When You Look At What He Said...

Some quick hits about President Obama's speech from Factcheck.org:

President Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress was stuffed with signals about the new direction his budget will take and meant-to-be reassuring words about the economy. But it was also peppered with exaggerations and factual misstatements.

* He said "we import more oil today than ever before." That's untrue. Imports peaked in 2005 and are substantially lower today.

* He claimed his mortgage aid plan would help "responsible" buyers but not those who borrowed beyond their means. But even prominent defenders of the program including Fed Chairman Bernanke and FDIC chief Bair concede foolish borrowers will be aided, too.

* He said the high cost of health care "causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds." That's at least double the true figure.

* He flubbed two facts about American history. The U.S. did not invent the automobile, and the transcontinental railroad was not completed until years after the Civil War, not during it.

* He claimed that his stimulus plan "prevented the layoffs" of 57 police officers in Minneapolis. In fact, it's far more complicated than that, and other factors are also helping to save police jobs.

Follow the link at the top, check the details.

I Miss Swagger

Let's face it, yes some corporate executives did pad their pockets and were more interested in their own bottom line than the bottom line of their company, but definitely not all. Did anyone here Obama's address where he painted all corporate CEOs with the same brush of how they supposedly took taxpayer money to host lavish parties and increase their personal wealth? Personally, I would like to see proof of that, I want to see where CEOs said "Oh look, government money! I'll reinstate my mind-boggling raise and then use what is left of this money to throw a big party!" President Obama, shame on you... you should know better. And shame on those blowhards in Congress who for the most part have NEVER produced anything but bills taking people to task for making money. Hey, with all this "share the pain" talk from the party on the left, where is the salary reduction and perk reduction for you pompous Caesars? Why aren't you "sharing the pain" with the rest of us? Even more so, where are the entrepreneurs telling the truth to these government officials?

Note to Obama and the Democrat Congress: Please stop talking about helping the middle class. None of you have any idea what it means to be middle class and you have no idea how to really help. Why don't you take a real job and just see what it means to be a middle-class American?

Obama's Non-State of the Union Address

Funny, I was told all day long that President Obama's speech was to be on the economy. What I heard sounded more like a state of the union address where the first 10 minutes of the 55 minute speech was making sure no one could ever think that his policies were the problem, that it was ALL former President Bush's fault.

* sigh *

He sounded like a little kid saying "Don't blame me. I didn't do it."

Fine, we get it. You're the new kid, but you have to start taking responsibility. You have to also start listening to your own rhetoric. Disagreeing with you is not the same as partisan politics unless you truly believe you already know all the answers in which case stop playing around and trying to fake consensus.

When "god" Speaks

Obama must really believe himself divine, his word is sacred and not to be questioned. This man, who has never been tested in any sense in his adult life, seems to think that honest differences in though are not to be discussed, especially when it differs from his own omniscience. Our earth-bound divine leader recently said "We can't expect relief from the tired old theories that, in eight short years, doubled the national debt, threw our economy into a tailspin, and led us into this mess in the first place". So honest discussion and debate about a second multibillion dollar "stimulus" package is not on the table, we are just to trust him? Right, sorry, I forgot he expects unwavering faith.

I really wonder if he even hears himself or if he thinks that whatever he says must be right? Funny, people said they hated this aspect of Bush yet here it is again (just that the leader is a "D" rather than an "R"). If Obama REALLY took his own words seriously he would think about where this money is coming from (but it's hard to expect that from someone who never really worked). If he wanted to do away with the "tired old theories" of the last eight years (of which a quarter of that lead by the Democrats) he would:

Cut spending

Let people who work keep more of their money by lowering tax rates rather than those stupid little tax credits they propose

If they want to give away money, take a portion of this humongous spending package and distribute it to those who work so they (that is, the worker) can start to stimulate the economy. This will work faster than any of that central planning BS they contemplate now

Make a good-faith effort toward the American people by cutting out all the crap that has been put into the package. A sizable chunk has nothing to do with "stimulus" efforts but looks more like a "Here's our chance to buy more votes under the guise of doing some good".

If our Economist-in-chief wants to stimulate business, cut or repeal the corporate income tax. Corporate income tax has never made good sense because if you think about it such income often gets taxed two or three times as it travels through the system. Why slap on an additional 35%?

Interestingly enough, this administration doesn't seem to know that to encourage sustainable growth they should eliminate bad policy, not add new layers.

Just What Is Obama Sorry For?

Just when I get my hopes up with his ethics requirements he turns into another politician. At least one of his appointees withdrew her nomination because of taxes (how is it that the party who thinks we worker bees should pay taxes seem to have so many problems paying them?). Then during his "I messed up" speech what it sounds like the problem was had to do with the message rather than it actually being wrong. He was upset that they appeared to be sending the message that there were two sets of standards. Appeared to be? There were two sets of standards and Obama himself built in that two-tiered system by allowing for wavers from the ethics requirements. If you listen to what he said in his mea culpa, it isn't he was sorry for giving his full support to people who had such problems but the image it created.

For a man swept in by "change" it sure looks like business as usual.

Sadly, I Don't Think Obama Understands This

I'm not Catholic but I have to say that Catholicvote.com has some powerful videos over this message. On another note, this will not be shown during the Super Bowl. Why do I say this? Catholicvote.com offered to buy time to play this "commercial" but it was rejected. Three words to this group... "Don't give up".

President Obortion

Well, we can't say we weren't expecting it but I was shocked that President Obama made undoing the "Mexico City Policy" allowing funding to organizations that provide abortions (link) such a high priority. The policy, implemented by Reagan, repealed by Clinton and reestablished by Bush has again been overturned by Obama within three days of being sworn in as president. Apparently a "woman's right to choose" is of greater importance than almost anything else going on at the moment. Obama has always supported abortion rights regardless of the situation and reason. For such a supposedly smart man he just doesn't get it. I'm curious how his actions aren't political (as he claims in his own comments about his action) and it will be interesting to see how his supporters will spin this action as being "pro-family" when the end result is to allow elimination of a family member.

The discussion about abortion is often heated and more knee-jerk than thoughtful. Recently I was talking to a highly educated person who actually made the statement that an embryo was no different than any other mass of tissue such as skin cells or a tumor (shocking but that was what was said). It was a bit sad that I had to point out that one major difference was you could not take a skin sample, implant it in a uterus and nine months later have a baby emerge.

Modern science is showing how viability can be pushed back closer and closer to the time of conception. For someone who claims to want to put science back in the place it belongs, I wish President Obama would pay attention to the science he supposedly reveres.

Obama's Speech

I have to say, I am a bit disappointed. For someone who is proclaimed to be one of the great orators of his age I found it a bit flat, but then again I actually listened to the words. Unlike the crowds who gazed with rapture at President Obama, I listened, analyzed, weighed the words.

I firmly agree with him on the idea of personal responsibility, that many of our problems today are "a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices". Sadly he focused a bit too much on "greed" and not not enough of the failure to make hard choices. Sorry, but no one had a gun held to their head and forced to sign loan papers when they knew darn good and well that (1) the markets do NOT always go up and (2) they couldn't make the payments at the end of the teaser rate period. Obama gives an interesting list of problems but fails to actually tie them to anything. For example, he said "our schools fail too many", but no tie back to his responsibility theme. Mr. President, why do "our schools fail too many"? Please, don't tell me it's money because if we are both honest with each other we know it isn't. How about parents not making the hard choice of doing without to be more involved with the education of their children?

I found this interesting: "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." Now this is interesting, since it has been his side of the aisle that has spat the more vitriolic of statements. Of course, one moment of fun for yours truly was Obama's butting heads with Pelosi and Reid. If he continues to do this he will earn much more of my support, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. How he handles their tunnel vision of war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney will go far in how I view the man.

This one sent chills down my spine, the idea of "the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." First of all, there is no such promise of all being equal unless you want to talk soteriology, yet that is not what Obama meant here. We are NOT all equal. We each have different skills, different inclinations, different abilities. The message he is sending is a bit muddled.

I found this one of the better lines in the speech: "Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom." The question is, what will the Obama administration do to help such people?

This statement puzzled me: "We will restore science to its rightful place". What "rightful place" is that? When was science removed from whatever that "rightful place" is? Such statements to me sound like the silly leftist "fair share" statement when it comes to taxation. Who gets to make such definitions?

I agree with this statement up to a point: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end." If he stopped at the hyphen I would have liked it more, but Obama says that government should meddle in the lives of people. Where is the responsibility of the individual? Given that most people seem to think that Social Security is "broken" and doesn't work, will he end it? He said earlier that public education has failed, will that end as well?

I find it interesting that Obama says "know that America is a friend of each nation". Really? What about countries who deem us as "the great Satan" (and I'm not just talking about the French here). How far does that idea of "friend" go?
I'm not sure how much that goes with his much, much better statement "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." I find that Obama, in trying to be the world's "good guy", a sorta global president, he is pledging far too much outside the U.S. before we really clean up our own house (read the three paragraphs or so following the above quotes).

I think what I have the most problem with is the muddled message this sends to those who pay attention to what he says. But, as I said to a co-worker this morning, unlike the rabid liberals I will NOT say that Obama is not my president. He is, and when he and I agree I will support him to the utmost of my ability. Where we disagree I will speak out to any who will listen. This, I think, is the real duty of a patriotic American. So now, it's time to see what he will do. Time for talk and speeches is over, now is the time for action.

God bless America.

How Much Does It Take To Buy The Presidency?

And here people worried about Ross Perot back in 1992. You can read the full story here.

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama, who rewrote the book on presidential fundraising, amassed more than $745 million during his marathon campaign, more than twice the amount obtained by his rival, Republican John McCain.

In his latest finance report, Obama reported raising $104 million in more than five weeks immediately before and after Election Day. It was his second biggest fundraising period and a fitting coda to a successful presidential bid that shattered fundraising records.

In the end, Obama still had $30 million left over.

Overall, Obama exceeded the combined finances of the two major parties' nominees four years ago. George W. Bush and John Kerry pulled in a total of $653 million in the 2004 primary and general election campaigns, including federal public financing money.


Of course, this was the man who repeatedly said that if his rival took federal funds so would he. First promise he broke... and no wonder.

With Supporters Like This...

So Obama is the Messiah? When I see him walk on water and return from the dead after three days then I might believe...

Obama Supports Iraq Invasion?

Given that the "Obama Doctrine" as espoused in the second debate is based on morality (apparently even over national interest), I think that the pre-invasion situation in Iraq would warrant us going in to liberate an oppressed people. Thanks for the support Obama! I suppose that means if Obama is elected president we go next to what is probably the longest running conflict in modern history, Sri Lanka, followed by sending troops into Zimbabwe to oust that blight on humanity Robert Mugabe.

Obama Is Just Another Politician

I am still amazed at the people who seem to view Senator Obama as the second coming of the Messiah (though at the Democratic National Convention he looked more like Apollo with that silly backdrop). With all the financial mess going on what does Obama do? He distorts McCain's record and McCain's words on the matter. Since he has little to no record of his own to tout he twists what McCain says to try to make himself look better and play off the fears of the masses. On a recent speech (the one thing that Obama has proven capable of doing) in New Mexico he says of McCain:

He has consistently opposed the sorts of common-sense regulations that might have lessened the current crisis. When I was warning about the danger ahead on Wall Street months ago because of the lack of oversight, Senator McCain was telling the Wall Street Journal — and I quote — 'I'm always for less regulation.'

What McCain actually said was:

I'm always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis — that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight... I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated, not just a moratorium.

Compare the two... Obama comes off like a typical, old-time, slandering, word-twisting politician (which he is). Now McCain's people aren't really any better when it comes to Obama's words or record (what there is of it), but McCain's isn't setting himself up like Obama. When it comes to the two, Obama was the one who set himself up to the higher standard... and he is the one who falls hardest into the mud.

Speaking in Florida, Obama the fearmonger also said that the drop the market experienced recently would have affected the retirement benefits of today's retirees. Absolute nonsense. The private account plan suggested by President Bush and backed by McCain would not have applied to anyone born before 1950 which, if my math is right, wouldn't even touch those taking early retirement at age 62 this year! Let's ignore the fact that the entire thing is voluntary, Obama is just flat out lying about its impact to the good folks in Florida.

Again, this does not sound like a new type of politician. I'm almost as old as Obama and it sounds like the same type of crap I hear every four years so I am curious just why Obama thinks he is different.

Mayor Versus Community Organizer

So much has been made about Governor Palin's jib at Obama's experience that I thought I would take a few moments to address it. Just for the record, she said the following in her acceptance speech:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

I have a few questions about the left's reaction to the statement:

First, what is wrong with it? As a mayor you do have stated, defined responsibilities in your city charter. You have a constituency that put you there, people have real needs that they expect you as the figurehead of local government to do something about their problems, keep the city safe, etc. What about a community organizer? Obama doesn't really tell us much about it other than the fact that he was one. What he does tell us is the following:

Despite some meaningful victories, the work of Obama--and hundreds of other organizers--did not transform the South Side or restore lost industries. But it did change the young man who became the junior senator from Illinois in 2004, and it provides clues to his worldview as he bids for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"I can't say we didn't make mistakes, that I knew what I was doing," Obama recalled three years ago to a boisterous convention of the still-active DCP. "Sometimes I called a meeting, and nobody showed up. Sometimes preachers said, 'Why should I listen to you?' Sometimes we tried to hold politicians accountable, and they didn't show up. I couldn't tell whether I got more out of it than this neighborhood."

This quote can be found in an Obama-friendly article from The Nation. Not much else seems to be found out about his community organizer works other than the fact that Obama comes from the Saul Alinksky school of community and labor organization. If you have read his "Rules For Radicals" book and have any knowledge of how community organizers often (though admittedly not always) worked you wouldn't find much to quibble with over Giuliani's statement either.

Being a community organizer is nothing to be ashamed of and rallying people to a common cause and purpose can be a great thing to accomplish in one's life, but I still don't understand why people were upset at Palin's comparison.

Second, the Democrats seems to say that McCain's call for people to community service as a contradiction to what they heard from Palin and Giuliani. Well, if you are honest and look at the list of things McCain said about becoming involved in your community (be a teacher, a fireman, a minister, a nurse or doctor, etc) there are differences. Just stop and think about what a community organizer does and what the duties (often defined and measured) of those jobs are. They are not gender specific, they are not race specific, they are not politically inclined, they are hired often for defined skill sets, they have to meet goals and requirements (usually). How does that compare with the activities of a "community organizer"? And let us not overlook the fact that Palin herself can be considered a "community organizer" as she was head of the local PTA. I haven't heard much of that time from her, but I wonder if her activities as a "community organizer" were more successful that Obama's self-admitted mixed record was, which leads me to my next question...

Third, OK, so she was the mayor of a small town and he was a "community organizer". I don't really care so much as to what they did but more interested in who was effective at doing their job. Obama's own words in the Nation article seem to indicate mixed results at best and we don't have any firm details on what he accomplished. Even the New York Times (in a mixed review of Palin's Mayoral tenure) stated:

In Wasilla, Ms. Palin is widely praised for following through on campaign promises by cutting property taxes while improving roads and sewers and strengthening the Police Department... She is largely viewed as having had her hometown’s best interests at heart when she pursued big projects or an overhaul of city taxes. By the time she ran for re-election in 1999 — again facing Mr. Stein — things had smoothed out. She was returned to office by a large margin, 826 votes to 255.

Granted there were headaches, many of them caused by the fact that she ran against the "old boys'" network and some of the due to her heartfelt conservatism and even a few I would question, but overall she seemed to accomplish what she set out to do and the overall view of her in her town seems to be quite positive.

So again I don't understand the problem, but even Obama seems to take this as a thorn in his side. In a recent interview with Anderson Cooper Obama still seems to consider her only experience as that of a mayor:

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded.

What is missing in this response is that Cooper asked about her experience as Governor of Alaska and mayor of Wasilla. I find it rather interesting that Obama ignores her being governor. He mentions bills he sponsored for New Orleans post-Katrina but if you search the actual record you find two he sponsored, four he co-sponsored with about a 50% success rate of passing. Not the greatest of accomplishments but he can be credited with trying, but for someone who claims the ability to work in a bipartisan manner this is not the greatest track record. He seems to be trying to compare every facet of his political career with that of Palin's time as mayor. What was his budget and staff during his "community organizer" years since that is the latest comparison with the second on the GOP ticket?

Honestly, I think Obama and Biden need to tread very carefully here. Palin may not have a fat resume but she does have some very strong positive accomplishments. Also Obama is so focused on Palin that he is leaving himself open to McCain. As former President Bill Clinton asked... suppose you have two candidates, one whom you only agree with half the time but they can deliver on those things and one you agree with all the time but you don't think they can deliver on any of them... whom would you vote for? But of course, he wasn't talking about this :-)

McCain Ad Foreshadows My Next Post

Sorry, been busy the last couple of days with work, homework, and taking my next wine certification exam so nothing remotely original at this point, but this ad gives you a thumbnail sketch of what I will be writing about in the next couple of posts.

McCain's Pick

Last night I had a premonition... McCain was going to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate. After watching Obama's speech I kept going over the short list of possible VP candidates and why * I * wouldn't pick them (Romney, somewhat negative against McCain in the primaries and has the wealth issue that voters seem to be against; Huckabee, no, no, no preachers and honestly a bit of a rube; Giuliani, main issue is defense and that is McCain's forte; Ridge, too pro-choice and would alienate "God's Own Party", etc, etc, etc). Then I got to Palin. Young woman, mother (married her high school sweetheart), solidly pro-life, strong conservative credentials, solid blue-collar credentials, former sports journalist, administrator with a background of reform. Only real negatives: some will see her as a "pander pick" and she is a first term governor (before that was a mayor for two terms). The question to me was can she be presented in such a way as to blunt these criticism (which the McCain campaign has leveled in one form or another at Obama)? I think it is possible but they have to be careful.

Yes, she is a woman (and an attractive one at that) but I don't think McCain will be hurt by that as much as some have stated. This isn't Geraldine Ferraro again. Palin is tough with a strong (if limited but longer than Obama's) track record of reform. She seems to be a principled conservative rather than a politically expedient one. My one big issue with her (but will play well with the "God's Own Party" crowd) is on gay rights but right now I think there are bigger fish to fry and I am willing to step back on this at the moment.

The Democrats seem to be salivating at the "experience" issue. Before they do, let's be honest... all three (McCain, Palin, and Biden) have more experience than Obama and of the four only Palin has ever run anything (and from all accounts somewhat successfully at that). Her apparent weakness seems to be foreign policy (as is Obama's) but McCain is at the top of the ticket and it will be his advisors that will be helping shape foreign policy not hers. What she brings to the table that neither Obama nor Biden has is the fact that she has been a governor and a reform-minded governor at that. She has had to deal directly with budgets, hiring and firing people, and being the only target when people are not happy (at least in the Senate you aren't the only pig... you've got 99 other porkers there with you). In fact, again if you're an honest political geek and look at accomplishments and not rhetoric, you will see that when it comes to reform and bucking political establishments that the McCain/Palin ticket is the real reform-oriented ticket.

So is she bullet-proof? No, but in politics no one is (not even the "anointed one"). Do I think she can do the job? Yes, at least as well as the man at the top of the Democrat ticket.

McCain/Palin 2008!

Open Plea to John McCain

PLEASE, OH PLEASE, OH PLEASE Senator McCain pick someone with some administrative skills for your running mate. The thoughts of an all legislative race fills me with terrible dread. Pick someone who has actually lead and done something creative and meaningful with their time on this planet. Obama blew his choice, please do not make the same mistake.

XOXOXO

Michael

Obama's "Dick Cheney" Pick

If you can, think back to the 2000 election cycle when it was time for the Republican nominee-elect, George Bush, to select a running mate. The minute the choice was announced, the clearly anti-Bush media started saying that Cheney added gravitas to the supposedly weak top of the ticket. Given that whether or not you like him (and you know that I am no fan of Dubbya) Bush was running as a relatively successful governor of a very large state (he was well into his second term after having won with 69% of the vote) while Obama has been in charge of... nothing. So if Bush needed gravitas it is easy to see that Obama needs it in abundance. But whereas Cheney has done something outside of government, what is the Democrat's ticket heavyweight record? Ummmm... nothing really. He was admitted to the bar in 1968 and elected to the New Castle County, County Council in 1970 and after serving a whole two years ran for the Senate at the seasoned age of 29. He won and has been in the Senate since. THIS is the guy who is supposed to mollify the ticket's elitist image and to be the blue-collar face to the American people? And as for added gravitas, the one thing Biden brings to the table is weight, the weight of 35 years of Senate votes and two horribly failed Presidential runs in his own right. So Cheney brought "gravitas" to the ticket... what does Biden bring?

Age and perceived experience (even though being a Senator lends very little to any type of administrative experience which is the branch of government covering the Presidency), maybe a run for the AARP vote to offset McCain's advantage? If nothing else it provides a wonderful contrast showing the weakness of the top of the ticket.

Wonderful quotes about Obama that the McCain campaign can tie into those of Hillary Clinton... so let me take a moment to thank both of them. Just think of the money you saved the Republicans for writing the ads for us.

He's Catholic and it is well known that Obama is extremely weak among Catholic voters, so maybe a plus but I don't think so.

Deliver Delaware to Obama. Um, don't think that is a problem for "The One".

Poise and eloquence in getting the message out? Well, perhaps if he plagiarize someone else's writings (see is 1988 campaign for the top of the ticket), but remember this is the guy who called Obama "clean" and said you can't go into a 7-Eleven without an Indian accent.

Attack-dog capabilities, the one job he may be qualified for.

The problem the Democrats face are now two-fold... Obama is a young lightweight, Biden appears to be bit of an old lightweight who in a 35 year track has accomplished few major legislative wins.

We now have three Senators at the top of the two tickets... I'm even more curious now to see who McCain picks. In many ways I am starting to pull for Romney (bit of a shock for me) because SOMEONE has to have experience in running something. Obama blew his chance, will McCain do the same?