the people supporting the Democrats choice for President appear to be embarrassed by the Vice Presidential selection. Easily seven out of ten signs that I see do not have Biden's name on them. I have news for those who will vote for the D's: You can't have Obama without Biden. I haven't seen the same shying from the running mate with the McCain/Palin signs. Perhaps 2 out of 10 list only McCain. The other thing I've noticed is that there are more "cross-over" voters this year voting for McCain. Remember this is based entirely on campaign signs. I've seen "Democrats for McCain" "Women for McCain" I've even seen one that said "Hilaryocrat for McCain." Obviously these are people who traditionally vote for the Democratic party.
More of the same: While in conversation with a voter she expressed a thought that I found to be poignant and worth sharing. She said, "I would have liked to have seen McCain/Palin just to see if anything would have been different." What does this admission reveal? She expects nothing but more of the same partisanship, deadlock, and disappointment from an Obama Administration as we've gotten from Bush II. What she said in her defeated, resigned comment was in complete agreement with what you've been reading on Just My Opinion: Obama will not bring change. Partisanship is the same be it left or right. True change is someone not beholden to any one party. Someone who's record shows that he or she votes with their conscience, not with the letter by their name. Who might that be? I think I'll just refer to one candidate as Mr 66% and the other as Mr. 97%. You tell me, which would you rather have in office?
So, what's your opinion?
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Voting Booth, Volume IX and X
For those of you who have been paying attention, you might have surmised that my blogging absence was due to the birth of my daughter. You'd be right! The Queen of Hearts and I (and our Full House) are pleased to announce the arrival of our little bundle of sleeplessness, I mean joy. Our little Wild Card was born on Friday September 28 at just after noon. She was 7'11" and 19 in long. Happy, healthy and we are thrilled to have her as a new member of our family.
Due to my absence, I have lots to cover, so let's get right to it! In reverse chronological order:
I'm sure you've noticed there have been a few debates that I haven't been able to weigh in on and I'm sure you are wondering what I think. (Why else would you be reading this...) So I'll do my best to make it brief:
Voting Booth, Volume X: The Vice Presidential debate:
I'm going to handle the two debates slightly differently.
Biden began this debate down a few points. This is because he was expected to run away with it. It was anticipated that Palin would look as bad as she did with Couric. So in order for him to win, he had to win convincingly. He didn't. The very fact that the debate appeared to be "close" means that Palin walked out the victor.
I don't mind mentioning that I really like Sarah Palin. I feel like she could have been my neighbor who decided she wanted to make a difference.
So I'm just going to pose a few questions that I found myself asking while watching this debate (Nearly all of them are for Biden):
Who had the power over the last two years to pass anything they wanted in congress while we've been suffering through the "Worst economy ever"?
Who blocked McCain's bill to regulate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac two years ago?
Yes, small business owners avoid the personal tax increase proposed by Obama for those that make more than $150K. How, exactly, do they avoid the increase in the proposed business tax?
Exactly how have you been supporting "clean coal" for "25 years" when it hasn't been around nearly that long?
If global warming is entirely man-made, as you claimed, why is it that we have proof of the temperature of the Earth increasing prior to the Industrial revolution?
If the "insurgence strategy" won't work in Afghanistan, why did you say, not 2 minutes later, that you'd send more troops there?
What is a Bosniac? Last I checked, they were Bosnians.
If Obama is going to have you present for every important decision, are you really comfortable being the VEEP for a man who needs you to hold his hand as Pres?
Oh, I did have one question for Palin.
I understand that you want people who have foreclosed houses to vote for you... but do you really not blame the people who took mortgages they couldn't afford? Someone can suggest that I purchase a Jaguar, but I know I can't make the payments. So, "Predatory" lenders or not, isn't there some shared blame there?
I'm pretty sure that Biden is glad he only needs to debate Palin once.
Voting Booth, Volume IX: McCain v Obama round 1:
This debate was much closer, so we'll have to break it down more.
Preplanned Lines: Advantage Obama
They both had them and they both said them, but Obama made me believe slightly more that they were off the cuff. Whereas whenever McCain said one, he might as well have been crossing it off the list on his podium as he said it.
Zinger: Advantage McCain
While they both had some poignant things to say, McCain's "The next president will not have to decide whether or not we went into Iraq" was easily the most memorable and the one that takes the cake.
Points: Push
I really feel like both men said what they wanted to say. They laid out some of their plans and attacked some of their opponents. No clear winner here. Although, I do have one question for Obama. It seems his contention is that when Wall Street fails, "Main street" feels it. Yet at the same time he denies the flip side of that same coin. He does not believe that "Main Street" succeeds when Wall street does. How is this possible?
Awkward Moment: Advantage McCain
Giving McCain the advantage means that Obama gave us the most awkward moment. McCain had just told the heartfelt story of a mother who lost a son in Iraq and how she didn't want him to have died in vain. And Obama, like a five year old, basically said, "I have a bracelet too." Nothin' like sounding unoriginal and sounding immature at the same time.
Eloquence: Advantage Obama
But did we really expect anything else? This should come as no surprise to anyone. McCain didn't pull any "Bidenisms" or "Bushisms" or "Quayleisms" so this wasn't a real big issue.
Fact Checking: Push
I'm tempted to give the advantage to McCain because I believe that Obama's "misinformation" was more deceptive than McCain's. But they both stretched and twisted the truth to fit their own agenda's. Obama mentioned McCain's supposed 90% agreement with Bush again. They both mentioned tax breaks for oil companies as though that was the point of the legislation that was voted for or planned. In Obama's situation it was a bill that provided funding for renewable energy and in McCain's plan it is a tax break for all companies, oil companies included.
And so it appears that we are at an impasse. 3 per candidate. However, because there was such a stark contrast in the final category, where it is usually an automatic push, this time it actually becomes a consideration
Conduct: Advantage McCain
There was a moment early in the debate where Obama interrupted McCain. McCain was so taken aback by it that he let it happen. But he never let it happen again even though I counted three more times that Obama attempted to interject while McCain was mid sentence. McCain, however, gave Obama the respect he deserved and allowed him to finish speaking before attempting a rebuttal.
Final: McCain
While I give McCain the marks for "winning" the debate, I don't think that anyone is going to change their vote over this one. It may have swayed an undecided or two, but there really wasn't anything new. McCain missed a few key opportunities that he may be saving for rounds II or III where they may make a bigger difference closer to the election (For example, some of Obama's key financial advisers were high ranking officials for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. You may remember, the failed companies that we are now bailing out? (More on the bail out later.) Why is this not a concern?)
And the loser? The American people. As long as we have a two party system the political problems that we are experiencing will never be fixed in Washington, Boston, Albany, Hartford, or anywhere else in the US. McCain is clearly the most independent of the "two" candidates. If we are experiencing more than one crisis (the war, the economy, healthcare, employment, etc) with a Democratically controlled Congress and a Republican controlled Executive branch. Maybe we should protest both by voting for another party. Green, anyone? Libertarian? Socialist? There are plenty to choose from. I'm pretty sure you can still "Vote Bob."
Alright, moving right along:
The Bailout.
The more I research this thing the more I think that the Democrats took advantage of a small issue and made it into a huge crisis so that they could come running to the rescue and push through a "bailout" bill packed with liberal agenda addendums (tax breaks for employers to pay for employees' who want to bike to work, 20 million to liberal special interests, etc). Small business owners aren't having problems getting loans. Car buyers, home buyers, etc. The only people who can't get loans are those that aren't qualified. The very people who had their homes foreclosed on in the first place. The very people who should have been rejected originally.
This "bailout" is a joke. And who decides who gets bailed out? My brother-in-law's ice cream shoppe could have used a bailout. So could the Detroit Lions. What about the auto industry? They are truly struggling. Where's their bailout? One more thing:
If the republicans are the party of big business and fat cows, why did they not want to pass this bill "designed to give more money to the rich?"
Well, there you go. My thoughts on all that's happened while we've been busy having a baby! What do you think?
Due to my absence, I have lots to cover, so let's get right to it! In reverse chronological order:
I'm sure you've noticed there have been a few debates that I haven't been able to weigh in on and I'm sure you are wondering what I think. (Why else would you be reading this...) So I'll do my best to make it brief:
Voting Booth, Volume X: The Vice Presidential debate:
I'm going to handle the two debates slightly differently.
Biden began this debate down a few points. This is because he was expected to run away with it. It was anticipated that Palin would look as bad as she did with Couric. So in order for him to win, he had to win convincingly. He didn't. The very fact that the debate appeared to be "close" means that Palin walked out the victor.
I don't mind mentioning that I really like Sarah Palin. I feel like she could have been my neighbor who decided she wanted to make a difference.
So I'm just going to pose a few questions that I found myself asking while watching this debate (Nearly all of them are for Biden):
Who had the power over the last two years to pass anything they wanted in congress while we've been suffering through the "Worst economy ever"?
Who blocked McCain's bill to regulate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac two years ago?
Yes, small business owners avoid the personal tax increase proposed by Obama for those that make more than $150K. How, exactly, do they avoid the increase in the proposed business tax?
Exactly how have you been supporting "clean coal" for "25 years" when it hasn't been around nearly that long?
If global warming is entirely man-made, as you claimed, why is it that we have proof of the temperature of the Earth increasing prior to the Industrial revolution?
If the "insurgence strategy" won't work in Afghanistan, why did you say, not 2 minutes later, that you'd send more troops there?
What is a Bosniac? Last I checked, they were Bosnians.
If Obama is going to have you present for every important decision, are you really comfortable being the VEEP for a man who needs you to hold his hand as Pres?
Oh, I did have one question for Palin.
I understand that you want people who have foreclosed houses to vote for you... but do you really not blame the people who took mortgages they couldn't afford? Someone can suggest that I purchase a Jaguar, but I know I can't make the payments. So, "Predatory" lenders or not, isn't there some shared blame there?
I'm pretty sure that Biden is glad he only needs to debate Palin once.
Voting Booth, Volume IX: McCain v Obama round 1:
This debate was much closer, so we'll have to break it down more.
Preplanned Lines: Advantage Obama
They both had them and they both said them, but Obama made me believe slightly more that they were off the cuff. Whereas whenever McCain said one, he might as well have been crossing it off the list on his podium as he said it.
Zinger: Advantage McCain
While they both had some poignant things to say, McCain's "The next president will not have to decide whether or not we went into Iraq" was easily the most memorable and the one that takes the cake.
Points: Push
I really feel like both men said what they wanted to say. They laid out some of their plans and attacked some of their opponents. No clear winner here. Although, I do have one question for Obama. It seems his contention is that when Wall Street fails, "Main street" feels it. Yet at the same time he denies the flip side of that same coin. He does not believe that "Main Street" succeeds when Wall street does. How is this possible?
Awkward Moment: Advantage McCain
Giving McCain the advantage means that Obama gave us the most awkward moment. McCain had just told the heartfelt story of a mother who lost a son in Iraq and how she didn't want him to have died in vain. And Obama, like a five year old, basically said, "I have a bracelet too." Nothin' like sounding unoriginal and sounding immature at the same time.
Eloquence: Advantage Obama
But did we really expect anything else? This should come as no surprise to anyone. McCain didn't pull any "Bidenisms" or "Bushisms" or "Quayleisms" so this wasn't a real big issue.
Fact Checking: Push
I'm tempted to give the advantage to McCain because I believe that Obama's "misinformation" was more deceptive than McCain's. But they both stretched and twisted the truth to fit their own agenda's. Obama mentioned McCain's supposed 90% agreement with Bush again. They both mentioned tax breaks for oil companies as though that was the point of the legislation that was voted for or planned. In Obama's situation it was a bill that provided funding for renewable energy and in McCain's plan it is a tax break for all companies, oil companies included.
And so it appears that we are at an impasse. 3 per candidate. However, because there was such a stark contrast in the final category, where it is usually an automatic push, this time it actually becomes a consideration
Conduct: Advantage McCain
There was a moment early in the debate where Obama interrupted McCain. McCain was so taken aback by it that he let it happen. But he never let it happen again even though I counted three more times that Obama attempted to interject while McCain was mid sentence. McCain, however, gave Obama the respect he deserved and allowed him to finish speaking before attempting a rebuttal.
Final: McCain
While I give McCain the marks for "winning" the debate, I don't think that anyone is going to change their vote over this one. It may have swayed an undecided or two, but there really wasn't anything new. McCain missed a few key opportunities that he may be saving for rounds II or III where they may make a bigger difference closer to the election (For example, some of Obama's key financial advisers were high ranking officials for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. You may remember, the failed companies that we are now bailing out? (More on the bail out later.) Why is this not a concern?)
And the loser? The American people. As long as we have a two party system the political problems that we are experiencing will never be fixed in Washington, Boston, Albany, Hartford, or anywhere else in the US. McCain is clearly the most independent of the "two" candidates. If we are experiencing more than one crisis (the war, the economy, healthcare, employment, etc) with a Democratically controlled Congress and a Republican controlled Executive branch. Maybe we should protest both by voting for another party. Green, anyone? Libertarian? Socialist? There are plenty to choose from. I'm pretty sure you can still "Vote Bob."
Alright, moving right along:
The Bailout.
The more I research this thing the more I think that the Democrats took advantage of a small issue and made it into a huge crisis so that they could come running to the rescue and push through a "bailout" bill packed with liberal agenda addendums (tax breaks for employers to pay for employees' who want to bike to work, 20 million to liberal special interests, etc). Small business owners aren't having problems getting loans. Car buyers, home buyers, etc. The only people who can't get loans are those that aren't qualified. The very people who had their homes foreclosed on in the first place. The very people who should have been rejected originally.
This "bailout" is a joke. And who decides who gets bailed out? My brother-in-law's ice cream shoppe could have used a bailout. So could the Detroit Lions. What about the auto industry? They are truly struggling. Where's their bailout? One more thing:
If the republicans are the party of big business and fat cows, why did they not want to pass this bill "designed to give more money to the rich?"
Well, there you go. My thoughts on all that's happened while we've been busy having a baby! What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)