With all the current troubles and turmoil plaguing us, I think it is time to express our collective disgust with politicians, bankers, Wall Street types, automotive executives, union bosses, and Congress among others. Billions of taxpayer $$$ are bailing out banks, insurance companies, underwriters, and most likely the Big Three American auto companies.
Why?
The short answer is greed.
Greed of the Congress, greed of the bankers, greed of the insurance people, greed from Wall Street who invented a new method of making money by selling sub-prime mortgage loans - as securities, no less-that Congress insisted banks make despite borrowers not having the required means to repay the loans.
A question: If banks and mortgage companies sold their sub prime loans to Freddie and Fannie -who have already been rescued by the taxpayers - why did the banks need a bailout? Since the banks passed their sub prime loans to Freddie and Fannie, they no longer held the loans. So why did they need a bailout? I have yet to hear an explanation from the "experts" on this question.
And it gets worse. Detroit wants the taxpayers to bail it out of the financial hole it has been digging itself into for the past 30 years. Which special interest group will be next in line?
My view is that dishonesty and greed are the root causes of our current mess.
Therefore, I propose a National Diogenes Night.
Fill your lantern, put new batteries in your flashlights, carry a torch, and join me as we search for an honest person.
10 January 2009 at 7:00 PM Eastern is the date.
Let's find at least one honest person in our nationwide search!
In case you do not know Diogenes was a Greek from long ago, before television, who searched for an honest man by the light of a lantern.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Gravitas
Remember that word?
Gravitas?
It is used when a Republican without extensive DC or other media approved experience runs for high office. It was used in 1988 against Dan Quayle and used again in 2000 against George Bush. Quayle was a two term US Senator and Bush was a twice elected governor of Texas.
But in 2008 the use of "gravitas" is forbidden.
Why?
Senator Obama has little or no experience and no accomplishsments. But he does give pretty speeches that float away in the media windstorm. And he is ranked as the most liberal (read: Left) US Senator, even more "liberal" than the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders.
Gravitas?
Nah, not important this year.
Gravitas?
It is used when a Republican without extensive DC or other media approved experience runs for high office. It was used in 1988 against Dan Quayle and used again in 2000 against George Bush. Quayle was a two term US Senator and Bush was a twice elected governor of Texas.
But in 2008 the use of "gravitas" is forbidden.
Why?
Senator Obama has little or no experience and no accomplishsments. But he does give pretty speeches that float away in the media windstorm. And he is ranked as the most liberal (read: Left) US Senator, even more "liberal" than the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders.
Gravitas?
Nah, not important this year.
Buying the White House
Obama is raising millions and millions of dollars in an effort to buy the White House.
Now you may ask why I say this.
Obama and the other candidates during the primary season signed pledges to accept federal funding for the general election.
Obama reneged on his pledge.
McCain kept his word and is stuck with the limitations of federal funding.
Obama may raise and spend $1,000,000,000 - That's ONE BILLION DOLLARS - to buy the White House.
Obama has numerous billionaire socialists backing him. Oprey, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates, and the Google Guy are a few.
However, more troubling is Obama's refusal to list all his contributors on his web site. McCain lists ALL his donations whereas Obama refuses to disclose donors who give less than $250 at a time. So Obama donors can give $250 over and over and over without any disclosure.
From NEWSMAX.com 10-22-08
"Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson and Raela Odinga all are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama. Newsmax's Kenneth Timmerman reports on how the Obama campaign suspended normal credit card security features allowing for massive donation fraud. "
I hear reports that millions of foreigners are donating to Obama - a federal crime. But it is tough locating any media coverage.
Just think of the media's outrage if McCain had reneged on his pledge to accept the limitations of federal funding.
Howls and screams from liberals for months would follow.
Yet we hear nothing about Obama's buying the White House. In fact we heard how wonderful it is that Obama is raising so much money to buy the White House.
That, my friends, is where we are today.
Now you may ask why I say this.
Obama and the other candidates during the primary season signed pledges to accept federal funding for the general election.
Obama reneged on his pledge.
McCain kept his word and is stuck with the limitations of federal funding.
Obama may raise and spend $1,000,000,000 - That's ONE BILLION DOLLARS - to buy the White House.
Obama has numerous billionaire socialists backing him. Oprey, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates, and the Google Guy are a few.
However, more troubling is Obama's refusal to list all his contributors on his web site. McCain lists ALL his donations whereas Obama refuses to disclose donors who give less than $250 at a time. So Obama donors can give $250 over and over and over without any disclosure.
From NEWSMAX.com 10-22-08
"Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson and Raela Odinga all are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama. Newsmax's Kenneth Timmerman reports on how the Obama campaign suspended normal credit card security features allowing for massive donation fraud. "
I hear reports that millions of foreigners are donating to Obama - a federal crime. But it is tough locating any media coverage.
Just think of the media's outrage if McCain had reneged on his pledge to accept the limitations of federal funding.
Howls and screams from liberals for months would follow.
Yet we hear nothing about Obama's buying the White House. In fact we heard how wonderful it is that Obama is raising so much money to buy the White House.
That, my friends, is where we are today.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Joe the Plumber...
is a symol for millions of Americans.
Joe represents Americans who want to start their own their businesses without the government taking their hard earned income and redistributing it to people who did not earn it.
Joe the Plumber is being attacked and ridiculed by the elites in the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBCLSD, NY Times and the usual big city suspects and the weekly magazines) for exposing Obama for what he is: a socialist at best.
Why should hard working Americans pay higher taxes to a bloated, out of control, demanding, inefficient, wasteful, and spendthrift federal government? There is no good reason for higher taxes!
In our economic conditions taxes should be reduced, governments at all level should spend less, and thousands and thousands of Joe the Plumbers should be encouraged to start their businesses. Most jobs (a four letter word, Senator Biden) are created by Joe the Plumbers.
Joe represents Americans who want to start their own their businesses without the government taking their hard earned income and redistributing it to people who did not earn it.
Joe the Plumber is being attacked and ridiculed by the elites in the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBCLSD, NY Times and the usual big city suspects and the weekly magazines) for exposing Obama for what he is: a socialist at best.
Why should hard working Americans pay higher taxes to a bloated, out of control, demanding, inefficient, wasteful, and spendthrift federal government? There is no good reason for higher taxes!
In our economic conditions taxes should be reduced, governments at all level should spend less, and thousands and thousands of Joe the Plumbers should be encouraged to start their businesses. Most jobs (a four letter word, Senator Biden) are created by Joe the Plumbers.
Powell
Powell endorsed Obama.
No surprise there.
Powell was a lackluster Republican, a softie, a RINO, despite all the benefits bestowed upon him by Republicans during his career. It was President Reagan, Bush 41, Sec Def Cheney, Bush 43 who made Powell in Washington. Otherwise, Powell would have been just another obscure Army colonel.
My doubts about Powell rose during the First Gulf War. Powell did not favor using military force to remove Saddam from Kuwait. He wanted to go the UN route which meant Saddam would have been in Kuwait for years and controlled vital oil resources and threathened Saudia Arabia and the other small Gulf States. Powell was taken to the woodshed by Sec of Def Cheney and finally got with the administration's policy.
Powell is an appeaser in the tradition of many liberal Democrats who always favor ceding national rights and power to international organizations which do not always have the best interest of the US in mind.
I wonder what Obama promised Powell. Power? Position? Influence? Or vice versa?
Other questions linger around Powell. Powell endores Obama, half African and half white American. Did Powell endorse Obama for racial reasons?
Where was Powell when Lynn Swan ran for Gov. of Pennsylvania?
Where was Powell when Michael Steele ran for the US Senate in Maryland?
Where was Powell when Ken Blackwell ran for state-wide office in Ohio?
All of the above are black Republicans.
Powell was AWOL!
No surprise there.
Powell was a lackluster Republican, a softie, a RINO, despite all the benefits bestowed upon him by Republicans during his career. It was President Reagan, Bush 41, Sec Def Cheney, Bush 43 who made Powell in Washington. Otherwise, Powell would have been just another obscure Army colonel.
My doubts about Powell rose during the First Gulf War. Powell did not favor using military force to remove Saddam from Kuwait. He wanted to go the UN route which meant Saddam would have been in Kuwait for years and controlled vital oil resources and threathened Saudia Arabia and the other small Gulf States. Powell was taken to the woodshed by Sec of Def Cheney and finally got with the administration's policy.
Powell is an appeaser in the tradition of many liberal Democrats who always favor ceding national rights and power to international organizations which do not always have the best interest of the US in mind.
I wonder what Obama promised Powell. Power? Position? Influence? Or vice versa?
Other questions linger around Powell. Powell endores Obama, half African and half white American. Did Powell endorse Obama for racial reasons?
Where was Powell when Lynn Swan ran for Gov. of Pennsylvania?
Where was Powell when Michael Steele ran for the US Senate in Maryland?
Where was Powell when Ken Blackwell ran for state-wide office in Ohio?
All of the above are black Republicans.
Powell was AWOL!
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Double Standard
Anyone who pays attention to the news and politics knows about the liberal media's bias.
The latest examples are:
1. The attacks on Joe the Plumber.
Joe had the nerve to ask Obama a tough question about taxes. Obama's answer revealed his true colors - as in Red. Redistribition of wealth by government coercion is a good thing in Obama's view.
So why isn't the mainstream media taking Obama to task for his Marxist political leanings?
Because the media agree with and support the redistribution of wealth by government - known in most parts of the world as socialism or communism.
Joe is being attacked by the media and other lefties because he revealed Obama's true colors.
2. Joe Biden - the human gaffe machine.
Remember how Dan Quayle was villified in the media over and over and over.
Here are a few of Joe Biden's latest gaffes.
At a Missouri rally old Joe was recognizing local politicians and called out a name. Then he said "Come on , stand up and let us see you." Then old Joe discovered the person was in a wheelchair. No story in the mainstream media.
If Gov Palin or McCain had done such a thing, the media would have run it for days and days.
At the debate with Gov Palin, old Joe said folks should meet him at Katy's Dinner in Delaware to see how ordinary people work and live.
The only problem is Katy's Dinner closed more than 20 years ago.
No stories in the mainstream media!
Then Old Joe said the worst problem facing the country was a three letter word - JOBS!!!
Three letters???
Imagine if Gov Palin or McCain had said "jobs" was a three letter word.
The media would have gone nuts for months.
3. Obama said he was going to visit all 57 states.
What?
Yep, 57 states.
No stories in the mainscream media.
4. We saw the media frenzy when McCain selected Gov. Palin as his running mate. Flocks of liberals flew to Alaska to look for dirt on Palin. Her family was attacked, her children attacked, and every Palin hater in the state was quoted.
In comparison we still do not know anything about Obama. The liberal media have given Obama a pass and refuse to do their job. Instead of asking tough questions and digging into the relationships between Obama and Ayers, Wright, Alinsky and other "reds" we get worship stories from the sycophantic media.
5. PBS ran a poll asking whether Gov Palin was qualified to serve as VP?
Nothing wrong with that except PBS DID NOT run a poll asking whether Obama was qualified to serve as president?
Why the bias and double standard? Palin has more experience than Obama. Obama has done nothing in his career other than run for the US Senate from which he started running for president as soon as he arrived.
No wonder millions of Americans are disgusted by the mainstream media. I predict the media will continue to lose readers and viewers by the millions simply because Americans cannot trust or believe the media!
This explains the low rating of the media by the public. A dishonest, lazy, biased, and self absorbed media is not what we need.
Thank God for the alternate media!
The latest examples are:
1. The attacks on Joe the Plumber.
Joe had the nerve to ask Obama a tough question about taxes. Obama's answer revealed his true colors - as in Red. Redistribition of wealth by government coercion is a good thing in Obama's view.
So why isn't the mainstream media taking Obama to task for his Marxist political leanings?
Because the media agree with and support the redistribution of wealth by government - known in most parts of the world as socialism or communism.
Joe is being attacked by the media and other lefties because he revealed Obama's true colors.
2. Joe Biden - the human gaffe machine.
Remember how Dan Quayle was villified in the media over and over and over.
Here are a few of Joe Biden's latest gaffes.
At a Missouri rally old Joe was recognizing local politicians and called out a name. Then he said "Come on , stand up and let us see you." Then old Joe discovered the person was in a wheelchair. No story in the mainstream media.
If Gov Palin or McCain had done such a thing, the media would have run it for days and days.
At the debate with Gov Palin, old Joe said folks should meet him at Katy's Dinner in Delaware to see how ordinary people work and live.
The only problem is Katy's Dinner closed more than 20 years ago.
No stories in the mainstream media!
Then Old Joe said the worst problem facing the country was a three letter word - JOBS!!!
Three letters???
Imagine if Gov Palin or McCain had said "jobs" was a three letter word.
The media would have gone nuts for months.
3. Obama said he was going to visit all 57 states.
What?
Yep, 57 states.
No stories in the mainscream media.
4. We saw the media frenzy when McCain selected Gov. Palin as his running mate. Flocks of liberals flew to Alaska to look for dirt on Palin. Her family was attacked, her children attacked, and every Palin hater in the state was quoted.
In comparison we still do not know anything about Obama. The liberal media have given Obama a pass and refuse to do their job. Instead of asking tough questions and digging into the relationships between Obama and Ayers, Wright, Alinsky and other "reds" we get worship stories from the sycophantic media.
5. PBS ran a poll asking whether Gov Palin was qualified to serve as VP?
Nothing wrong with that except PBS DID NOT run a poll asking whether Obama was qualified to serve as president?
Why the bias and double standard? Palin has more experience than Obama. Obama has done nothing in his career other than run for the US Senate from which he started running for president as soon as he arrived.
No wonder millions of Americans are disgusted by the mainstream media. I predict the media will continue to lose readers and viewers by the millions simply because Americans cannot trust or believe the media!
This explains the low rating of the media by the public. A dishonest, lazy, biased, and self absorbed media is not what we need.
Thank God for the alternate media!
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Debates
...are over!
Thankfully.
I did not learn anything from watching the debates. I knew going in that McCain was not an inspiring speaker. I knew Obama gave pretty speeches and repeated his lines well.
I was disappointed by McCain's passive approach to the issues. He did a little better last night, but still allowed Obama to rope-a-dope all night long. McCain refused to press issues critical to the future of the nation; namely, Obama's associations with Ayers, a domestic terrorist, Alinsky, an American Red Guard, a true believer in the worn-out Marxist dogma which has plagued mankind for more than 100 years. And, of course, McCain said nothing about Jermiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan or Resko or the Chicago political machine which controls (in part) Obama.
It comes down to how many voters will fall for the pretty lines and meaningless cliches - Hope, Change.
Thankfully.
I did not learn anything from watching the debates. I knew going in that McCain was not an inspiring speaker. I knew Obama gave pretty speeches and repeated his lines well.
I was disappointed by McCain's passive approach to the issues. He did a little better last night, but still allowed Obama to rope-a-dope all night long. McCain refused to press issues critical to the future of the nation; namely, Obama's associations with Ayers, a domestic terrorist, Alinsky, an American Red Guard, a true believer in the worn-out Marxist dogma which has plagued mankind for more than 100 years. And, of course, McCain said nothing about Jermiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan or Resko or the Chicago political machine which controls (in part) Obama.
It comes down to how many voters will fall for the pretty lines and meaningless cliches - Hope, Change.
Election Day
Remember when election day was one day in November?
Now election day appears to be any day of the year since many states have relaxed the rules on voting. Folks now can vote early, vote absentee, mail in their votes in some states, motor vote, and vote the traditional way by going to their assigned polling places.
I prefer the traditional way of voting. Going to the polls and seeing my friends and neighbors doing their civic duty and exercising their right to vote is worth the wait in line. Mailing in ballots or using absentee ballots, except for people who are away on business, in the military or away on other legitimate reasons, does not appeal to me. It makes the voting process sterile and foreign.
Perhaps we have made it too easy to vote. Voting should require an effort by citizens. Easy voting also increases the chances of fraud. I refer to the ACORN activities in many states this year.
Unfortunately, Vote early and Vote often is more than a joke!
Now election day appears to be any day of the year since many states have relaxed the rules on voting. Folks now can vote early, vote absentee, mail in their votes in some states, motor vote, and vote the traditional way by going to their assigned polling places.
I prefer the traditional way of voting. Going to the polls and seeing my friends and neighbors doing their civic duty and exercising their right to vote is worth the wait in line. Mailing in ballots or using absentee ballots, except for people who are away on business, in the military or away on other legitimate reasons, does not appeal to me. It makes the voting process sterile and foreign.
Perhaps we have made it too easy to vote. Voting should require an effort by citizens. Easy voting also increases the chances of fraud. I refer to the ACORN activities in many states this year.
Unfortunately, Vote early and Vote often is more than a joke!
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Age of Palin
The Age of Palin began 2 October 2008.
Did you see the debate between Gov. Palin and Senator Biden?
Despite her rookie status as a national figure Gov Palin more than held her own against the wily long time senator from Delaware. As a matter of fact, I rate Palin's performance, her presentation skills, her use of language, her grasp of the issues, many still very new to her, as superior to that of Senator Biden.
A striking difference between the two candidates was (and is) attitude. Whereas Biden was totally negative, and had nothing positive to say about anything, and was backward looking in playing the blame game, Palin was positive and looking for better days ahead of us. Biden was sour, almost unhappy in contrast to Palin's open, smiling and cheerful presentation of the issues.
What a difference in outlook!
Biden's long tenure in the US Senate should have guaranteed him a victory in his matchup with the governor. But it did not. Biden played loose with many facts and twisted others to suit his answers. Palin refused to answer questions in the mode favored by the moderator and the senator and flat out told them.
Good for her.
Perhaps McCain should ask Palin to sub for him in one of the two remaining Presidential debates
Now that would be interesting!
Did you see the debate between Gov. Palin and Senator Biden?
Despite her rookie status as a national figure Gov Palin more than held her own against the wily long time senator from Delaware. As a matter of fact, I rate Palin's performance, her presentation skills, her use of language, her grasp of the issues, many still very new to her, as superior to that of Senator Biden.
A striking difference between the two candidates was (and is) attitude. Whereas Biden was totally negative, and had nothing positive to say about anything, and was backward looking in playing the blame game, Palin was positive and looking for better days ahead of us. Biden was sour, almost unhappy in contrast to Palin's open, smiling and cheerful presentation of the issues.
What a difference in outlook!
Biden's long tenure in the US Senate should have guaranteed him a victory in his matchup with the governor. But it did not. Biden played loose with many facts and twisted others to suit his answers. Palin refused to answer questions in the mode favored by the moderator and the senator and flat out told them.
Good for her.
Perhaps McCain should ask Palin to sub for him in one of the two remaining Presidential debates
Now that would be interesting!
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The Fix
Congress is in the process of "fixing" the mess it created when it imposed lower lending standards and coerced mortgage lenders to give loans to people who could not afford them.
That is the root cause of the current financial fiasco we face.
Why should the American people expect the same people who screwed up the mortgage industry to somehow fix it?
Does that make sense to anyone?
The ''Fix" that came from the US Senate last night contained earmarks - pork - to the tune of about 112 Billion dollars.
Even when "fixing" a real problem the politicians cannot resist the urge to buy votes. After all, it is an election year. And heaven only knows what the country would do without a federal subsidy for wooden arrows.
Perhaps the House will come to its senses.
But don't count on it!
That is the root cause of the current financial fiasco we face.
Why should the American people expect the same people who screwed up the mortgage industry to somehow fix it?
Does that make sense to anyone?
The ''Fix" that came from the US Senate last night contained earmarks - pork - to the tune of about 112 Billion dollars.
Even when "fixing" a real problem the politicians cannot resist the urge to buy votes. After all, it is an election year. And heaven only knows what the country would do without a federal subsidy for wooden arrows.
Perhaps the House will come to its senses.
But don't count on it!
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The Debates
Well, the first of the 2008 presidential debates is behind us.
Whereas the debate was scheduled to cover foreign policy, the first section covered the financial fiasco that has locked the country in a state of financial turmoil with banks and investments companies failing daily. Neither McCain nor Obama provided solutions to the current mess. Obama claimed to have warned two years ago of the looming problem while McCain has a record to back his warnings. Obama took large amounts of money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and ranked second in donations (since 1989) from these two GSEs despite having been in the US Senate only since 2005. So his claim of warning is suspect. McCain, on the other hand, has demonstrated his toughness on Freddie and Fannie and has a voting record to back it up.
McCain won the financial round.
On foreign policy Obama came across as professorial; lecturing, a know-it-all in the Clinton mode and appeared to talk down to us from his lofty legal perch. Do we really want another smart-ass lawyer to run the executive branch? Obama gives pretty speeches and this ability attracts emotion based supporters who either do not think through Obama's policy proposals or do not care what happens to the nation in the long run. McCain appeared less old than he is, was prepared, gave good answers - otherwise, why did Obama agree with McCain a dozen times? And McCain has a long record of being his own man and a history of service to the nation which Obama lacks. Obama's past is devoid of any service to the nation - other than in the US Senate from which he started running for president as soon as he arrived. Obama's ego is clearly larger than McCain's.
All in all, it was a boring debate as debates go. I wish McCain had been more forceful in pointing out Obama's left wing ideology and how Obama votes 97 percent of the time with his party bosses. McCain needs to point out Obama's lack of reaching across the political aisle to work with Rs because the news media will never cover it.
Obama was packaged - a Madison Street creation - a mirage of wispy rhetoric floating away in the wind of inspection.
McCain was experience talking - a testament of American Exceptionalism.
More to come.
Whereas the debate was scheduled to cover foreign policy, the first section covered the financial fiasco that has locked the country in a state of financial turmoil with banks and investments companies failing daily. Neither McCain nor Obama provided solutions to the current mess. Obama claimed to have warned two years ago of the looming problem while McCain has a record to back his warnings. Obama took large amounts of money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and ranked second in donations (since 1989) from these two GSEs despite having been in the US Senate only since 2005. So his claim of warning is suspect. McCain, on the other hand, has demonstrated his toughness on Freddie and Fannie and has a voting record to back it up.
McCain won the financial round.
On foreign policy Obama came across as professorial; lecturing, a know-it-all in the Clinton mode and appeared to talk down to us from his lofty legal perch. Do we really want another smart-ass lawyer to run the executive branch? Obama gives pretty speeches and this ability attracts emotion based supporters who either do not think through Obama's policy proposals or do not care what happens to the nation in the long run. McCain appeared less old than he is, was prepared, gave good answers - otherwise, why did Obama agree with McCain a dozen times? And McCain has a long record of being his own man and a history of service to the nation which Obama lacks. Obama's past is devoid of any service to the nation - other than in the US Senate from which he started running for president as soon as he arrived. Obama's ego is clearly larger than McCain's.
All in all, it was a boring debate as debates go. I wish McCain had been more forceful in pointing out Obama's left wing ideology and how Obama votes 97 percent of the time with his party bosses. McCain needs to point out Obama's lack of reaching across the political aisle to work with Rs because the news media will never cover it.
Obama was packaged - a Madison Street creation - a mirage of wispy rhetoric floating away in the wind of inspection.
McCain was experience talking - a testament of American Exceptionalism.
More to come.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Another Fine Mess
"Congress, it's another fine mess you got us into."
And it is the fault of Congress!
The financial "crisis" is the making of the politicians in DC who forced the mortgage industry to lend to people who could not afford the loans. The idea of getting more people into home ownership is a good idea. However, it is NOT a good idea to lower lending standards to where borrowers did not have to have a credit history and were not required to prove income sources.
That is why we face a financial crisis today.
Both political parties are at fault and there is ample blame to share among the parties. I wish all 535 members of Congress would lose in Novenber although there are a few members who tried to warn of the looming problem. McCain was among them.
I told my wife last night that if we selected 535 people off the street they could not possibly do a worse job than the current crop of professional politicians. How could they?
Congress cannot pass appropriation bills on time. Congress loads most legislation up with tons of pork to buy votes. Congress exempts itself from the laws it passes. Congress gives itself pay raises without floor votes. Congress meddles and intereres in what is left of our free market system. Congress spends OUR money like drunken college kids away from home for the first time.
What can we do? We are only taxpayers and voters.
More and more I think Mark Twain was correct many years ago when he said the only uniquely criminal class of people in the Nation was the Congress.
What do you think?
And it is the fault of Congress!
The financial "crisis" is the making of the politicians in DC who forced the mortgage industry to lend to people who could not afford the loans. The idea of getting more people into home ownership is a good idea. However, it is NOT a good idea to lower lending standards to where borrowers did not have to have a credit history and were not required to prove income sources.
That is why we face a financial crisis today.
Both political parties are at fault and there is ample blame to share among the parties. I wish all 535 members of Congress would lose in Novenber although there are a few members who tried to warn of the looming problem. McCain was among them.
I told my wife last night that if we selected 535 people off the street they could not possibly do a worse job than the current crop of professional politicians. How could they?
Congress cannot pass appropriation bills on time. Congress loads most legislation up with tons of pork to buy votes. Congress exempts itself from the laws it passes. Congress gives itself pay raises without floor votes. Congress meddles and intereres in what is left of our free market system. Congress spends OUR money like drunken college kids away from home for the first time.
What can we do? We are only taxpayers and voters.
More and more I think Mark Twain was correct many years ago when he said the only uniquely criminal class of people in the Nation was the Congress.
What do you think?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Is Joe Biden his Time?
Where is Joe Biden?
Since Joe stuck his whole leg into his mouth last week with the comment that Hillary would have been a better choice as the annointed one's running mate, Joe has been Biden his time.
Poor Joe.
I once watched Senator Biden question a Supreme Court nominee for 30 minutes. Biden used 27 minutes of the 30 to babble on and on and on in a non-legal stream-of-consciousness ramble that had even Biden admirers, yes, there are a few, shaking their heads in disbelief.
But wait.
What will happen to Biden when he meets Sarah face to face in a debate? Will Biden wet his pants when confronted with a strong and independent woman from Alaska? The comparison of the drab and negative Senator Biden who has been in DC since the early 1970s with the fresh and positive Palin will make for revealing TV. The corrupt DC insider versus the happy outside reformer says it all.
I like my politicians positive and forward looking in the Reagan style.
When have we heard anything positive about America, the economy, foreign affairs, health care, the War on Terrorism (remember, the Democrats saying the War in Iraq was lost just last year and most Ds refuse to acknowledge the success of the surge), or on energy.
The opportunities are numerous for McCain and Palin to demonstrate the vast differences between their positive forward-looking approaches and the backward-looking negative polices of Obama and Biden his time.
Since Joe stuck his whole leg into his mouth last week with the comment that Hillary would have been a better choice as the annointed one's running mate, Joe has been Biden his time.
Poor Joe.
I once watched Senator Biden question a Supreme Court nominee for 30 minutes. Biden used 27 minutes of the 30 to babble on and on and on in a non-legal stream-of-consciousness ramble that had even Biden admirers, yes, there are a few, shaking their heads in disbelief.
But wait.
What will happen to Biden when he meets Sarah face to face in a debate? Will Biden wet his pants when confronted with a strong and independent woman from Alaska? The comparison of the drab and negative Senator Biden who has been in DC since the early 1970s with the fresh and positive Palin will make for revealing TV. The corrupt DC insider versus the happy outside reformer says it all.
I like my politicians positive and forward looking in the Reagan style.
When have we heard anything positive about America, the economy, foreign affairs, health care, the War on Terrorism (remember, the Democrats saying the War in Iraq was lost just last year and most Ds refuse to acknowledge the success of the surge), or on energy.
The opportunities are numerous for McCain and Palin to demonstrate the vast differences between their positive forward-looking approaches and the backward-looking negative polices of Obama and Biden his time.
McCain and the Witches
Did you see John and Cindy McCain on the "View"?
I saw clips from the show on news programs. I fail to understand why any sane person would watch this show in the first place. It is a typical mindless day time TV show. And the people on the show, with one exception, are witches. They are ugly, mean, rude, and biased to the 10th degreee.
Why did McCain go on the show? Did he think he would get a fair shake from the three witches? What was his staff thinking when they scheduled it?
Or did McCain know beforehand the witches would pick his bones and further alienate a large portion of the American people.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
I saw clips from the show on news programs. I fail to understand why any sane person would watch this show in the first place. It is a typical mindless day time TV show. And the people on the show, with one exception, are witches. They are ugly, mean, rude, and biased to the 10th degreee.
Why did McCain go on the show? Did he think he would get a fair shake from the three witches? What was his staff thinking when they scheduled it?
Or did McCain know beforehand the witches would pick his bones and further alienate a large portion of the American people.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Politics 2008 and More
The race is set.
We know the two major party candidates and the conventions are done - thank you!
Every four years we hold national elections to decide the leadership of the federal goverment - specifically, the executive branch of the national government. Change is always a topic so there is nothing new about change. Elections are always about change.
In 2008 the Democrats have made "change" a major issue. It is the campaign slogan of the Obama/Biden ticket. They use the term loosely to mean shifts in national policy on foreign policy, on the War against Terrorism, on tax policy, on the size and scope of the federal government, and other unknown shifts that will effect our daily lives. McCain/Palin are running on Country First insisting that Washington must return to serving the people first and drop the "politician first" mentality McCain says has infected DC during the past several years. McCain promises to rid our federal budget of "earmarks" - the pork barrel spending that enables the pols to buy votes and remain in office for a lifetime.
Obama selected Joe biden as his running mate. Biden is an old Washington insider having served in Washington since 1972 - ten years longer than McCain. How Biden represents change is a puzzle. Biden may have been selected because of his "foreign policy" experience. To which I ask, what foreign policy experience? In my opinion Biden has consistently been on the wrong side of foreign policy - on the ash heap of history - throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Biden opposed President Reagan's extremely successful policies of the '80s and history proved Reagan correct and Biden et al wrong. According to The National Journal Biden is the third most liberal (read left) US Senator. Obama was rated the most liberal.
McCain selected a little known governor as his VP running mate. Gov Palin of Alaska is unknown outside her state, but her performance at the RNC demonstrated ability, toughness, a sharpness of mind and presence that will fluster Biden and Obama. I think she is a fantastic choice because she is removed from the elities of the extreme coasts which is why she was attacked so savagely by the mainstream media. Why imagine the nerve of McCain to appoint someone the media elites had not vetted and even worse, was not one of their peers. Palin is young, attractive in many ways, an outsider, and appeals to mothers and fathers whereas Biden is older, an insider, who has had two serious medical problems in recent years.
As to the top of the tickets Obama is an unknown quality despite all the attention-superfical in most respects- the mainstream media lavishes on him. There have been no penetrating analysis of his record, his past connections with shady characters, and the people behind the screen pulling the strings. One thing we all know about McCain is his record. He has a long record open to scrutiny - in camparison to Obama who has little or no open record for voters to judge. McCain is a maverick meaning he opposed President Bush and the GOP on many issues unlike Obama who votes lock step with his party leaders. McCain supports the War on Terrorism whereas Obama appears ambivalent about using American power to destroy international terrorism wherever it appears.
The next 60 days will be telling. Which direction will the country go?
More to come.
We know the two major party candidates and the conventions are done - thank you!
Every four years we hold national elections to decide the leadership of the federal goverment - specifically, the executive branch of the national government. Change is always a topic so there is nothing new about change. Elections are always about change.
In 2008 the Democrats have made "change" a major issue. It is the campaign slogan of the Obama/Biden ticket. They use the term loosely to mean shifts in national policy on foreign policy, on the War against Terrorism, on tax policy, on the size and scope of the federal government, and other unknown shifts that will effect our daily lives. McCain/Palin are running on Country First insisting that Washington must return to serving the people first and drop the "politician first" mentality McCain says has infected DC during the past several years. McCain promises to rid our federal budget of "earmarks" - the pork barrel spending that enables the pols to buy votes and remain in office for a lifetime.
Obama selected Joe biden as his running mate. Biden is an old Washington insider having served in Washington since 1972 - ten years longer than McCain. How Biden represents change is a puzzle. Biden may have been selected because of his "foreign policy" experience. To which I ask, what foreign policy experience? In my opinion Biden has consistently been on the wrong side of foreign policy - on the ash heap of history - throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Biden opposed President Reagan's extremely successful policies of the '80s and history proved Reagan correct and Biden et al wrong. According to The National Journal Biden is the third most liberal (read left) US Senator. Obama was rated the most liberal.
McCain selected a little known governor as his VP running mate. Gov Palin of Alaska is unknown outside her state, but her performance at the RNC demonstrated ability, toughness, a sharpness of mind and presence that will fluster Biden and Obama. I think she is a fantastic choice because she is removed from the elities of the extreme coasts which is why she was attacked so savagely by the mainstream media. Why imagine the nerve of McCain to appoint someone the media elites had not vetted and even worse, was not one of their peers. Palin is young, attractive in many ways, an outsider, and appeals to mothers and fathers whereas Biden is older, an insider, who has had two serious medical problems in recent years.
As to the top of the tickets Obama is an unknown quality despite all the attention-superfical in most respects- the mainstream media lavishes on him. There have been no penetrating analysis of his record, his past connections with shady characters, and the people behind the screen pulling the strings. One thing we all know about McCain is his record. He has a long record open to scrutiny - in camparison to Obama who has little or no open record for voters to judge. McCain is a maverick meaning he opposed President Bush and the GOP on many issues unlike Obama who votes lock step with his party leaders. McCain supports the War on Terrorism whereas Obama appears ambivalent about using American power to destroy international terrorism wherever it appears.
The next 60 days will be telling. Which direction will the country go?
More to come.
Friday, September 5, 2008
The Man
(The scene: A bathsuite in a luxury hotel somewhere in America.
A tall skinny man is preparing for another day)
"Man, you look great!" he says to the full length mirror.
"If you were better looking, it would be illegal."
He continued to prep for the coming day; brushing his short black hair, applying a cream to his face after sniffing the fragrance that suddenly filled the spacious suite.
"Top drawer, hot to trot today," he muttered.
He stepped away from the mirror and did a 360 spin, a move he often made on the basketball court.
"Ready for the day, Mocha Man?" he asked.
"Who are you talking to in there|?' a female voice sleepily inquired.
After a lingering look, the tall skinny man disappeared.
(Scene fades into the gilted mirrows)
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Gov Palin
Is she "qualified" to serve as vice president?
Of course, she meets all the nominal requirements just as Senator Obama meets the nominal requirements to serve as president.
Palin has served as governor of Alaska, a mayor of a small town, and other local government posts. Obama served in the Illinois legislature and serves as a US Senator. Palin reformed much of the Alaska government and rid it of corruption. Obama has spent most the past three years running for president. In some peoples' minds running for president qualifies one to be president. I am not making this up. I heard Mort Kondracke say that on a program this week. Kondracke is the ultimate DC Insider who thinks only people with years and years of DC service are qualified to fill DC jobs. Poor Mort!
The media generated noise over McCain's selection of Palin is just that. Noise. The elite salons in DC, in New York, and on the West Coast cannot tolerate the outsider Palin because; (1) She is not one of them, (2) she is from a Red State, (3), she has five kids, one with Down Syndrome and her 17 year old daughter is pregnant (hicks), and (4) McCain did not seek their approval of his selection.
And the media elites, unelected, nonresponsive and biased journalists, will do whatever it takes to knock Gov. Palin from the GOP platform.
Why?
Palin threatens their influence and power in national politics. Palin proves that the media elites are irrelevant in the 21st Century.
If 143 days in the US Senate qualifies Obama to be president, then serving as governor of Alaska surely more than qualifies Palin to serve as VP.
More to come on the media feeding frenzy.
Of course, she meets all the nominal requirements just as Senator Obama meets the nominal requirements to serve as president.
Palin has served as governor of Alaska, a mayor of a small town, and other local government posts. Obama served in the Illinois legislature and serves as a US Senator. Palin reformed much of the Alaska government and rid it of corruption. Obama has spent most the past three years running for president. In some peoples' minds running for president qualifies one to be president. I am not making this up. I heard Mort Kondracke say that on a program this week. Kondracke is the ultimate DC Insider who thinks only people with years and years of DC service are qualified to fill DC jobs. Poor Mort!
The media generated noise over McCain's selection of Palin is just that. Noise. The elite salons in DC, in New York, and on the West Coast cannot tolerate the outsider Palin because; (1) She is not one of them, (2) she is from a Red State, (3), she has five kids, one with Down Syndrome and her 17 year old daughter is pregnant (hicks), and (4) McCain did not seek their approval of his selection.
And the media elites, unelected, nonresponsive and biased journalists, will do whatever it takes to knock Gov. Palin from the GOP platform.
Why?
Palin threatens their influence and power in national politics. Palin proves that the media elites are irrelevant in the 21st Century.
If 143 days in the US Senate qualifies Obama to be president, then serving as governor of Alaska surely more than qualifies Palin to serve as VP.
More to come on the media feeding frenzy.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Energy III
If Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat Majority leader of the US Senate, was serious about energy these days, he would do the following:
1. Force the casinos in Las Vegas to cut their energy costs in half by next month. Imagine how much energy would be saved if the folks in Las Vegas turned off one half the hideous lights that never dim in Sin City.
2. Open ANWR to drilling. But Democrats and others say it would be years before the oil came online. Yes, but we instruct people to save for their retirement even though it will be years before they can use it and they only place a small percentage of their income into retirement accounts. Duh! If we had properly planned during the past 20 years for our energy future, we wouldl not be in this situation and dependent upon foreign sources.
3. Authorize offshore drilling.
4. Authorize more nuclear power plants.
5. Start a 10 year program to develop new sources of energy including the use of clean coal, shale oil, and other available options.
6. Listen to T. Boone.
However, Sen. Reid is not serious. Sen. Reid is a political hack and refuses to offer real solutions to the energy problems we face. Reid wants high gas prices as a tool to use against McCain and Republicans.
1. Force the casinos in Las Vegas to cut their energy costs in half by next month. Imagine how much energy would be saved if the folks in Las Vegas turned off one half the hideous lights that never dim in Sin City.
2. Open ANWR to drilling. But Democrats and others say it would be years before the oil came online. Yes, but we instruct people to save for their retirement even though it will be years before they can use it and they only place a small percentage of their income into retirement accounts. Duh! If we had properly planned during the past 20 years for our energy future, we wouldl not be in this situation and dependent upon foreign sources.
3. Authorize offshore drilling.
4. Authorize more nuclear power plants.
5. Start a 10 year program to develop new sources of energy including the use of clean coal, shale oil, and other available options.
6. Listen to T. Boone.
However, Sen. Reid is not serious. Sen. Reid is a political hack and refuses to offer real solutions to the energy problems we face. Reid wants high gas prices as a tool to use against McCain and Republicans.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
On Energy II
More thoughts about our energy "crisis."
We would not have a "crisis" if we had planned for the future during the 70s, 80s, and 90s. We are now paying the price for sticking our heads deep into the sand and refusing to plan for the future prosperity of the nation.
Thanks to the extremists on the Left and their fellow traveling Democrats and a dishonest media we find ourselves over a barrel. Liberals, lefties, and others have blocked a rational and sensible energy policy for decades. We have not built a new refinery in more than 25 years thanks to these people. We have not used our own resources, offshore, onshore, crude oil, natural gas, coal, and other sources of available energy because it is politically incorrect to drill for gas/oil or to use shale oil and a new sources of oil.
One reason is that crude oil is considered a pollutant.
Oil as it comes from the Earth is organic!
Oil is/was created by Nature's God for our use.
The liberals and most Democrats (Obama, Clinton, et al) want to punish the oil companies because of high fuel prices. They want to raise taxes, always the first weapon of choice for most Democrats, so they can buy more votes by re-distributing wealth.
Democrats should look at the cost of crude when gasoline sold for $1.29 a gallon and compared that cost to todays cost. If only they were so indignant at the mind boggling cost of higher education today. Why not haul college and university CEOs in for a Congressional whipping since education costs have greatly outpaced energy cost during the past two decades.
What is a rational person to do?
We would not have a "crisis" if we had planned for the future during the 70s, 80s, and 90s. We are now paying the price for sticking our heads deep into the sand and refusing to plan for the future prosperity of the nation.
Thanks to the extremists on the Left and their fellow traveling Democrats and a dishonest media we find ourselves over a barrel. Liberals, lefties, and others have blocked a rational and sensible energy policy for decades. We have not built a new refinery in more than 25 years thanks to these people. We have not used our own resources, offshore, onshore, crude oil, natural gas, coal, and other sources of available energy because it is politically incorrect to drill for gas/oil or to use shale oil and a new sources of oil.
One reason is that crude oil is considered a pollutant.
Oil as it comes from the Earth is organic!
Oil is/was created by Nature's God for our use.
The liberals and most Democrats (Obama, Clinton, et al) want to punish the oil companies because of high fuel prices. They want to raise taxes, always the first weapon of choice for most Democrats, so they can buy more votes by re-distributing wealth.
Democrats should look at the cost of crude when gasoline sold for $1.29 a gallon and compared that cost to todays cost. If only they were so indignant at the mind boggling cost of higher education today. Why not haul college and university CEOs in for a Congressional whipping since education costs have greatly outpaced energy cost during the past two decades.
What is a rational person to do?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
On Energy
As I age I realized my energy level is not what it was a few years ago. This means I cannot perform tasks as quickly as in the past. However, personal energy to work, to play, and to ride my bike is not the kind of energy I want to discuss today.
I want to talk about the other energy; the energy that powers our economy and our national life as we are the most mobile people in the world.
For more than 100 years petroleum has fueled the world. The use of fossil fuels is the source of our standard of living, the reason for our productivity, the reason for our prosperity, and until a practical and useful replacement is found, will continue to be the major source of the energy used in this world.
That is just the way it is.
Which is why I cannot understand the lack of a sensible energy policy by our national government. Democrats oppose every effort to develop new sources of fossil fuel. At the same time these Democrats complain about high energy costs and our dependence on foreign sources. Yet they refuse to recognize the obvious.
We must use our own sources to increase supply and lower the cost to the economy. The United States is the third largest producer of oil in the world. And the US has proven reserves and undeveloped fields that could last for centuries ( and give us freedom from foreign sources) if only Congress would do the right thing and authorize development of these vast untapped reserves.
Why won't Congress allow more exploration and development of our reserves?
Mainly it is political dogma and ideology that keeps us from becoming energy independent.
If it were up to me I would do this:
1. Use ANWR. The folks in Alaska are all for it but are held hostage by the elites from the extreme coasts.
2. Use shale oil which by some reports hold billions and billions of barrels of oil.
3. Use nuclear power. If the French can use it to produce most of their electricity, why can't we?
4. Use wind power by installing wind mills (first at Cape Cod to prove that the famous and rich do not escape their social responsibility)
5. Develop new souces of energy including hydrogen, electric, and new methods to power our vehicles.
6. The Chinese are beginning to develop Cuba's offshore oil fields only a few miles from our coast, yet the Democrats refuse to allow more offshore drilling by Americans. Why?
7. We must do more to conserve energy.
Energy.
I wish I had more of it.
I want to talk about the other energy; the energy that powers our economy and our national life as we are the most mobile people in the world.
For more than 100 years petroleum has fueled the world. The use of fossil fuels is the source of our standard of living, the reason for our productivity, the reason for our prosperity, and until a practical and useful replacement is found, will continue to be the major source of the energy used in this world.
That is just the way it is.
Which is why I cannot understand the lack of a sensible energy policy by our national government. Democrats oppose every effort to develop new sources of fossil fuel. At the same time these Democrats complain about high energy costs and our dependence on foreign sources. Yet they refuse to recognize the obvious.
We must use our own sources to increase supply and lower the cost to the economy. The United States is the third largest producer of oil in the world. And the US has proven reserves and undeveloped fields that could last for centuries ( and give us freedom from foreign sources) if only Congress would do the right thing and authorize development of these vast untapped reserves.
Why won't Congress allow more exploration and development of our reserves?
Mainly it is political dogma and ideology that keeps us from becoming energy independent.
If it were up to me I would do this:
1. Use ANWR. The folks in Alaska are all for it but are held hostage by the elites from the extreme coasts.
2. Use shale oil which by some reports hold billions and billions of barrels of oil.
3. Use nuclear power. If the French can use it to produce most of their electricity, why can't we?
4. Use wind power by installing wind mills (first at Cape Cod to prove that the famous and rich do not escape their social responsibility)
5. Develop new souces of energy including hydrogen, electric, and new methods to power our vehicles.
6. The Chinese are beginning to develop Cuba's offshore oil fields only a few miles from our coast, yet the Democrats refuse to allow more offshore drilling by Americans. Why?
7. We must do more to conserve energy.
Energy.
I wish I had more of it.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Jimmy Carter
He's at it again.
Meddling.
Carter has perfected the art of meddling in foreign affairs. In the latest episode Carter met with the leader of the Hamas terrorist organization - a group that attacks Israel daily, calls for the total destruction of Israel, and carries out terrorist attacks against the United States.
Carter has too much free time. Can we put him back in charge of the peanut farm and prohibit him from opening his mouth or leaving the farm. Come to think of it, Carter's mother said Billy was the smart one of the family and now we know why she said it.
Carter has been friends with every international thug and communist dictator since he left office. He must suffer from a rejection complex since Ronald Reagan wiped the political floor with him in 1980. Since then Carter has harbored a grudge against the American people and goes out of his way to blame America for all the world's ills. We make mistakes and irritate people, but Carter's Lefty view is grossly distorted.
During his four years in the White House the country was in a terrible fix. High unemployment, high rate of inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices and long lines at the pumps and odd-even gas days are just brief reminders of those days of "malaise".
In international affairs Carter was even worse, if that is possible. He messed up Iran and created the problems we have today with that country. Carter was weak, indicisive, timid, unwilling or unable to delegate the small matters to subordinates so he could work the big issues.
Today Carter is a metaphor for the Democrat Party. Weak on national security, timid, apologetic for America's dominate role in the world, wishing to surrender power and influence to international organizations composed of thugs, muggers, thiefs, criminals, dictators, and professional America haters, the latest Carter-ites fight for control of their party. Whether it is Obama or Clinton the result will be much the same. A weak national security, a surrender of American independence, a white flag in the face of terrorism, and a reduction of free trade will highlight any Democrat administration.
Not to mention higher federal taxes for everyone.
Meddling.
Carter has perfected the art of meddling in foreign affairs. In the latest episode Carter met with the leader of the Hamas terrorist organization - a group that attacks Israel daily, calls for the total destruction of Israel, and carries out terrorist attacks against the United States.
Carter has too much free time. Can we put him back in charge of the peanut farm and prohibit him from opening his mouth or leaving the farm. Come to think of it, Carter's mother said Billy was the smart one of the family and now we know why she said it.
Carter has been friends with every international thug and communist dictator since he left office. He must suffer from a rejection complex since Ronald Reagan wiped the political floor with him in 1980. Since then Carter has harbored a grudge against the American people and goes out of his way to blame America for all the world's ills. We make mistakes and irritate people, but Carter's Lefty view is grossly distorted.
During his four years in the White House the country was in a terrible fix. High unemployment, high rate of inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices and long lines at the pumps and odd-even gas days are just brief reminders of those days of "malaise".
In international affairs Carter was even worse, if that is possible. He messed up Iran and created the problems we have today with that country. Carter was weak, indicisive, timid, unwilling or unable to delegate the small matters to subordinates so he could work the big issues.
Today Carter is a metaphor for the Democrat Party. Weak on national security, timid, apologetic for America's dominate role in the world, wishing to surrender power and influence to international organizations composed of thugs, muggers, thiefs, criminals, dictators, and professional America haters, the latest Carter-ites fight for control of their party. Whether it is Obama or Clinton the result will be much the same. A weak national security, a surrender of American independence, a white flag in the face of terrorism, and a reduction of free trade will highlight any Democrat administration.
Not to mention higher federal taxes for everyone.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Salaries
Should the federal government regulate the salaries of private individuals?
Some people are suggesting the feds should look at the salaries CEOs earn and move to limit the amounts paid to CEOs.
Obama and Clinton and McCain have darkly hinted at some type of action by the feds to limit these salaries.
I say the feds should perhaps, and only perhaps, look at CEO salaries after the federal government has done the following things:
1. Balanced the federal budget and paid off the national debt.
2. Placed Congress - House and Senate members - on the same Social Security system that most Americans are forced to use and eliminated the special retirement system Congress established for itself.
3. Enacted terms limits for Congress to a period not to exceed 12 years of total service.
4. Limited the salaries of lawyers to no more than $100 per hour not to exceed $200,000 a year of total salary for any lawyer since the Chief Justice of SCOTUS makes less than $200,000 per year. AND, Lawyers cannot accept more than 10 percent of the proceeds of any lawsuit since the victims shall receive 90 percent of all compensation. However, the $200,000 limit applies to this also.
4. No Hollywood actor, director, producer, writer, or other person involved in the celebrity business shall receive more than $50,000 for any movie deal and shall not receive more than $200,000 in any year. All profits above these levels must be given to the federal government.
5. No baseball, football, basketball, soccer, race car driver, tennis player, golfer, or other person in the sports entertainment business including owners, stockholders, adminstrators, or others, shall receive more than $200,000 per year as salary.
6. No stockbroker, investor, hedge fund owner, broker, banker, union boss, retired politician, university employee, foundation employee, media personality (of all types) or other person in the United States shall be compensated more than $200,000 a year in total compensation from ALL sources.
After all of the above happens for a period of ten years, then Congress may look at the pay of corporate America.
Some people are suggesting the feds should look at the salaries CEOs earn and move to limit the amounts paid to CEOs.
Obama and Clinton and McCain have darkly hinted at some type of action by the feds to limit these salaries.
I say the feds should perhaps, and only perhaps, look at CEO salaries after the federal government has done the following things:
1. Balanced the federal budget and paid off the national debt.
2. Placed Congress - House and Senate members - on the same Social Security system that most Americans are forced to use and eliminated the special retirement system Congress established for itself.
3. Enacted terms limits for Congress to a period not to exceed 12 years of total service.
4. Limited the salaries of lawyers to no more than $100 per hour not to exceed $200,000 a year of total salary for any lawyer since the Chief Justice of SCOTUS makes less than $200,000 per year. AND, Lawyers cannot accept more than 10 percent of the proceeds of any lawsuit since the victims shall receive 90 percent of all compensation. However, the $200,000 limit applies to this also.
4. No Hollywood actor, director, producer, writer, or other person involved in the celebrity business shall receive more than $50,000 for any movie deal and shall not receive more than $200,000 in any year. All profits above these levels must be given to the federal government.
5. No baseball, football, basketball, soccer, race car driver, tennis player, golfer, or other person in the sports entertainment business including owners, stockholders, adminstrators, or others, shall receive more than $200,000 per year as salary.
6. No stockbroker, investor, hedge fund owner, broker, banker, union boss, retired politician, university employee, foundation employee, media personality (of all types) or other person in the United States shall be compensated more than $200,000 a year in total compensation from ALL sources.
After all of the above happens for a period of ten years, then Congress may look at the pay of corporate America.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Politics
They continue to fight.
Clinton and Obama are in a mad slug fest.
I like it.
Obama is in the act of perfecting the extraction of his foot from his mouth. Never underestimate a Lefty and what a Lefty like Obama will say to a closed audience (San Francisco, where the only people who have guns are the police and the criminals and the police are never around when law abiding people need them) of like minded people.
Obama insulted and slurred the working people of Pa. by calling them clingers to their religion and to their guns when times are tough. Well now. What are people to do when times are tough - stay away from church and sell their guns?
Obama displays a typical (to use one of his words) elitist, snobby, and condescending attitude toward working people. No surprise there. Obama is a Harvard trained lawyer, a snob, who talks down to most Americans because he sees Americans as too stupid to recognize what is best for them similar to what Jane Fonda said from a Vietnam rice field long ago - that Americans should fall to their knees and thank God for Communism. She said that just before rushing back to America on her jet. I always wanted to know if it was so good in Vietnam, why didn't she stay and enjoy it working in the rice fields for 12 hours a day? Hmmmmmmmm?
Anyway, I see nothing new in Obama or his ideas. I see worn out liberal/socialist cliches that should be composting in the ash heap of history instead of heard daily on the talking heads shows.
As to Clinton, she regurgitates the same old lines. She is dull. She reminds me of an old East German Communist Party hack singing "Yes, we have no bananas today."
Gosh, just think. One of these two may actually become President.
Then what?
Clinton and Obama are in a mad slug fest.
I like it.
Obama is in the act of perfecting the extraction of his foot from his mouth. Never underestimate a Lefty and what a Lefty like Obama will say to a closed audience (San Francisco, where the only people who have guns are the police and the criminals and the police are never around when law abiding people need them) of like minded people.
Obama insulted and slurred the working people of Pa. by calling them clingers to their religion and to their guns when times are tough. Well now. What are people to do when times are tough - stay away from church and sell their guns?
Obama displays a typical (to use one of his words) elitist, snobby, and condescending attitude toward working people. No surprise there. Obama is a Harvard trained lawyer, a snob, who talks down to most Americans because he sees Americans as too stupid to recognize what is best for them similar to what Jane Fonda said from a Vietnam rice field long ago - that Americans should fall to their knees and thank God for Communism. She said that just before rushing back to America on her jet. I always wanted to know if it was so good in Vietnam, why didn't she stay and enjoy it working in the rice fields for 12 hours a day? Hmmmmmmmm?
Anyway, I see nothing new in Obama or his ideas. I see worn out liberal/socialist cliches that should be composting in the ash heap of history instead of heard daily on the talking heads shows.
As to Clinton, she regurgitates the same old lines. She is dull. She reminds me of an old East German Communist Party hack singing "Yes, we have no bananas today."
Gosh, just think. One of these two may actually become President.
Then what?
Global Warming to Climate Change to ....?
Have you noticed the shifting of the global warming jargon? What was previously called "global warming" suddenly became "climate change." Why did the greenies and weenies from the left and their fellow travelers in the media switch to the all inclusive term "climate change?"
Perhaps it was the glaring inconsistency of any evidence of global warming that forced the true believers to shift their terminology to the more ominous "climate change."
Now we are suppose to think climate is a static element of our world and any change of cooling or warming or too much wind or too many storms or too much rain or the lack of rain in some areas portend a dangerous and new threat to the very existence of our planet.
What a scam!
Climates change and will continue to evolve whether man and his puny lives are here or no. I still think (not feel) solar activity, or the lack thereof, is a major factor in life on Earth since solar radiation determines the amount of heat Earth receives. And there is nothing we can do to alter that fact despite the arrogant attempts by the scam artists to convince us otherwise.
So just chill out, Ok.
Perhaps it was the glaring inconsistency of any evidence of global warming that forced the true believers to shift their terminology to the more ominous "climate change."
Now we are suppose to think climate is a static element of our world and any change of cooling or warming or too much wind or too many storms or too much rain or the lack of rain in some areas portend a dangerous and new threat to the very existence of our planet.
What a scam!
Climates change and will continue to evolve whether man and his puny lives are here or no. I still think (not feel) solar activity, or the lack thereof, is a major factor in life on Earth since solar radiation determines the amount of heat Earth receives. And there is nothing we can do to alter that fact despite the arrogant attempts by the scam artists to convince us otherwise.
So just chill out, Ok.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Political Season
It continues unabated.
The political season, that is. The Democrats especially have a nasty primary fight raging and by all indications their contest will continue until the convention. I look for a mean-dirty-knock down-free-for-all since the Clintons are unwilling to concede anything to that upstart Barack H. Obama.
Obama has been riding in front in delegates and positive PR. This is despite the negative news around Obama's long time association with Rev Wright, the bigoted pastor of Obama's church, and Obama's mentor. Mrs Obama has not helped matters with her comments about "not being really proud" of the country that nourished her, educated her at the best schools, and elected her husband to the US Senate. Additionally, sending aid and relief to millions suffering from the tsunami disaster did not make Mrs Obama proud nor did the liberation of 50 million people from the cruel regimes of the Taliban and Saddam.
As for the Clintons they continue their perfected art of lying. And they are good at it as any observer can tell.
As to the politics there is little policy difference between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Both are neo-socialists and demand more government control over American lives, more taxes, more intrusion in the free market system (what is left of it), more money for their special interests, and less free trade. Free trade is a net plus for Americans - consumers and businesses.
I wonder why our nation of 300 million people cannot produce better candidates for the highest political office. Surely there are thousands of bright, hardworking, honest, informed, and loyal Americans who would make better decisions than the current crop of opportunists.
What do you think?
The political season, that is. The Democrats especially have a nasty primary fight raging and by all indications their contest will continue until the convention. I look for a mean-dirty-knock down-free-for-all since the Clintons are unwilling to concede anything to that upstart Barack H. Obama.
Obama has been riding in front in delegates and positive PR. This is despite the negative news around Obama's long time association with Rev Wright, the bigoted pastor of Obama's church, and Obama's mentor. Mrs Obama has not helped matters with her comments about "not being really proud" of the country that nourished her, educated her at the best schools, and elected her husband to the US Senate. Additionally, sending aid and relief to millions suffering from the tsunami disaster did not make Mrs Obama proud nor did the liberation of 50 million people from the cruel regimes of the Taliban and Saddam.
As for the Clintons they continue their perfected art of lying. And they are good at it as any observer can tell.
As to the politics there is little policy difference between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Both are neo-socialists and demand more government control over American lives, more taxes, more intrusion in the free market system (what is left of it), more money for their special interests, and less free trade. Free trade is a net plus for Americans - consumers and businesses.
I wonder why our nation of 300 million people cannot produce better candidates for the highest political office. Surely there are thousands of bright, hardworking, honest, informed, and loyal Americans who would make better decisions than the current crop of opportunists.
What do you think?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Global "Cooling"
In the past 24 hours I have heard two reports about how the world temperature has fallen drastically in the past 12 months. The four major monitors of temps (of which NASA is one) claim a decrease of 0.65 to 0.75 degrees during the past year. They say the drop is enough to offset all the global warming of the past 100 years. Perhaps this explains why the snow cap on the North American land mass is thicker than at any time during the past 50 years.
The sun's activity or lack of activity seems to be the culprit just as some of us laymen suggested previously. Who know for sure since there are billions and billions of variables.
Perhaps Al Gore can start an insulation business, hmmmmm?
The sun's activity or lack of activity seems to be the culprit just as some of us laymen suggested previously. Who know for sure since there are billions and billions of variables.
Perhaps Al Gore can start an insulation business, hmmmmm?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
"Super" or "Stupor" Tuesday?
Well, it came and went just like everything else. What some people called "Super Tuesday" other people called "Stupor Tuesday." And what do Americans have to look forward to after this past tuesday?
On one side we have John McCain. On the other side Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are sparring for domination of the Democrat Party, the party of the New and Old Left, and the party of numerous Washington special interests.
So it appears voters will be forced to decide between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. McCain is the "Dole Syndrome" candidate. That is, it is McCain's turn to lead the GOP in the national election of 2008 just as it was Dole's turn to lead the party in 1996 because Dole had put in the time and effort in the party trenches. His reward was the candidancy. History repeats itself in 2008.
On the other side there is little policy differences between Clinton and Obama. With Obama comes a smile and cheerfulness. With Clinton voters get the same issues, the same policies and ideas, but with a brooding negativity. Whereas Obama is a new face, voters are familiar with the bobbing head of Clinton. Obama promises to surrender Iraq to al Queda ASAP while Clinton promises to take more time to surrender. (Why doesn't a media type ask Obama and Clinton what will happen in Iraq and the Middle East after we surrender?) Both candidates promise higher taxes, more federal interference in our lives, more socialized medicine, more federal control of education and of other aspects of our lives.
As to McCain who knows what policies and ideas he will espouse. Perhaps it depends on how he feels each day. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts - cuts that fueled the econonic recovery after 9-11 and the corporate scandals. McCain now says he wants to make the tax cuts he opposed permanent. McCain opposed securing our borders and supported with Teddy Kennedy giving million of illegals amnesty (a rose by any other name is still a rose), and authored a law gagging political speech. And McCain has bought into the Global Warming scam which in itself is enough to oppose him, but only if there is a more logical choice (there isn't).
What is a voter to do?
McCain or Clinton/Obama?
Voters must determine which candidate will do the least amount of harm to the nation - always a critical factor in my voting.
More to come.
On one side we have John McCain. On the other side Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are sparring for domination of the Democrat Party, the party of the New and Old Left, and the party of numerous Washington special interests.
So it appears voters will be forced to decide between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. McCain is the "Dole Syndrome" candidate. That is, it is McCain's turn to lead the GOP in the national election of 2008 just as it was Dole's turn to lead the party in 1996 because Dole had put in the time and effort in the party trenches. His reward was the candidancy. History repeats itself in 2008.
On the other side there is little policy differences between Clinton and Obama. With Obama comes a smile and cheerfulness. With Clinton voters get the same issues, the same policies and ideas, but with a brooding negativity. Whereas Obama is a new face, voters are familiar with the bobbing head of Clinton. Obama promises to surrender Iraq to al Queda ASAP while Clinton promises to take more time to surrender. (Why doesn't a media type ask Obama and Clinton what will happen in Iraq and the Middle East after we surrender?) Both candidates promise higher taxes, more federal interference in our lives, more socialized medicine, more federal control of education and of other aspects of our lives.
As to McCain who knows what policies and ideas he will espouse. Perhaps it depends on how he feels each day. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts - cuts that fueled the econonic recovery after 9-11 and the corporate scandals. McCain now says he wants to make the tax cuts he opposed permanent. McCain opposed securing our borders and supported with Teddy Kennedy giving million of illegals amnesty (a rose by any other name is still a rose), and authored a law gagging political speech. And McCain has bought into the Global Warming scam which in itself is enough to oppose him, but only if there is a more logical choice (there isn't).
What is a voter to do?
McCain or Clinton/Obama?
Voters must determine which candidate will do the least amount of harm to the nation - always a critical factor in my voting.
More to come.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Ideas
Ideas.
Anyone have any new ideas on how the federal government should operate?
A recent clash between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama illustrates the problem with our politicians. During a debate Clinton castigated Obama for referring to Ronald Reagan and the GOP as the people who had new ideas during the past 15 years or so. Of course, Obama was correct. The GOP has been the party of new thinking in recent history. Reagan, Bush 43, and Newt, among others, have set the political agenda for some time.
In comparison Clinton and Obama serve up the same old worn out FDR/LBJ-styled Big Government solutions to everyone's problems. History teaches us that government programs rarely solve the problem and despite good intentions, create additional layers of problems; social, economic, personal, and fiscal.
In 2008 I see no one offering new ideas and new approaches, but only a recycling of Washington knows best mentality.
Isn't it time for all of us to reconsider this question:
Just what do we want Washington to do for us?
Anyone have any new ideas on how the federal government should operate?
A recent clash between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama illustrates the problem with our politicians. During a debate Clinton castigated Obama for referring to Ronald Reagan and the GOP as the people who had new ideas during the past 15 years or so. Of course, Obama was correct. The GOP has been the party of new thinking in recent history. Reagan, Bush 43, and Newt, among others, have set the political agenda for some time.
In comparison Clinton and Obama serve up the same old worn out FDR/LBJ-styled Big Government solutions to everyone's problems. History teaches us that government programs rarely solve the problem and despite good intentions, create additional layers of problems; social, economic, personal, and fiscal.
In 2008 I see no one offering new ideas and new approaches, but only a recycling of Washington knows best mentality.
Isn't it time for all of us to reconsider this question:
Just what do we want Washington to do for us?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Tarheels Basketball
Tarheels Basketball...
...is a model for college sports. From the 1950s to the 21st Century the Tarheels have been one of (if not the most) preeminent and consistent teams in college basketball. Sure, UCLA had a long run in the late 1960s and early 70s, but UNC has maintained excellence for more than 50 years.
I grew up in North Carolina and attended UNC-Chapel Hill (but a graduate of George Mason University). I remember the triple overtime win against Kansas and Wilt the Stilt in 1957 for the national championship. I remember Dean Smith as the only person in the United States who could hold Michael Jordan to under 17 points a game. I recall the failed attempts to win the championships in 1977 and 1981.
Under Roy Williams, a native son, UNC won the 2005 NCAA title and this year the team is 17-0 at this point. UNC may not win another game, but the odds are they will be a major factor in the rush to the title this year. With Tyler the Terrible playing every play as if his life depended upon the outcome, the Tarheels have a chance to show the NE Patriots that a college team can go undefeated also.
That other team in Carolina who wears the other blue, not the Carolina Blue, but the dark foreign blue, isn't bad. It just "ain't" Tarheels!
...is a model for college sports. From the 1950s to the 21st Century the Tarheels have been one of (if not the most) preeminent and consistent teams in college basketball. Sure, UCLA had a long run in the late 1960s and early 70s, but UNC has maintained excellence for more than 50 years.
I grew up in North Carolina and attended UNC-Chapel Hill (but a graduate of George Mason University). I remember the triple overtime win against Kansas and Wilt the Stilt in 1957 for the national championship. I remember Dean Smith as the only person in the United States who could hold Michael Jordan to under 17 points a game. I recall the failed attempts to win the championships in 1977 and 1981.
Under Roy Williams, a native son, UNC won the 2005 NCAA title and this year the team is 17-0 at this point. UNC may not win another game, but the odds are they will be a major factor in the rush to the title this year. With Tyler the Terrible playing every play as if his life depended upon the outcome, the Tarheels have a chance to show the NE Patriots that a college team can go undefeated also.
That other team in Carolina who wears the other blue, not the Carolina Blue, but the dark foreign blue, isn't bad. It just "ain't" Tarheels!
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
"Change"
"Change..."
May be all we have left in our pockets if certain politicians are elected this year.
Is anyone as tired as me of "change" as the political theme this election cycle?
When was an election cycle NOT about change?
Notice there is a lack of any detail about what to change. Do the politicians plan to change everything, even themselves? Hmmmmmmm? For some reason I suspect we voters are being taken to the "change" cleaners again. Even McCain caught the "change" virus and McCain has been in Washington for about 50 years. I fear McCain will make changes to restrict more political speech as he did with McCain-Feingold (we need MORE free political speech; not less) , make more changes to raise taxes (remember, he voted against the Bush tax cuts that fueled the economic recovery after 9-11 and the corporate scandals), and make illegal immigrants more welcome to our welfare system including Social Security.
Senator Clinton says she is the major "change" agent running for President. She claims she is responsible for change already. That's right. Senator Clinton in a previous life raised a child in a village which is a big change. Senator Clinton in her prior life visited 100 countries making changes to all sorts of things. She changed the culture of the White House so that having FBI files of 750 political enemies was no longer a crime, but simply a bureaucratic "snafu". For this we must elect her President.
"No," says Senator Obama. "I am the agent of change because two months ago no one knew who I was and now I am a household celebrity. Vote for me for real change because I believe real change matters and Oprah agrees."
Not to be outdone, Mike Huckabee preaches "change". Change is what allowed Huckabee to lose 100 pounds of weight. Perhaps it was the fact that Huckabee had to start paying for his meals that caused him to lose the pounds. Huckabee is a Southern Baptist preacher and everyone in the South knows how preachers like to eat other people's food!
Change.
I wish someone would change politicians to make them honest, open minded, thick skinned, partisan in a fair way, and agreeable to serve only 12 years in Congress.
That is a change I can support.
After New Hampshire the circus rolls on to other states. Michigan, South Carolina, where does it end, this peripatetic parade of change?
May be all we have left in our pockets if certain politicians are elected this year.
Is anyone as tired as me of "change" as the political theme this election cycle?
When was an election cycle NOT about change?
Notice there is a lack of any detail about what to change. Do the politicians plan to change everything, even themselves? Hmmmmmmm? For some reason I suspect we voters are being taken to the "change" cleaners again. Even McCain caught the "change" virus and McCain has been in Washington for about 50 years. I fear McCain will make changes to restrict more political speech as he did with McCain-Feingold (we need MORE free political speech; not less) , make more changes to raise taxes (remember, he voted against the Bush tax cuts that fueled the economic recovery after 9-11 and the corporate scandals), and make illegal immigrants more welcome to our welfare system including Social Security.
Senator Clinton says she is the major "change" agent running for President. She claims she is responsible for change already. That's right. Senator Clinton in a previous life raised a child in a village which is a big change. Senator Clinton in her prior life visited 100 countries making changes to all sorts of things. She changed the culture of the White House so that having FBI files of 750 political enemies was no longer a crime, but simply a bureaucratic "snafu". For this we must elect her President.
"No," says Senator Obama. "I am the agent of change because two months ago no one knew who I was and now I am a household celebrity. Vote for me for real change because I believe real change matters and Oprah agrees."
Not to be outdone, Mike Huckabee preaches "change". Change is what allowed Huckabee to lose 100 pounds of weight. Perhaps it was the fact that Huckabee had to start paying for his meals that caused him to lose the pounds. Huckabee is a Southern Baptist preacher and everyone in the South knows how preachers like to eat other people's food!
Change.
I wish someone would change politicians to make them honest, open minded, thick skinned, partisan in a fair way, and agreeable to serve only 12 years in Congress.
That is a change I can support.
After New Hampshire the circus rolls on to other states. Michigan, South Carolina, where does it end, this peripatetic parade of change?
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
2008 and Politics
The Candidates
It is difficult for me to believe a nation of 300 million people cannot produce better candidates for our top political office.
The Democrats:
John Edwards is the class warfare specialist of 2008. Edwards laments the 'two Americas." He belongs to the rich class of Americans having earned a large fortune sueing doctors and hospitals. Whereas Edwards got rich, his clients are still mostly poor. Why is that? Edwards promises to "help" the poor by taxing the rich. Of course, Edwards can afford the very best tax experts so his fortune will remain safe from the greedy hands of federal bureaucrats. I have not heard Edwards address the real problems facing America: illegal immigration, the decline in education, the threat of international terrorism, the looming danger of the Social Security/ Medicare crisis, or the lack of resolve to develop American based energy sources (which we have in abundance). Fortunately, his negativity will turn off most voters.
Senator Clinton wants badly to be President. Is that enough to propel her into that office? What qualifications does Senator Clinton have for the office? She has served in the US Senate for 7 years (after moving to a blue state to get elected) without distinction, has no real management experience at higher levels, appears to be a control freak, and demonstrated her weakness in foreign affairs recently by commenting that Musharraf of Pakistan may have been involved in the death of Mrs Bhutto because he did not want Bhutto competing against him in the upcoming national election.
Hello!
President Musharraf was ELECTED in October of 2007 and is NOT on the upcoming election ballot.
Why would Senator Clinton say this?
Senator Clinton claims her 8 years in the White House as First Lady as her major qualification for the job. I am not convinced that serving tea and cookies qualifies anyone for the Oval Office.
Some people see Senator Clinton as a neo-Stalinist. I don't know, but her attempt to collectivize
the American health care system lends credence to the suggestion.
Senator Obama is a fresh face! So should the American people elect him to the top job in our system of government for that reason? Hmmmmmmmmmm? Despite Oprah's endorsement I think Obama is too young, too fresh, too inexperienced, too naive, and his cliche campaign slogan "Change" is unworthy of comment.
After listening to Obama for several months I am convinced he is devoid of new ideas, but recycles worn out liberal banalities.
The Republicans:
Senator McCain is an old dog who has been around for ages. He was one of the Keating Five in the 1980s Savings and Loan Scandal. It will haunt him if he is the R nominee. McCain is wrong about illegal immigration, wrong about tax cuts, wrong about how terrorists should be handled, wrong about free political speech (despite SCOTUS), but is right about Iraq.
Sometimes McCain appears more interested in pleasing the mainstream media than in answering the needs of the American people. Obviously, they are not the same thing.
Fred Thompson is tired. I see it in his eyes. Time out for Fred.
Rudy Giuliani is a puzzle. He comes across as sincere, smart, tough at times, a no nonsense man with a strong resume. However, he is weak on illegal immigration and social issues. I have concerns about his health and whether he can face the daily grind and pressure any President endures.
Mitt Romney is a ________. Fill in the blank. I am unsure of Romney's positions on many issues. What are his core values? He has flipped and flopped on some issues just like the last man from his state in 2004. Kerry lost. Romney may be competent and honest, but how he would run the federal government, what kind of judges he would appoint, his tax policy, his foreign affairs, does he think the federal governmen too large and too intrusive, are all mysteries to me.
Mike Huckabee sounds smart, maybe too much of a smarty for me. He reminds me of a slick politician from the same state a few years ago. He does not appeal to me on any level.
Are these candidates the best our nation can produce? I hope not!
More to follow.
It is difficult for me to believe a nation of 300 million people cannot produce better candidates for our top political office.
The Democrats:
John Edwards is the class warfare specialist of 2008. Edwards laments the 'two Americas." He belongs to the rich class of Americans having earned a large fortune sueing doctors and hospitals. Whereas Edwards got rich, his clients are still mostly poor. Why is that? Edwards promises to "help" the poor by taxing the rich. Of course, Edwards can afford the very best tax experts so his fortune will remain safe from the greedy hands of federal bureaucrats. I have not heard Edwards address the real problems facing America: illegal immigration, the decline in education, the threat of international terrorism, the looming danger of the Social Security/ Medicare crisis, or the lack of resolve to develop American based energy sources (which we have in abundance). Fortunately, his negativity will turn off most voters.
Senator Clinton wants badly to be President. Is that enough to propel her into that office? What qualifications does Senator Clinton have for the office? She has served in the US Senate for 7 years (after moving to a blue state to get elected) without distinction, has no real management experience at higher levels, appears to be a control freak, and demonstrated her weakness in foreign affairs recently by commenting that Musharraf of Pakistan may have been involved in the death of Mrs Bhutto because he did not want Bhutto competing against him in the upcoming national election.
Hello!
President Musharraf was ELECTED in October of 2007 and is NOT on the upcoming election ballot.
Why would Senator Clinton say this?
Senator Clinton claims her 8 years in the White House as First Lady as her major qualification for the job. I am not convinced that serving tea and cookies qualifies anyone for the Oval Office.
Some people see Senator Clinton as a neo-Stalinist. I don't know, but her attempt to collectivize
the American health care system lends credence to the suggestion.
Senator Obama is a fresh face! So should the American people elect him to the top job in our system of government for that reason? Hmmmmmmmmmm? Despite Oprah's endorsement I think Obama is too young, too fresh, too inexperienced, too naive, and his cliche campaign slogan "Change" is unworthy of comment.
After listening to Obama for several months I am convinced he is devoid of new ideas, but recycles worn out liberal banalities.
The Republicans:
Senator McCain is an old dog who has been around for ages. He was one of the Keating Five in the 1980s Savings and Loan Scandal. It will haunt him if he is the R nominee. McCain is wrong about illegal immigration, wrong about tax cuts, wrong about how terrorists should be handled, wrong about free political speech (despite SCOTUS), but is right about Iraq.
Sometimes McCain appears more interested in pleasing the mainstream media than in answering the needs of the American people. Obviously, they are not the same thing.
Fred Thompson is tired. I see it in his eyes. Time out for Fred.
Rudy Giuliani is a puzzle. He comes across as sincere, smart, tough at times, a no nonsense man with a strong resume. However, he is weak on illegal immigration and social issues. I have concerns about his health and whether he can face the daily grind and pressure any President endures.
Mitt Romney is a ________. Fill in the blank. I am unsure of Romney's positions on many issues. What are his core values? He has flipped and flopped on some issues just like the last man from his state in 2004. Kerry lost. Romney may be competent and honest, but how he would run the federal government, what kind of judges he would appoint, his tax policy, his foreign affairs, does he think the federal governmen too large and too intrusive, are all mysteries to me.
Mike Huckabee sounds smart, maybe too much of a smarty for me. He reminds me of a slick politician from the same state a few years ago. He does not appeal to me on any level.
Are these candidates the best our nation can produce? I hope not!
More to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
