by David Kilpatrick
Thanks to the fine work of the mainstream media, the American electorate went into the 2008 elections with a fraction of the information needed to make an intelligent decision... and Obama won. Three cheers and a monkey for us!
According to Zogby, 512 Obama voters were asked 12 multiple choice questions regarding the 4 candidates Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, and Sarah Palin and a shocking .5% (that's one half of one percent) aced the quiz. The point of the poll is NOT to say Obama supporters are stupid, but to demonstrate how "in the tank" for Obama the media coverage was in that news unfavorable to Obama was largely not broadcast.
Zogby Results:
42.6% could correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
28.2% could correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing).
17.4% could correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing).
11.6% could correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing).
43.9% could correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
The results, when asked about negative stories of Sarah Palin and John McCain, were startlingly different:
86.3% could identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes.
93.8% could identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter.
86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey, the comedian, who said that!!
Sure, we can point to media bias, after all, journalists voted for Walter Mondale by a 2 to 1 margin over Ronald Reagan (58% to 26%) which was a substantial victory for Reagan as only 9% of journalists identified themselves as Republican. Today, self identified liberals in the media outnumber conservatives by 7 to 1. For anyone to say there is no liberal bias in the media would mean that person is... well... very liberal and the coverage of this last year's election is very revealing in the Zogby poll: The media simply did not educate the public. Do Obama supporters know about Obama's foreign policy ideas? No, but they do know about Palin's wardrobe... as if that has any bearing on how a nation would be governed. We all know about Palin's pregnant daughter, but only 11.6% know that Obama said he will cause energy prices to skyrocket. Which will effect our country more? When your heating bill doubles, will you be thinking about a pregnant teenager? No, but that was all the media reported.
George Washington said, "Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened," in his farewell address on September 19, 1796. Public opinion should be "enlightened" meaning "informed" yet, Americans have fallen victim to malpractice by a media who has failed miserably to surpass anything more than tabloid status.
To help us all:
1. The congress is controlled by Democrats and has been for two years.
2. Joe Biden was the one guilty of plagiarizing a speech.
3. Barack Obama is the one that launched his political career in a confessed terrorist's home.
4. Barack Obama had his opponents removed from the ballot during his first campaign.
5. John McCain could not say how many houses were under his name.
6. Barack Obama said his policies would bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy costs.
7. Sarah Palin was the one whose campaign wardrobe cost $150,000 (that was actually for the entire family).
8. Nobody said they could see Russia from their house. That was a comedian named Tina Fey.
9. Sarah Palin has a pregnant daughter.
10. Joe Biden was the one that said Obama would be tested by our enemies within his first 6 months in office.
11. Barack Obama is the one who claimed to have campaigned in 57 states with one more to go.
12. Barack Obama is the one who said that the government should redistribute wealth.
Now, if you watch CNN and Zogby calls you on the phone, you can help CNN look better than they really are.
We continue to learn all the time, I suppose, but the video is painful to watch.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Obama the Amateur vs. The Statesman
by David Kilpatrick
It's time for true colors to be seen. In light of the largest financial crisis to face our country since the Great Depression, McCain has decided to suspend the campaign of partisan attacks, reach across the aisle, once again, and do what needs to be done to serve the American public. After all, a Senator is a public servant, right? But, from Obama's shock at McCain's announcement that he really does put his country ahead of his party, we can see Obama's true priority: GETTING ELECTED first, while serving the country at his convenience which, with only 143 days in the Senate, he has yet to really begin doing.
For BOTH Senators to return to Washington at this time would prove their devotion to the country, but Obama will stoop to no such self-sacrificing move. He feels he would be better served if he were out giving speeches trying to motivate people to vote for him, a man with so few accomplishments, that one is really left in a sobering state of shock to realize that he could become the leader of the free world AFTER demonstrating that HIS needs and ambitions come first.
The question is simply: Is Obama still a Senator with a duty to serve the people? If so, can we ask him to do something other than vote "present" on important issues that will effect us for years to come? Or, is he already an exalted messiah that is above such demeaning things as returning to Washington to help steer the country through such dangerous and uncharted waters? He must realize, based on his past record, that if he doesn't input anything useful, he can later claim that he didn't cause the problem... and use that point to forward his career. Sadly, it's also like a race car driver refusing to steer and then claiming he could not have been responsible for the crash because his hands were no where near the steering wheel!
Obama is arguing that he can do two things at a time: maintain a back-breaking campaign/fund raising schedule AND simultaneously dedicate himself 100% to helping restore the economy. Is he so mighty? I think not. Obama is demonstrating that he is drunk with his own rhetoric! Does he imagine that his simple signature on someone else's work will suffice? Does he imagine that he is not required, as the leader of the Democrat party, to assist in finding solutions? What could be more important than attending to the crisis at had? Obama's political ambitions and quest for power? That, in his mind, is much more important than helping the country right now on Wall Street OR on Main Street and, as usual, he has no legislation offered and no ideas presented to the Senate, a body he still claims to be a member of.
One thing is absolutely certain. When this crisis has passed, as all do, thanks to the hard work and selflessness of real men like John McCain, we will not have Obama to thank. We can also be sure that if Obama is elected, we will have little to thank him for later. Simply put, his plans to raise taxes and double spending don't fit today's economic environment. On the other hand, maybe it's best that he stay out of Washington so that the real men can get things done. We can call him for his autograph later, then he can claim the credit like the clueless little boy that he is.
For Obama to remain on the stump attacking John McCain while McCain is doing what he can to help the country is a new definition of low in American politics. Obama is looking more and more like the junior mechanic who doesn't want to soil his overalls, while criticizing the man that is covered head-to-toe with the grime of getting things fixed.
It's time for true colors to be seen. In light of the largest financial crisis to face our country since the Great Depression, McCain has decided to suspend the campaign of partisan attacks, reach across the aisle, once again, and do what needs to be done to serve the American public. After all, a Senator is a public servant, right? But, from Obama's shock at McCain's announcement that he really does put his country ahead of his party, we can see Obama's true priority: GETTING ELECTED first, while serving the country at his convenience which, with only 143 days in the Senate, he has yet to really begin doing.
For BOTH Senators to return to Washington at this time would prove their devotion to the country, but Obama will stoop to no such self-sacrificing move. He feels he would be better served if he were out giving speeches trying to motivate people to vote for him, a man with so few accomplishments, that one is really left in a sobering state of shock to realize that he could become the leader of the free world AFTER demonstrating that HIS needs and ambitions come first.
The question is simply: Is Obama still a Senator with a duty to serve the people? If so, can we ask him to do something other than vote "present" on important issues that will effect us for years to come? Or, is he already an exalted messiah that is above such demeaning things as returning to Washington to help steer the country through such dangerous and uncharted waters? He must realize, based on his past record, that if he doesn't input anything useful, he can later claim that he didn't cause the problem... and use that point to forward his career. Sadly, it's also like a race car driver refusing to steer and then claiming he could not have been responsible for the crash because his hands were no where near the steering wheel!
Obama is arguing that he can do two things at a time: maintain a back-breaking campaign/fund raising schedule AND simultaneously dedicate himself 100% to helping restore the economy. Is he so mighty? I think not. Obama is demonstrating that he is drunk with his own rhetoric! Does he imagine that his simple signature on someone else's work will suffice? Does he imagine that he is not required, as the leader of the Democrat party, to assist in finding solutions? What could be more important than attending to the crisis at had? Obama's political ambitions and quest for power? That, in his mind, is much more important than helping the country right now on Wall Street OR on Main Street and, as usual, he has no legislation offered and no ideas presented to the Senate, a body he still claims to be a member of.
One thing is absolutely certain. When this crisis has passed, as all do, thanks to the hard work and selflessness of real men like John McCain, we will not have Obama to thank. We can also be sure that if Obama is elected, we will have little to thank him for later. Simply put, his plans to raise taxes and double spending don't fit today's economic environment. On the other hand, maybe it's best that he stay out of Washington so that the real men can get things done. We can call him for his autograph later, then he can claim the credit like the clueless little boy that he is.
For Obama to remain on the stump attacking John McCain while McCain is doing what he can to help the country is a new definition of low in American politics. Obama is looking more and more like the junior mechanic who doesn't want to soil his overalls, while criticizing the man that is covered head-to-toe with the grime of getting things fixed.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Emerging Obama Deficit
By Dick Morris
There appears to be a gap of between 10 and 20 points between how voters see the parties and what they think of the candidates. Between one-tenth and one-fifth of America’s voters feel that the Democratic Party would be the best for the country but like the McCain-Palin ticket better.
•By seven points, they identify as Democrats more than Republicans. But by 16 points, they say that if they faced the “toughest decision of your life” they would go to McCain rather than Obama for advice.
• They think the Democrats will do better on healthcare by 19 points, but by 20 points they think McCain is more qualified than Obama to be president.
document.
• They prefer the Democrats to deal with the economy by four points (down from 10 a few months ago) but feel — by eight points — that the Republicans better understand what it is like to live day by day in America.
• While they are more likely to vote Democrat for Congress, they rate Obama as more of a talker than a doer by 20 points and rate McCain the opposite by 15 and, by nine points, they think the Republican ticket has the better judgment than the Democratic nominees.
If this were a nonpartisan mayoral election, McCain would win in a walk. If this were a European-style proportional representation contest, Obama would be the next president by a good margin. But our system is a unique fusion, of course, of the two — a decision on the candidate and on the party.
How odd that Obama, with a world-class personality and an incredibly charismatic speaking style, should be losing the mano-a-mano contest to McCain, who is 25 years older and a foot shorter. But McCain has opened up a decisive lead over Obama, actually using the Democrat’s articulateness against him. Asked in the Fox News poll whether each candidate is a “talker” or a “doer,” voters perceive Obama as more of a talker by 15 points and see McCain as more of a doer by 24 points.
This kind of gap in the assessment of the candidates shows dramatically what a steep hill Obama has yet to climb. But the fact that the very same sample on the Fox News poll turned right around and voted for McCain by only three points shows how skewed the party preference is against McCain.
In effect, a lot of Democrats and independents are saying we trust McCain more, he has better judgment, he is more of a doer, and we think he’s more qualified — but we are going to vote for Obama because he is a Democrat and we agree with his party more on healthcare, energy and the economy.
Such a dichotomy is an unnatural political situation. Since 2000, we have become accustomed to 50-50 politics with each side holding its red states or blue ones close to its vest with few voters in the no man’s land in between. But the portrait that emerges from the polling is quite different. It is a consensus on how much water there is in the glass. The only difference is whether to see it as half-empty or half-full!
What will prevail? Party or candidate? It’s hard to tell. But debates are between people, not parties, and it is the three debates that will probably determine the outcome of this race.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.” To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.
There appears to be a gap of between 10 and 20 points between how voters see the parties and what they think of the candidates. Between one-tenth and one-fifth of America’s voters feel that the Democratic Party would be the best for the country but like the McCain-Palin ticket better.
•By seven points, they identify as Democrats more than Republicans. But by 16 points, they say that if they faced the “toughest decision of your life” they would go to McCain rather than Obama for advice.
• They think the Democrats will do better on healthcare by 19 points, but by 20 points they think McCain is more qualified than Obama to be president.
document.
• They prefer the Democrats to deal with the economy by four points (down from 10 a few months ago) but feel — by eight points — that the Republicans better understand what it is like to live day by day in America.
• While they are more likely to vote Democrat for Congress, they rate Obama as more of a talker than a doer by 20 points and rate McCain the opposite by 15 and, by nine points, they think the Republican ticket has the better judgment than the Democratic nominees.
If this were a nonpartisan mayoral election, McCain would win in a walk. If this were a European-style proportional representation contest, Obama would be the next president by a good margin. But our system is a unique fusion, of course, of the two — a decision on the candidate and on the party.
How odd that Obama, with a world-class personality and an incredibly charismatic speaking style, should be losing the mano-a-mano contest to McCain, who is 25 years older and a foot shorter. But McCain has opened up a decisive lead over Obama, actually using the Democrat’s articulateness against him. Asked in the Fox News poll whether each candidate is a “talker” or a “doer,” voters perceive Obama as more of a talker by 15 points and see McCain as more of a doer by 24 points.
This kind of gap in the assessment of the candidates shows dramatically what a steep hill Obama has yet to climb. But the fact that the very same sample on the Fox News poll turned right around and voted for McCain by only three points shows how skewed the party preference is against McCain.
In effect, a lot of Democrats and independents are saying we trust McCain more, he has better judgment, he is more of a doer, and we think he’s more qualified — but we are going to vote for Obama because he is a Democrat and we agree with his party more on healthcare, energy and the economy.
Such a dichotomy is an unnatural political situation. Since 2000, we have become accustomed to 50-50 politics with each side holding its red states or blue ones close to its vest with few voters in the no man’s land in between. But the portrait that emerges from the polling is quite different. It is a consensus on how much water there is in the glass. The only difference is whether to see it as half-empty or half-full!
What will prevail? Party or candidate? It’s hard to tell. But debates are between people, not parties, and it is the three debates that will probably determine the outcome of this race.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.” To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Obama’s Specifics for Economic Change
by David Kilpatrick
There has been a lot of talk about Obama being the agent of change, but many are asking the question, “What, exactly, does he intend to change?” His speeches are a virtual cornucopia of promises that a better life awaits us all under an Obama administration, but how will he deliver? Let’s examine some of his specific proposals relating to the economy from his web site and ask ourselves how these proposals will make our lives better.
According to the IRS: For 2006, taxpayers filed 138.4 million U.S. individual income tax returns, an increase of 2.9 percent from the 134.5 million returns filed for 2005. Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) increased from the previous year by 8.4 percent to $8.0 trillion for 2006. Taxable income increased 9.0 percent to $5.6 trillion; the alternative minimum tax rose 21.3 percent to $19.3 billion; total income tax increased by 10.6 percent to $1.0 trillion; and total tax liability rose by 10.3 percent to $1.1 trillion. So, even with a fundamentally strong U.S. economy, there are still weaknesses in job growth, the credit markets, manufacturing, and trade.
Obama Solution 1:
A Windfall Profits Tax on American oil companies to bring a $1000 energy rebate to American families.
Barack Obama will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on Obama's long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
Problem with that: Let’s do math: $1000 for each family, 140 million tax returns… that’s checks totaling about $140 billion! As oil company profits in 2007 were $120 billion, the rebates would be $20 billion more than ALL of the profits made by American oil companies… so clearly, this can’t be funded with a windfall profits tax.
Result: According to John Hofmeister, president of Shell U.S. in a recent interview on CNNMoney.com, "If our profits are taxed, that means we'll have less capital to invest in new production and it could raise gas prices." In other words, LESS SUPPLY and HIGHER PRICES, as well as a shortfall of almost $130 billion in funding the rebates.
Obama Solution 2:
Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs.
This relief would include a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. Obama’s relief plan will also include $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school repair - all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut.
Problem with that: The Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. is $13.13 trillion. $50 billion is a drop in the bucket that directed toward government spending projects designed to “prevent cutbacks” can hardly be called a “Jumpstart”. A “Jumpstart” would normally be seen as a chance to advance, not merely hold the line. Interestingly, nothing proposed by McCain would provide for cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance or school repair, so the 1 million jobs are not in jeopardy in the first place.
Result: Two more pointless government funding projects costing $50 billion per year.
Obama Solution 3:
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families.
Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
Problem with that: This is not a tax cut at all. It’s wealth redistribution. 50% of American workers pay no taxes, so “offering tax relief to those who need it most” sounds nice, but it is a nonsensical statement. Adding another entitlement to the spending problems facing the U.S. is counterproductive. Since 1965, incomes are up 35%. Since 1965, mandatory government spending is up 789%. Another government spending program is not the answer.
Result: Another government spending program costing $140 billion per year.
Obama Solution 4:
Ensure Freedom to Unionize.
Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.
Problem with that: The Employee Free Choice Act eliminates the right to a private ballot and would, consequentially, allow intimidation by unions that are trying to make workers join. Burdening businesses with more regulations in an obvious attempt to pander to the unions will not help the economy or encourage more hiring. Workers are already free to unionize and employers are already required to adhere to labor laws that protect workers’ health, safety, rights, working conditions, and fair wages. It’s not the health or welfare of the worker that Obama would fight for, but the health and welfare of big labor unions who sustain themselves on the backs of the American workers.
Result: Higher labor costs which HURT employment and the return of historic worker harassment by labor unions whose memberships are dwindling.
Obama Solution 5:
Raise the Minimum Wage.
Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.
Problem with that: The minimum wage is an unfunded mandate on small businesses that offer entry level positions for teens and young adults that, most typically, don’t have families to support. Many live with their parents. Increasing the price of labor will make it more difficult for people to find jobs, not easier.
Result: Employers will hire the “bare minimum” number of employees and finding work will become difficult. We are in a global labor market and raising the cost locally will hurt us globally.
The policy of “raise taxes” and “spend more” has never been helpful during a weak economy and it is likely to cause a disaster. Obama continually wants us to remember Clinton’s era as a time of growth and prosperity, forgetting that tax revenues were falling under his higher rates and that the economy was stagnating prior to Bush’s tax cuts. The solutions he offers are either counterproductive to growth or address labor rights problems that don’t exist.
Obama's profound lack of experience leads him to make decisions based on book study rather than hands-on application and his advisors from socialist think-tanks won’t help. We can hope for one of two things: That McCain wins or that Obama changes his stands completely.
There has been a lot of talk about Obama being the agent of change, but many are asking the question, “What, exactly, does he intend to change?” His speeches are a virtual cornucopia of promises that a better life awaits us all under an Obama administration, but how will he deliver? Let’s examine some of his specific proposals relating to the economy from his web site and ask ourselves how these proposals will make our lives better.
According to the IRS: For 2006, taxpayers filed 138.4 million U.S. individual income tax returns, an increase of 2.9 percent from the 134.5 million returns filed for 2005. Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) increased from the previous year by 8.4 percent to $8.0 trillion for 2006. Taxable income increased 9.0 percent to $5.6 trillion; the alternative minimum tax rose 21.3 percent to $19.3 billion; total income tax increased by 10.6 percent to $1.0 trillion; and total tax liability rose by 10.3 percent to $1.1 trillion. So, even with a fundamentally strong U.S. economy, there are still weaknesses in job growth, the credit markets, manufacturing, and trade.
Obama Solution 1:
A Windfall Profits Tax on American oil companies to bring a $1000 energy rebate to American families.
Barack Obama will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on Obama's long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
Problem with that: Let’s do math: $1000 for each family, 140 million tax returns… that’s checks totaling about $140 billion! As oil company profits in 2007 were $120 billion, the rebates would be $20 billion more than ALL of the profits made by American oil companies… so clearly, this can’t be funded with a windfall profits tax.
Result: According to John Hofmeister, president of Shell U.S. in a recent interview on CNNMoney.com, "If our profits are taxed, that means we'll have less capital to invest in new production and it could raise gas prices." In other words, LESS SUPPLY and HIGHER PRICES, as well as a shortfall of almost $130 billion in funding the rebates.
Obama Solution 2:
Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs.
This relief would include a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. Obama’s relief plan will also include $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school repair - all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut.
Problem with that: The Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. is $13.13 trillion. $50 billion is a drop in the bucket that directed toward government spending projects designed to “prevent cutbacks” can hardly be called a “Jumpstart”. A “Jumpstart” would normally be seen as a chance to advance, not merely hold the line. Interestingly, nothing proposed by McCain would provide for cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance or school repair, so the 1 million jobs are not in jeopardy in the first place.
Result: Two more pointless government funding projects costing $50 billion per year.
Obama Solution 3:
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families.
Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
Problem with that: This is not a tax cut at all. It’s wealth redistribution. 50% of American workers pay no taxes, so “offering tax relief to those who need it most” sounds nice, but it is a nonsensical statement. Adding another entitlement to the spending problems facing the U.S. is counterproductive. Since 1965, incomes are up 35%. Since 1965, mandatory government spending is up 789%. Another government spending program is not the answer.
Result: Another government spending program costing $140 billion per year.
Obama Solution 4:
Ensure Freedom to Unionize.
Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.
Problem with that: The Employee Free Choice Act eliminates the right to a private ballot and would, consequentially, allow intimidation by unions that are trying to make workers join. Burdening businesses with more regulations in an obvious attempt to pander to the unions will not help the economy or encourage more hiring. Workers are already free to unionize and employers are already required to adhere to labor laws that protect workers’ health, safety, rights, working conditions, and fair wages. It’s not the health or welfare of the worker that Obama would fight for, but the health and welfare of big labor unions who sustain themselves on the backs of the American workers.
Result: Higher labor costs which HURT employment and the return of historic worker harassment by labor unions whose memberships are dwindling.
Obama Solution 5:
Raise the Minimum Wage.
Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.
Problem with that: The minimum wage is an unfunded mandate on small businesses that offer entry level positions for teens and young adults that, most typically, don’t have families to support. Many live with their parents. Increasing the price of labor will make it more difficult for people to find jobs, not easier.
Result: Employers will hire the “bare minimum” number of employees and finding work will become difficult. We are in a global labor market and raising the cost locally will hurt us globally.
The policy of “raise taxes” and “spend more” has never been helpful during a weak economy and it is likely to cause a disaster. Obama continually wants us to remember Clinton’s era as a time of growth and prosperity, forgetting that tax revenues were falling under his higher rates and that the economy was stagnating prior to Bush’s tax cuts. The solutions he offers are either counterproductive to growth or address labor rights problems that don’t exist.
Obama's profound lack of experience leads him to make decisions based on book study rather than hands-on application and his advisors from socialist think-tanks won’t help. We can hope for one of two things: That McCain wins or that Obama changes his stands completely.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Sarah Palin's Address to the RNC
By Sarah Palin
Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for Vice President of the United States...
I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.
I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.
And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows how tough fights are won - the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.
It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.
With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.
But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.
They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.
And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.
He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.
And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.
Our son Track is 19.
And one week from tomorrow - September 11th - he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.
My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.
In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between - my strong and kind-hearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.
And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.
That's how it is with us.
Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.
Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.
And children with special needs inspire a special love.
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.
I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.
He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.
We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.
And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.
My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.
A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.
I grew up with those people.
They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.
They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.
I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.
When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.
We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment.
And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.
Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.
The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.
No one expects us to agree on everything.
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.
I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.
Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.
But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.
And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.
That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.
I also drive myself to work.
And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.
I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
The stakes for our nation could not be higher.
When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.
Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.
But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.
We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.
Maybe you have, too.
We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses.
How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.
How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.
And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency - from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.
Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.
He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.
A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.
He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.
And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.
It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.
But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.
It's the journey of an upright and honorable man - the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.
To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pin-hole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.
As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" - as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.
For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.
If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.
Thank you all, and may God bless America.
Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, is the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee.
Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for Vice President of the United States...
I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.
I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.
And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows how tough fights are won - the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.
It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.
With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.
But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.
They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.
And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.
He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.
And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.
Our son Track is 19.
And one week from tomorrow - September 11th - he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.
My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.
In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between - my strong and kind-hearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.
And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.
That's how it is with us.
Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.
Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.
And children with special needs inspire a special love.
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.
I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.
He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.
We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.
And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.
My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.
A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.
I grew up with those people.
They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.
They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.
I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.
When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.
We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment.
And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.
Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.
The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.
No one expects us to agree on everything.
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.
I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.
Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.
But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.
And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.
That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.
I also drive myself to work.
And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.
I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
The stakes for our nation could not be higher.
When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.
Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.
But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.
We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.
Maybe you have, too.
We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses.
How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.
How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.
And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency - from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.
Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.
He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.
A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.
He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.
And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.
It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.
But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.
It's the journey of an upright and honorable man - the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.
To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pin-hole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.
As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" - as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.
For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.
If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.
Thank you all, and may God bless America.
Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, is the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Supporting Obama - Emotion or Logic?
By: David Kilpatrick
Senator Obama is, arguably, one of the most motivational speakers in the Democratic party. His words motivate crowds and touch hearts. His words inspire us to look past our current problems and imagine a better tomorrow. His words make us believe in a greater good and a united planet where peace, love and harmony unite with the environment. Where greed is a thing of the past and the possibilities are limited only by the power of our imaginations. He tells us that the only people that need to pay are the richest among us and that a free ride awaits everyone else. All we need to do is trust him and his judgment to lead us to a brighter tomorrow and if we do, “…the levels of the oceans will drop and the Earth will begin to heal itself.” Truly, only a great, great man would be capable of healing the wounds that have plagued mankind for so long.
The emotional reasons for following Obama on this journey are many, but unfortunately, the logical ones are few. If we examine beyond the great speeches and grand platitudes, we find that his positions are not as savory as many of us would prefer and some of them are downright silly. Is this because of profound inexperience? Many believe so. What are the logical reasons we should elect Barack Obama to the White House? What has he done, where does he stand and what does he want to do?
TAXES as a SAMPLE ISSUE:
We know that he wants to raise a variety of taxes, especially on the wealthy, but is that smart? The wealthy provide jobs and spend the most money. Will taxing them simply cause them to cut jobs and wages and/or spend less? History shows us, time and again, that that is exactly what will happen, but even as Obama denies the success of the surge in Iraq, we find that our constitutional scholar is ignoring this historical fact.
Under the Clinton tax rates that Obama wants to return to, tax revenues actually dropped starting in 2000 from $2.4 trillion until 2003 when they bottomed out at just above $2 trillion. What happened in 2003? The Bush tax cuts took effect and going into 2008, revenues have recovered to their highest levels in history at $2.5 trillion. Lower taxes did not hurt the country. The solution to our economic problem is not nearly as simple as a slight tweak of out tax burden to a lucky few among us, but it’s not so difficult to understand either.
Incomes for average Americans has increased by 35% since 1965, yet discretionary government spending has increased by 152% and non-discretionary spending has increased by a whopping 759%! How can any society maintain these types of spending increases without matching increases in wealth? The answer is simply that we cannot.
In 1850, Alexander Tyler wrote, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policies followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From to liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependency; and, From dependency back to bondage.”
Obama’s promise to lead us to dependence may sound great to the unwashed and uneducated masses and even many of the wealthy elite who stand to enrich their companies by serving the needs of the people at the request of the government through a variety of new programs, but to those of us who step back and think for a moment, the deals don’t sound so sweet.
Looking at his current positions and gathering from his statements we can put forth the following and ask ourselves if these are positions we can all agree to stand behind:
Obama's solution to illegal immigration: You need to teach your kids Spanish.
Obama's solution to the energy crisis: You need to check your tire pressure.
Obama's solution to abortion survivors: Let the abortionist pretend to be a pediatrician.
Obama's solution to health care: Free health care for all, including illegal immigrants.
Obama's solution to a sluggish economy: Raise taxes on the people who provide jobs and spend the most.
Obama's solution to the war on terror: Withdraw and wait for them to come to us again.
Obama's position on abortion: Government funding for all, up to and including partial-birth, with or without parental consent.
Obama is a community activist with no experience in governance, military, health care, finance, management, or business who got elected to the Senate and even now, rarely attends hearings and has never written any legislation of his own. Clearly he has no relevant experience and is not qualified under any standard we would normally hold someone to if they wanted this job.
I'm not saying he isn't a nice guy, but his support is largely among people who have more of an emotional attachment than a logical one. They believe he cares about them and will work to make their life better, but if he has yet to help his own brother who is living on a dollar a month and has made over $4 million of which less than 5% has been donated to charity, I again see sheer emotion over-riding factual evidence among his supporters.
When we vote, we need to think more about a person’s deeds and LESS about the grand platitudes they speak in. Will the ocean levels really drop if we elect Obama? We the Earth begin to heal itself upon his inauguration? Is this really the moment we've all been waiting for? OR are these all just words designed to move us emotionally?
When asking a supporter why they intend to vote for Obama, typical responses are, "I like him," or, "I think we need a change." When asking the same people what kind of change they look for from Obama, the answers start to get a little odd and if you ask them what Obama has done in the past that they really admire, the answers start to lose cohesion completely. It generally boils down to the emotion of hope while losing all logic of experience or qualification. As Joe Biden said, the White House is no place for on-the-job-training, yet that is exactly what Obama would need.
Senator Obama is, arguably, one of the most motivational speakers in the Democratic party. His words motivate crowds and touch hearts. His words inspire us to look past our current problems and imagine a better tomorrow. His words make us believe in a greater good and a united planet where peace, love and harmony unite with the environment. Where greed is a thing of the past and the possibilities are limited only by the power of our imaginations. He tells us that the only people that need to pay are the richest among us and that a free ride awaits everyone else. All we need to do is trust him and his judgment to lead us to a brighter tomorrow and if we do, “…the levels of the oceans will drop and the Earth will begin to heal itself.” Truly, only a great, great man would be capable of healing the wounds that have plagued mankind for so long.
The emotional reasons for following Obama on this journey are many, but unfortunately, the logical ones are few. If we examine beyond the great speeches and grand platitudes, we find that his positions are not as savory as many of us would prefer and some of them are downright silly. Is this because of profound inexperience? Many believe so. What are the logical reasons we should elect Barack Obama to the White House? What has he done, where does he stand and what does he want to do?
TAXES as a SAMPLE ISSUE:
We know that he wants to raise a variety of taxes, especially on the wealthy, but is that smart? The wealthy provide jobs and spend the most money. Will taxing them simply cause them to cut jobs and wages and/or spend less? History shows us, time and again, that that is exactly what will happen, but even as Obama denies the success of the surge in Iraq, we find that our constitutional scholar is ignoring this historical fact.
Under the Clinton tax rates that Obama wants to return to, tax revenues actually dropped starting in 2000 from $2.4 trillion until 2003 when they bottomed out at just above $2 trillion. What happened in 2003? The Bush tax cuts took effect and going into 2008, revenues have recovered to their highest levels in history at $2.5 trillion. Lower taxes did not hurt the country. The solution to our economic problem is not nearly as simple as a slight tweak of out tax burden to a lucky few among us, but it’s not so difficult to understand either.
Incomes for average Americans has increased by 35% since 1965, yet discretionary government spending has increased by 152% and non-discretionary spending has increased by a whopping 759%! How can any society maintain these types of spending increases without matching increases in wealth? The answer is simply that we cannot.
In 1850, Alexander Tyler wrote, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policies followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From to liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependency; and, From dependency back to bondage.”
Obama’s promise to lead us to dependence may sound great to the unwashed and uneducated masses and even many of the wealthy elite who stand to enrich their companies by serving the needs of the people at the request of the government through a variety of new programs, but to those of us who step back and think for a moment, the deals don’t sound so sweet.
Looking at his current positions and gathering from his statements we can put forth the following and ask ourselves if these are positions we can all agree to stand behind:
Obama's solution to illegal immigration: You need to teach your kids Spanish.
Obama's solution to the energy crisis: You need to check your tire pressure.
Obama's solution to abortion survivors: Let the abortionist pretend to be a pediatrician.
Obama's solution to health care: Free health care for all, including illegal immigrants.
Obama's solution to a sluggish economy: Raise taxes on the people who provide jobs and spend the most.
Obama's solution to the war on terror: Withdraw and wait for them to come to us again.
Obama's position on abortion: Government funding for all, up to and including partial-birth, with or without parental consent.
Obama is a community activist with no experience in governance, military, health care, finance, management, or business who got elected to the Senate and even now, rarely attends hearings and has never written any legislation of his own. Clearly he has no relevant experience and is not qualified under any standard we would normally hold someone to if they wanted this job.
I'm not saying he isn't a nice guy, but his support is largely among people who have more of an emotional attachment than a logical one. They believe he cares about them and will work to make their life better, but if he has yet to help his own brother who is living on a dollar a month and has made over $4 million of which less than 5% has been donated to charity, I again see sheer emotion over-riding factual evidence among his supporters.
When we vote, we need to think more about a person’s deeds and LESS about the grand platitudes they speak in. Will the ocean levels really drop if we elect Obama? We the Earth begin to heal itself upon his inauguration? Is this really the moment we've all been waiting for? OR are these all just words designed to move us emotionally?
When asking a supporter why they intend to vote for Obama, typical responses are, "I like him," or, "I think we need a change." When asking the same people what kind of change they look for from Obama, the answers start to get a little odd and if you ask them what Obama has done in the past that they really admire, the answers start to lose cohesion completely. It generally boils down to the emotion of hope while losing all logic of experience or qualification. As Joe Biden said, the White House is no place for on-the-job-training, yet that is exactly what Obama would need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)