Florida Students for McCain

A Liberal Supermajority

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:37:00 +0000

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Obama's 95% Illusion

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:24:00 +0000

It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

The News Is Next--An Educated Political Viewpoint?

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Olson) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:49:00 +0000

Editorial Article Written by Matthew Olson on 10/8/08 at 23:45

==================================================================
DISCLAIMER:
This article is strictly an editorial written by the author listed of the blog "The News Is Next" hosted by a third-party source. This blog is not affiliated with RPOF or "Florida Students for McCain." Any disagreements with data used within this article are expected because this is an editorial, and any rebuttals to this article are welcome. If you wish to contact the author privately, please email the author to the address listed herein. Thank you for reading this article, and I look forward to your rebuttals, if there are any.
--Matt
==================================================================

I've heard this expression a lot lately, and to an extent it bothers me. The term "educated political viewpoint" is a very loose term that essentially says you're making an educated guess at who's going to be better, right? Wrong, at least according to the democratic party lately. This stems from experience and, ironically, education! According to some members of the College Democrats club here at USF, an "educated political viewpoint" is the one that (a) gets us as far away from anything near George Bush's ideas and (b) invites the candidate who wants to change the most in our government. This is a horrible idea for a few reasons, as I've noticed. Changing most things in government would be a bad thing, but I also have to correct people on a lot of their arguments I've heard made lately.

Firstly, lets talk economics. I'm far from an expert on economics, something that John McCain and I have in common. However, I do know that the president of the United States does not control the economy, at least mostly does not control it. On the contrary, it is a lot of third-party business and CONGRESS! These bailouts are not to do with Bush at all, they are to do with Congress passing the bail-out approvals for Frannie, Freddie, AIG, etc. Thus far, if I remember the number there has been $70 million spent on bailing these big sub-prime mortgage lenders out of debt because they gave out mortgages to too many people who knowingly couldn't afford these high costs. This is not the fault of the Bush Administration, actually it was the fault of the Democratic party for pushing for this to go through because of the philosophy that everyone should be able to afford a home. This to me sounds like a socialist point of view, but alas it got passed and now, well, we're in trouble.

Second, changing everything is not going to help anything. Our government does not control the price of Oil. Taxes on oil aren't as high as they used to be... and the only thing our government controls as far as oil is concerned is tax and where we can drill domestically. John McCain is pushing for domestic drilling (along with Sarah Palin) and has been for a while now. Why hasn't it happened? Environmentalists (who are normally very liberal in themselves) claim it will harm the environment too much to be worth it. But looking at the oil rigs now in the Gulf, really nothing bad has happened out there that is near considered an environmental disaster. On the contrary, they become artificial habitats for marine life to inhabit.

I have a very educated viewpoint to choose who I want leading my country after Bush is out of office. I want someone who's going to actually do a good job rather than just changing everything. I want someone who's going to solve problems rather than just cover them up with more governmental control and taxes. I want someone who's going to be a true leader rather than someone who's just going for approval ratings and points. I want someone who's a veteran leading me in a time of war. In short, that means I want John McCain. To me, that sounds like a very educated opinion. It is only an opinion, but politics is really all about opinions and approval. Popularity is a good word to use here. Approval works too.

If politics is only about approval then, I approve highly of John McCain. Better yet, I disapprove greatly of Barak Obama. And that is coming from an EDUCATED view.

"The News Is Next"

The Last Month

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:56:00 +0000

This is the time to stand up and volunteer some time for the campaign! With less and less time to show support for your candidates... now is the time to get involved. Victory offices have many different things they need help with. If you have an idea or a plan on how to help... share it with your victory office or local club.

CLICK HERE FOR VICTORY OFFICE LOCATIONS

College students! Please look into chapters at YOUR campus!

CLICK HERE TO CONTACT YOUR REGIONS CHAIR!

The time is now! Get involved as soon as possible to ensure a victory on November 4th!

In Clearwater, Palin Presses Obama's Link To Ayers

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:31:00 +0000

By WILLIAM MARCH | The Tampa Tribune

Published: October 6, 2008

CLEARWATER - Clearly feeling renewed confidence after her vice presidential debate with Joe Biden last week, Sarah Palin charged up an enthusiastic crowd with attacks on Barack Obama during a rally in Clearwater this morning.

Palin drove home the McCain campaign's most recent attack theme against Obama, his acquaintance with William Ayers, a professor who lives in his Chicago neighborhood who was a member of a violent, anti-Vietnam War group in the 1970s.

Republicans' pleasure with her debate performance against Biden was obvious as warm-up speakers used the event for an applause line.

"Sarah really did her job on Thursday night and brought it home. … Now it's up to us," said Gov. Charlie Crist.

Palin herself felt assured enough to joke about her previous, less-inspiring interview with Katie Couric.
"I shoulda told them I was just trying to keep Tina Fey in business," she said, referring to the comedian who does a blisteringly accurate impression of her on "Saturday Night Live."

Palin also said McCain has become the underdog in the race.

Political analysts and pollsters have been saying that for a couple of weeks, blaming the nation's economic crisis, but the McCain campaign has denied it.

In a conference call Thursday, for example, top McCain strategists called Obama desperate and said McCain was close to a victory in Electoral College votes.

"Florida knows a little something about turning an underdog into a victor," Palin said today, referring to the Tampa Bay Rays. "How about it, Florida, let us do that for Sen. John McCain."

Clearwater public safety officials estimated about 4,500 people crowded into Coachman Park downtown for the event, streaming in as early as 6 a.m.

That began a two-day tour, with public appearances today in Estero and Tuesday in Jacksonville and Pensacola, plus private fundraisers in Naples, Jacksonville and Boca Raton expected to bring in $3 million.

McCain can't raise more money for his campaign because he is taking public financing, which limits him to spending the $84 million in tax money it provides. Instead, the money will go to the national Republican Party, which will use it to help the joint campaign-party efforts in battleground states including Florida.

Palin called her Couric interview "a probably less-than-successful interview I had recently with kinda mainstream media," drawing boos from the crowd.

"Really, in that interview I was just getting really impatient because I was so convinced that Americans want to hear about the issues that are so important in your life," including the war, the economy and education, she said.

She then accused Obama of being friends with Ayers, whom she called "a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country."

Ayers, an education professor in Chicago and neighbor of Obama, was a student radical in the 1970s involved in the Weather Underground.

In 1995, he held a campaign coffee for Obama, and the two have served on boards of charitable organizations together.

Obama has noted that he was 8 when Ayers helped start the group, and his campaign says McCain is trying to divert voters' attention from the economy.

"As the financial crisis broadens, the McCain campaign has decided it's got to change the subject," said former Florida Sen. Bob Graham on an Obama campaign conference call today.

The McCain campaign has said it intends to become more negative in the closing days of the race and has released a TV ad criticizing Obama for his relationship with Ayers.

Palin used words such as "fearful" and "scared" when talking about Obama -- tapping another theme in recent McCain ads -- and questioned his patriotism, accusing him of not supporting U.S. military forces.

"See, John McCain is a different kind of man -- he believes in our troops and their mission," she said.
Palin also took a political risk by bringing up her advocacy of Gulf oil drilling in a Gulf coast resort town.

She said "untapped" energy sources in Florida will be tapped, "along with environmentally friendly offshore production. We do need to drill here and drill now. Now you can chant the 'drill baby drill,' " she added.

U.S. Rep. Gus Bilirakis, a warm-up speaker, had tried to incite the chant, popular among Republicans since their Minnesota convention – but referring to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not the Gulf.

The crowd didn't seem to object to Palin's proposal.

"It would all depend on where they put them [drilling rigs] exactly," said one attendee, Karen Hadley of Palm Harbor, who owns an engineering company with her husband. "I don't think they would put them right on Clearwater Beach, so I'm not worried."

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report. WFLA Reporters Mark Douglas and Chip Osowski contributed to this report. Reporter William March can be reached at (813) 259-7761 or wmarch@tampatrib.com.

REMARKS BY JOHN MCCAIN IN ALBUQUERQUE, NM

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:26:00 +0000

Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:18 PM
Subject: MCCAIN: **Embargoed Until Delivery** Remarks By John McCain In Albuquerque, NM

REMARKS BY JOHN MCCAIN IN ALBUQUERQUE, NM

Embargoed Until Delivery	Contact: Press Office
Monday, October 6, 2008	703-650-5550

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today delivered the following remarks as prepared for delivery at the McCain-Palin 2008 rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

In less than a month, the American people will make a choice on where they want this country to go, and who they trust to lead us in a time of war and economic crisis. The time for debating and electioneering is drawing to a close. Soon it will be the time for choosing.

Today we have seen a reminder of the importance of that choice. The action Congress took last week to address our financial crisis was a tourniquet, but not a permanent solution. Today we are seeing the stock market fall, and the credit crisis spread to other parts of the world. Our economy is still hurting -- working families are worried about the price of groceries, the price of gas, keeping their jobs and paying their mortgage -- further action is needed. We need to restore confidence in our economy and in our government.

Washington is still on the wrong track and we still need change. The status quo is not on the ballot. We are going to see change in Washington. The question is: in what direction will we go? Will our country be a better place under the leadership of the next president -- a more secure, prosperous, and just society? Will you be better off, in the jobs you hold now and in the opportunities you hope for? Will your sons and daughters grow up in the kind of country you wish for them, rising in the world and finding in their own lives the best of America? And which candidate's experience -- in government and in life -- makes him a more reliable leader for our country and commander in chief for our troops? Who is ready to lead? In a time of trouble and danger for our country, who will put our country first?

I set out on my own campaign for president many months ago. I promised at the beginning to be straight with the American people, knowing that even those who don't agree with me on everything would expect at least that much. I didn't just show up out of nowhere, after all -- America knows me. You know my strengths and my faults. You know my story and my convictions. And though familiarity in politics can be both helpful to a candidate, or not so helpful, it does at least fill out the picture and answer the essential questions. You need to know who you're putting in the White House -- where the candidate came from and what he or she believes. And you need to know now, before it is time to choose.

In 21 months, during hundreds of speeches, town halls and debates, I have kept my promise to level with you about my plans to reform Washington and get this country moving again. As a senator, I've seen the corrupt ways of Washington in wasteful spending and other abuses of power, and as president I'm going to end them -- whatever it takes. I will propose and sign into law reforms to bring tax relief to the middle class and help to businesses so they can create jobs. I will get the rising cost of food and gas under control. I will help families keep their home, and help students struggling to pay for college. I will make health care more accessible and affordable. I will impose a spending freeze on all but the most vital functions of government. I will review every agency of the federal government, improve those that need to be improved and eliminate those that aren't working for the American people. I will confront th e ten trillion-dollar debt that the federal government has run up, and balance the federal budget by the end of my term in office.

This is the agenda I have set before my fellow citizens. And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent. Even at this late hour in the campaign, there are essential things we don't know about Senator Obama or the record that he brings to this campaign.

We have all heard what he has said, but it is less clear what he has done or what he will do. What Senator Obama says today and what he has done in the past are often two different things. He has often changed his positions in this campaign, and the best way to determine where he would really take this country is to examine where he has tried to take it in the past.

My opponent has invited serious questioning by announcing a few weeks ago that he would quote -- "take off the gloves." Since then, whenever I have questioned his policies or his record, he has called me a liar.

Rather than answer his critics, Senator Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers the serious and legitimate questions he has been asked. But let me reply in the plainest terms I know. I don't need lessons about telling the truth to American people. And were I ever to need any improvement in that regard, I probably wouldn't seek advice from a Chicago politician.

My opponent's touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should make us only more concerned. For a guy who's already authored two memoirs, he's not exactly an open book. It's as if somehow the usual rules don't apply, and where other candidates have to explain themselves and their records, Senator Obama seems to think he is above all that. Whatever the question, whatever the issue, there's always a back story with Senator Obama. All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults.

Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, "a good idea." Well, Senator Obama, that "good idea" has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you'd think he'd always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign.

He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn't he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won't tell you, but you deserve an answer.

Even after he refused to lift a finger to prevent this crisis, when the crisis hit, he was missing in action. He didn't start making calls to round up votes until after the rescue bill failed in the House and the markets crashed. We continue to see the price of delay today as the markets continue to fall. Today the DOW has fallen below 10,000. And yet, members of his own party said they felt no pressure to vote for the bill. Why didn't Senator Obama work to pass this bill from the start? Why did he let it fail and drag out this crisis for a full week before doing a thing to help pass it?

Again on taxes, we see a difference between what Senator Obama says today, what he said yesterday and what he has actually done. Over the course of this campaign, he has had many different plans to raise your taxes. During the Democratic primary, he promised to double taxes on every American with a dividend or an investment. He promised to raise payroll taxes. He promised higher taxes on electricity. Now, Senator Obama claims he will give 95 percent of Americans tax relief. He actually promised the same thing when he was running for Senate in Illinois, but once elected he never introduced legislation to do so. Instead, he voted for the Democratic budget resolution that promised to raise taxes on people making just 42,000 dollars a year. At the time, he even said his vote was intended to get "our nation's priorities back on track." If he's such a defender of the middle class, why did he vote to raise their taxes? Whatever ha ppened to the tax relief he promised them when he was a candidate for the Senate? And why should middle class Americans trust him to keep promises he has already broken?

Senator Obama and I both have differences with how President Bush has handled the economy. But he thinks taxes are too low, and I think spending is too high. The government's out of control spending has resulted in a weaker dollar, raising the cost of groceries and gasoline, and killing jobs.

I will veto pork barrel legislation and cut wasteful government spending. Senator Obama has a different plan. According to third party estimates, he will increase government spending by over 860 billion dollars. He has denied it, but he has refused to tell you how much he does plan to spend. What is the total of his increased spending? Americans deserve to know just how much more of their money Senator Obama intends to spend, and how much more debt he plans to burden them with.

Senator Obama has also criticized earmark spending, those wasteful pork barrel projects stuck in spending bills behind closed doors. And yet, despite his talk on the campaign trail, his actual record is full of requests for earmark projects. In his three short years in the Senate, he has requested nearly a billion dollars in pork projects for his state -- a million dollars for every day he's been in office. Far from fighting earmarks in Congress, Senator Obama has been an eager participant in this corrupt system. In one instance, he sought more than 3 million dollars for a new projector at a planetarium in his hometown. Coincidentally, the chairman of that planetarium pledged to raise more than $200,000 for Senator Obama's campaign. We don't know if they ever discussed the money for the planetarium, and no one has asked Senator Obama. But even the appearance of this kind of insider-dealing disgusts Americans. I'm going to put a stop to that, my friends, if I'm President.

I have made every single donor to my campaign publicly available, while Senator Obama has taken in over 200 million dollars from undisclosed sources. We have already seen the potential for fraud because of his refusal to disclose his donors. His campaign had to return $33,000 in illegal foreign funds from Palestinian donors, and this weekend, we found out about another $28,000 in illegal donations. Why has Senator Obama refused to disclose the people who are funding his campaign? Again, the American people deserve answers.

On health care, Senator Obama has been misleading you about my plan to give you more money for health care, and he has been equally misleading about his own plans. He has said his goal is a single payer system where government is in charge of health care and bureaucrats stand between you and your doctor. Under the plan he has proposed, he will fine families that don't have the kind of health insurance that Senator Obama tells them to purchase. He will fine employers who do not offer the health insurance that he thinks they should offer.

What he doesn't say, and what nobody has asked, is how big his fines will be. What he doesn't want you to know is that with a small fine, his plan will encourage companies to just pay the fine, drop existing health care coverage for their employees and leave them with only one real option: government run health care.

Who is the real Senator Obama? Is he the candidate who promises to cut middle class taxes, or the politician who voted to raise middle class taxes? Is he the candidate who talks about regulation or the politician who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and turned a blind eye as they ran our economy into a ditch?

Is he the candidate who promises change, or is he the politician who has bought into everything that is wrong with Washington? We can't change the system with someone who's never fought the system.

Washington is on the wrong track and I'm going to set it right. The American people know my record. They know I am going to change Washington, because I've done it before. They know I'm going to reform our broken institutions in Washington and on Wall Street because I've done it before. They know I'm going to deliver relief to the middle class, because that's what I've done.

You don't have to hope that things will change when you vote for me. You know things will change, because I have been fighting for change in Washington my whole career. I've been fighting for you my whole life. That's what I'm going to do as President of the United States. Fight for you and put the government back on the side of the people.

Thank you.

CBS Poll: Presidential Race Tightens

noreply@blogger.com (Justin York) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:19:00 +0000

CBS Poll: Presidential Race

Oct. 6, 2008 (CBS) In a sign that the race for president has returned to about where it was before the first presidential debate, the Obama-Biden ticket leads the McCain-Palin ticket 47 percent to 43 percent among registered voters in a new CBS News poll.

The Obama-Biden ticket led by a wider margin, nine percentage points, in a CBS News poll released last Wednesday, before Joe Biden and Sarah Palin faced off in the vice presidential debate. Obama-Biden led by five percentage points on Sept. 25.

In the new poll, the Democratic ticket leads by 3 percentage points, 48 percent to 45 percent, among likely voters.

Barack Obama holds a 20 point lead in terms of enthusiasm. Fifty-eight percent of Obama voters say they are very enthusiastic about their candidate, while only 38 percent of John McCain voters say the same about the Arizona senator.

Roughly one in five registered voters have yet to commit to a candidate, though they may lean towards one or the other.

Read The Complete CBS News Poll On The Presidential Race And The Debates
...And On The Bailout Plan, Congress And The President

Interest in tomorrow's presidential debate is high. Roughly two in three registered voters say they are "very likely" to watch the debate, about the same percentage who said they were very likely to watch the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate.

A CBS News poll conducted last week showed that more uncommitted voters thought Obama won the first debate, and nearly half of all voters expect he will win this debate too. Just one in four expect McCain to win.

The Vice Presidential Debate:

Both Biden and Palin appear to have benefited from their performance in the vice presidential debate. Both now have 40 percent approval ratings - an increase of six points for Biden and eight points for Palin from their pre-debate approval ratings.

Palin's unfavorable rating of 32 percent is significantly higher, however, than Biden's 19 percent unfavorable rating. And on the key questions of whether each candidate is ready to be vice president, or, if necessary, president, majorities see only Biden as passing the test.

Seventy-five percent of registered voters say Biden is prepared to be vice president, and 65 percent say he could be an effective president; just 42 percent say Palin is prepared to be vice president and only 37 percent say she could be an effective president. Even Republicans are more likely than not to concede Biden could be an effective president.

As uncommitted voters did in a CBS News/Knowledge Networks poll conducted immediately after the debate, registered voters who watched the debate give the “win” to Biden, 50 percent to 31 percent.

Both Biden and Palin improved their overall images somewhat in the debate, and both are seen by about six in ten voters as sharing their values. About one in three registered voters say the vice presidential candidates will have a lot of influence on their vote in November, the same percentage that said as much before the debate.

The Top Of The Ticket:

Obama continues to lead McCain when it comes to his overall favorable/unfavorable rating: The Democratic nominee has a favorable rating of 46 percent and an unfavorable rating of 34 percent. Registered voters are more closely split on McCain, who holds a favorable rating of 40 percent and an unfavorable rating of 38 percent.

Sixty-two percent of registered voters see both Obama and McCain as having the ability to be an effective president.

McCain has distanced himself somewhat from President George W. Bush, who currently has among the lowest approval ratings of any modern president. In this poll, 38 percent say that if elected president McCain would generally continue Mr. Bush’s policies, down from 46 percent last month. This is the lowest percentage to link McCain to the president’s policies since last April.

Obama has lost some ground when it comes to perceptions of how he would handle the economy, though he still leads McCain when it comes to the issue.

Twenty-four percent of registered voters are "very confident" that the Democratic nominee would make the right decisions on the economy, down five points from before the presidential debate. Forty-one percent are not confident, up from 34 percent.

Fifteen percent are "very confident" in McCain when it comes to the economy, meanwhile, and 44 percent are not confident.

The race continues to be close among independents. In this poll McCain has a small edge, 44 percent to 39 percent, among the group. At the end of last week it was Obama with a small lead. Independents have swung back and forth between the two candidates for the last few weeks.

Obama is leading among Democrats, liberals, moderates and voters who supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. He has not improved his support among former Clinton voters in recent weeks, and presently has the support of roughly two in three.

McCain is leading among Republicans, Independents and conservatives. He is also leading among whites, including both white Catholics and white evangelicals, as well as whites making less than $50,000 a year who do not have a college degree.

The Bailout Plan, Congress And The President:

Last week Congress enacted a financial rescue plan on its second try - and while Americans are more negative than ever about the state of the economy, a majority (51 percent) disapprove of the bailout package. Just 31 percent say they approve.

Americans continue to think Wall Street is more likely to benefit from the government’s economic bailout than the rest of the country. Sixty-percent say the plan will just benefit Wall Street, while 30 percent say it will help everyone.

A majority of Americans now disapprove of the government providing money to financial institutions. A week ago Americans were evenly split on the question; now just 36 percent approve while 52 percent disapprove.

And even though a majority remains much more accepting of the idea of helping homeowners, even that number is down from last week, with 54 percent now approving and 37 percent disapproving.

Few Americans approve of how either the president or Congress is handling the financial crisis. Both receive identical 21 percent approval ratings on the measure.

Fifty-five percent now say the economy is in very bad shape - the highest number ever recorded in a CBS News Poll. Only 11 percent think the condition of the economy is even somewhat good.

Moreover, Americans remain pessimistic about the economy’s future: three in four think the economy is getting worse. Only 3 percent think the economy is getting better, while one in five thinks it is staying the same.

President Bush’s overall job approval rating is 22 percent - the same as it was last week and the lowest of his presidency. Congress also receives dismal overall ratings from the public. Only 15 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job, the same as last week. Seventy-two percent now disapprove of Congress’ job, including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

Gov. Palin won the debate

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:11:00 +0000

If it wasn't for a biased media... this one would be completely hand down. GOV. SARAH PALIN won the Vice-Presidential debate. It is simple. She was direct, prepared, a breath of fresh air, while Joe Biden was angry and on the defense on issue after issue... even foreign policy. She proved to be an executive talking about solutions while Joe Biden was a Senator interested in playing the Washington blame game. She has the energy and commitment for change, he had talking points. In the end, Governor Palin called out Joe Biden for saying paying taxes is patriotic (which , in so many words, he basically said again in the debate).

I have no doubt that Gov. Palin won that debate... and I believe many people will agree. She took charge and really nailed her points. This article talks a little more about it, read up:

Joe Biden was no match for "Joe Six-Pack."

By PEGGY NOONAN

She killed. She had him at "Nice to meet you. Hey, can I call you Joe?" She was the star. He was the second male lead, the good-natured best friend of the leading man. She was not petrified but peppy.

AP
The whole debate was about Sarah Palin. She is not a person of thought but of action. Interviews are about thinking, about reflecting, marshaling data and integrating it into an answer. Debates are more active, more propelled—they are thrust and parry. They are for campaigners. She is a campaigner. Her syntax did not hold, but her magnetism did. At one point she literally winked at the nation.

As far as Mrs. Palin was concerned, Gwen Ifill was not there, and Joe Biden was not there. Sarah and the camera were there. This was classic "talk over the heads of the media straight to the people," and it is a long time since I've seen it done so well, though so transparently. There were moments when she seemed to be doing an infomercial pitch for charm in politics. But it was an effective infomercial.

Joe Biden seems to have walked in thinking that she was an idiot and that he only had to patiently wait for this fact to reveal itself. This was a miscalculation. He showed great forbearance. Too much forbearance. She said of his intentions on Iraq, "Your plan is a white flag of surrender." This deserved an indignant response, or at least a small bop on the head, from Mr. Biden, who has been for five years righter on Iraq than the Republican administration. He was instead mild.

The heart of her message was a complete populist pitch. "Joe Six-Pack" and "soccer moms" should unite to fight the tormentors who forced mortgages on us. She spoke of "Main Streeters like me." A question is at what point shiny, happy populism becomes cheerful manipulation.

Sarah Palin saved John McCain again Thursday night. She is the political equivalent of cardiac paddles: Clear! Zap! We've got a beat! She will re-electrify the base. More than that, an hour and a half of talking to America will take her to a new level of stardom. Watch her crowds this weekend. She's about to get jumpers, the old political name for people who are so excited to see you they start to jump.

Her triumph comes at an interesting time. The failure of the first bailout bill was an epic repudiation of the Washington leadership class by the American people. Two weeks ago the president of the United States, the speaker of the House, the secretary of the Treasury and the leadership of both parties in Congress came forward and announced that the economy was in crisis and a federal bill to solve it urgently needed. The powers were in agreement, the stars aligned, it was going to happen.

And then the phones began to ring, from one end of Capitol Hill to the other. And the message in those calls was, essentially: We don't trust you to fix the problem, we suspect you may have caused it. Go away.

It was an epic snub, aimed at both parties. And the bill tanked.

We have simply, as a nation, never had a moment like this, in which the American people voted such a stunning no-confidence in America's leaders in a time of real and present danger. The fate of the second bill is unclear as I write, but the fact that it has morphed from three pages to roughly 450, and is festooned with favors, will do nothing to allay public suspicions about the trustworthiness of Congress. This, as a background, could not have helped Mr. Biden.

We have never seen an economic meltdown like this? We've never seen a presidential meltdown like this. George W. Bush's weakness is not all lame-duckship. In the last year of his presidency Ronald Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow and helped change the world. In the penultimate year of his presidency, Bill Clinton sent U.S. troops, successfully, into Kosovo.

After the first bailout failed, Mr. Bush spoke like a man who was a mere commentator, not the leader in a crisis.

We witness here a great political lesson. When you are president, it matters—it really matters—that a majority of the people support and respect you. When you squander that affection, you lose more than mere popularity. You lose the ability to lead when your country is in crisis. This is a terrible loss, and a dangerous one, for the whole world is watching.

Young aides to Reagan used to grouse, late in his second term, that he had high popularity levels, that popularity was capital, and that he should spend it more freely on potential breakthroughs of this kind or that. But Reagan and the men around him were wiser. They spent when they had to and were otherwise prudent. (Is there a larger lesson here?) They were not daring when they didn't have to be. They knew presidential popularity is a jewel to be protected, and to be burnished when possible, because without it you can do nothing. Without the support and trust of the people you cannot move, cannot command. You are left, like Mr. Bush, talking to an empty room.

We saw this week, too, a turn in the McCain campaign's response to criticisms of Mrs. Palin. I find obnoxious the political game in which if you expressed doubts about the vice presidential nominee, or criticized her, you were treated as if you were knocking the real America—small towns, sound values. "It's time that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency," Mrs. Palin told talk-show host Hugh Hewitt. This left me trying to imagine Abe Lincoln saying he represents "backwoods types," or FDR announcing that the fading New York aristocracy deserves another moment in the sun. I'm not sure the McCain campaign is aware of it—it's possible they are—but this is subtly divisive. As for the dismissal of conservative critics of Mrs. Palin as "Georgetown cocktail party types" (that was Mr. McCain), well, my goodness. That is the authentic sound of the aggression, and phony populism, of the Bush White House. Good move. That ended well.

We must take happiness where we can. Tina Fey's Sarah Palin has become, in that old phrase, a national sensation, and Ms. Fey is becoming, with her show "30 Rock," and now the Palin impression, one of the great comic figures of her generation. Her work with Amy Poehler (as Katie Couric) in last weekend's spoof on "Saturday Night Live" was so astoundingly good—the hand gestures, the vocal tone and spirit—that it captured some of the actual heart of the Palin story. Ms. Poehler as Couric: "Mrs. Palin, are you aware that when cornered you become increasingly adorable?" Ms. Fey as Palin mugs, adorably.

To spoof someone well takes talent, but to utterly nail a political figure while not brutalizing him takes a real gift, and amounts almost to a public service. After all, to capture someone is a kind of tribute: it concedes he is real, vivid, worthy of note. We are not as a nation manufacturing trust all that well, or competence, or leadership. But some things we do well, and one is comedy. Ms. Fey plays characters who are sour, stressed and who, on "30 Rock," live in a world that is cynical, provisional and shallow. But to observe life so closely takes a kind of love.

Article Link

Many students agree, McCain won the first debate

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:34:00 +0000

Now that we have had a little time to think about it... who really won the first debate? Many point to poll numbers as a sign that Obama was the winner. I don't agree. I believe those numbers are nothing more then a sign that Obama is spending loads of his cash right now on TV, radio, and media ads. A good plan? We will see, but once the McCain/Palin camp bumps up their efforts as the election day draws closer... I think you will see a dramatic shift.

Here is an amazing article published in the University of South Florida's campus paper, The Oracle. I think he made some very good points, judge for yourself:

The Oracle
Body language helped McCain win the debate

Ryan Blaney, Columnist

Published: Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Let me count the ways John McCain bested Barack Obama in the first of three presidential debates.

The senator won the debate simply by virtue of body language. He appeared the more confident, experienced and honest candidate. Rather than try to illustrate his point of view with flailing arms and rude interjections, McCain repeatedly waited his turn while his opponent spoke. Common courtesy dictates that a person remain quiet while another has the floor. Rather than permit McCain to complete his thoughts, Obama indignantly began his sentences over the end of McCain’s.

Some media outlets have interpreted the time McCain took to answer a question as proof that he is ill-prepared. I appreciated McCain’s off-the-cuff responses more than the canned answers and agreeable responses given by Obama. They evidenced McCain’s ability to think on his feet.

In addition, Obama was often in agreement with McCain. Obama’s continuous agreement failed to differentiate him from his Republican counterpart. Obama said he agreed with McCain seven times. To McCain’s credit, he mentioned that he is not afraid to ruffle a few feathers. Rather than compulsively agree with his opponent, McCain stated that it’s well known that he was “not nominated for Miss Congeniality in the Senate.”

Obama attempted on several occasions to align McCain’s policies with those of President George W. Bush’s administration. While it is true that McCain said he agrees with Bush most of the time, McCain has his own policies. He has infuriated members of his own party, which demonstrates to his ability to depart from Bush’s policies when he sees fit.

In addition, McCain’s age does not prohibit him from keeping a pulse on this country.

Democrats have portrayed McCain’s age as a reason to be uneasy about his candidacy, but this logic is flawed. Age alone does not make someone an incapable leader, which is why there are federal laws that prevent age discrimination. Not casting a vote for McCain based on his age alone is similar to not voting for Obama because he is black. Both are abhorrent examples of discrimination.

Criticizing McCain’s record and playing word games only demonstrated Obama’s inexperience. McCain has been a senator about seven times as long as Obama. One of McCain’s selling points is his years of public service. When Obama criticized McCain’s record, he neglected the fact that it is McCain’s more than 20-year career in the Senate that gives Obama the opportunity to decry his formidable foe. Many in the private sector can only wish for such a job record.

For now, Obama is calculating and agreeable. It will be years before this inexperience candidate, is ready to lead this nation.

Obama’s future is speculative. McCain is the leader we need at present — and there is no debating that.

Ryan Blaney is a senior majoring in English.

Article Link

Why did our current financial crisis happen?

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:05:00 +0000

While this is an amateur video, it does go over some very important point that created the current economic crisis. It's ten minutes... but you will be surprised to see some of the things in it... so watch it!

Let's see what Biden is up to...

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:28:00 +0000

How can someone who says so many incorrect or untimely things... never get blasted for it? I surely hope Sen. Biden continues to talk the way he does... because it will end up helping Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin. Here is a good article that discusses a few of Biden's horrible (for him) blunders, then discusses some of the other VP questions.

September 27, 2008
Biden's Foot-in-Mouth Disease
By Jack Kelly

One wonders how Sen. Joe Biden can talk so much with his foot in his mouth.

"We're not supporting clean coal," the Democratic vice presidential candidate said while campaigning in Ohio last week. "No coal plants here in America."

Coal mining is an important industry in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, all tightly contested states in this election, so Sen. Biden's remarks were impolitic. Especially so since Sen. Obama supports clean coal technologies.

"Obama's Department of Energy will enter into public-private partnerships to develop five 'first of a kind' commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology," the Obama-Biden campaign Web site says.

Sen. Obama's efforts Tuesday to depict Sen. John McCain as too quick to oppose a federal bailout of insurer AIG were undermined when he was reminded by NBC's Matt Lauer that Sen. Biden had said the same thing on the same day.

"I thought it was terrible," Sen. Biden told CBS news anchor Katie Couric in an interview broadcast Monday. "If I had anything to do with it, we never would have done it."

Sen. Biden was referring to an Obama ad that mocked Sen. McCain as an out of touch old fogy because he doesn't use a computer.

The ad was terrible. (Sen. McCain doesn't use a computer because his war injuries prevent him from typing on a keyboard). And it testifies to Sen. Biden's basic decency that he thought so. But there are some opinions you just don't voice.

In the same interview, Sen. Biden told Ms. Couric: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

Franklin Roosevelt didn't become president until three years after the stock market crashed in 1929. Television didn't go into widespread commercial use until years after FDR died in 1945.

Sen. Biden has said something foolish or indiscreet so often the Republican National Committee has started a "Biden Gaffe Clock" to chronicle them all. Can you imagine the media frenzy if it were Sarah Palin who was saying these things?

Sen. Biden wasn't chosen to provide comic relief. Sen. Obama thought his 35 years in the Senate, most of it on the Foreign Relations Committee, of which he is now chairman, would give the ticket foreign policy credentials Sen. Obama himself lacks.

The most hypocritical of the legion of double standards employed by the news media in this campaign is that a paucity of experience in foreign policy is considered disqualifying in the Republican candidate for vice president, but inconsequential in the Democratic candidate for president.

Sarah Palin's only claim to experience in national security policy is that as governor of Alaska, she's head of the state's National Guard, and she has a son in the Army. That's mighty thin gruel. Sen. Obama has served on the Senate Foreign Relations committee since coming to the Senate but hasn't shown up for many hearings in the last two years. If you think inexperience in foreign policy is a bad thing to have a heartbeat away from the presidency, why is it acceptable to put inexperience directly into the White House?

Gov. Palin has been in public life longer than Sen. Obama. She served four years on the city council in Wasilla, eight years as that town's mayor, a year as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and the last 22 months as governor of Alaska.

Sen. Obama served eight years in the Illinois legislature and a little less than four in the U.S. Senate, of which he's spent most of the last two running for president.

All but four years of Gov. Palin's public career has been spent in the executive branch. Sen. Obama has no experience in the executive branch, nor any private sector managerial experience except for his role in the failed Chicago Annenberg Challenge, about which he is reluctant to talk because it brings up his association with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.

As mayor, Sarah Palin managed explosive growth in Wasilla while cutting property tax rates 40 percent. As governor, she worked out a deal to build a natural gas pipeline to the lower 48 that her predecessors had been trying, and failing, to do for 35 years.

Sen. Obama's tenure in the Illinois legislature was noted chiefly for his having voted "present" a remarkable 130 times. His brief time in the U.S. Senate has been devoid of significant accomplishment.

Sen. Obama argues judgment is more important than experience, and Sen. Biden is living proof that experience without judgment is not a pretty thing.

The most important decision Sen. Obama has had to make as a presidential candidate was his selection of a running mate. He chose Sen. Biden. Inexperience and bad judgment is the worst combination of all.

Copyright 2008, Journal Press Syndicate Inc.

Article Link

The Mac is back... and HE won the first debate

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:52:00 +0000

Hands down... Senator John McCain won Friday nights first debate. Sen. McCain put Obama on the defensive on every question except the first (the one Obama got first). Sen. McCain showed that he was very presidential and is well learned in what this country must do to improve on all fronts. I have no doubts that Sen. McCain showed true leadership on that stage and did his best to uncover Sen. Obama's shaky, and at times contradictory, positions. Don't forget... as far as leadership goes... Sen. McCain got right back to Washington D.C. after the debate to help bring a financial plan to reality... and Sen. Obama went ahead back to the campaign trail. Talk about a difference... McCain who is willing to do his job in crisis... and Obama who goes back to his show and dance. Check out this article from Politico.com for some more insight and the newest McCain campaign video:

The Mac is back
By: Roger Simon
September 27, 2008 01:21 AM EST

John McCain was very lucky that he decided to show up for the first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss., Friday night. Because he gave one of his strongest debate performances ever.

While Barack Obama repeatedly tried to link McCain to the very unpopular George W. Bush, Bush’s name will not be on the ballot in November and McCain’s will.

And McCain not only found a central theme but hit on it repeatedly. Obama is inexperienced, naive, and just doesn’t understand things, McCain said.

Sure, McCain is a pretty old guy for a presidential candidate, but he showed the old guy did not mind mixing it up. He stood behind a lectern for 90 minutes without a break — you try that when you are 72 — and he not only gave as good as he got, he seemed to relish it more.

At least twice after sharp attacks by McCain, Obama seemed to look to moderator Jim Lehrer for help, saying to Lehrer, “Let’s move on.”

True, the majority of the debate was fought on McCain’s strongest ground: foreign affairs. And true, McCain’s feet were not held to the fire as to why he urged the postponement of the debate in order to secure a financial bailout package in Washington, but then decided to show up without any such agreement in hand.

But it didn’t seem to matter much. McCain just pounded away on his central argument: Obama just didn’t “understand” how to deal with Pakistan; how dangerous it is to meet with foreign leaders without preconditions; how serious the Russian invasion of Georgia was; the price of failure in Iraq.

“He doesn’t understand, he doesn’t get it,” McCain said of Obama, also saying, “There is a little bit of naiveté here.”

It was as if McCain was paying Obama back for that moment in Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention when Obama said McCain would not serve America well, “not because John McCain doesn’t care; it’s because John McCain doesn’t get it.”

But McCain seemed to get it Friday night. He certainly knew enough to try to turn his age into a plus and not a minus. “There are some advantages to experience, knowledge and judgment,” McCain said.

Obama did not just stand there like a punching bag. He landed some blows of his own. Obama said the financial crisis we are in today is a “final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Sen. McCain.”

And when McCain delivered a scripted zinger — “Sen. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate; it's hard to reach across the aisle when you’re that far to the left” — Obama replied: “Mostly that’s me opposing George Bush’s wrongheaded policies.”

Obama eventually realized that McCain had to be attacked not just for his ties to George Bush but also for his own record, and Obama accused McCain of saying the Iraq war “was going to be quick and easy” and that weapons of mass destruction would be found.

“You were wrong,” Obama said.

But McCain attacked back. “I understand why Sen. Obama was surprised and saddened that the surge succeeded beyond his wildest expectations,” he said.

McCain seemed to be enjoying himself. He smiled a lot, mostly when Obama was talking, though his smile was really more like a smirk.

Debate audiences are the largest audiences the candidates get — far larger than their announcement or convention speeches — and millions of Americans were seeing the two candidates up close and at length for the first time.

Both avoided their negative stereotypes: Obama did not seem aloof or condescending. McCain did not seem erratic or wild. You could imagine either one of them in the Oval Office, but only one is going to get there.

“I don’t need any on-the-job training,” McCain said. “I am ready to go at it right now.”

He certainly seemed like it Friday night.

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

Article Link

Lets face it: Obama is very very Liberal

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:12:00 +0000

It doesn't become any clear. We need to elect a President that can reach out to everyone... and Sen. Obama can not. Sen. McCain will be able to do it... has done it... and has a record of working to solve important issues. Obama... well... is far from the center. Check out this article:

September 26, 2008
Hiding the Ball
By David Limbaugh

Why does Barack Obama play hide the ball with his personal resume, concealing his extreme leftist ideology and denying his damning associations? Question kind of answers itself, wouldn't you say? Be concerned, very concerned.

Obama hides his liberalism for the same reason every other liberal presidential candidate has: The electorate tilts center-right. This isn't just my gut speaking or some self-serving theory I'm propounding.

The Battleground poll -- a well-respected bipartisan affair conducted by the Terrance Group, a Republican polling organization -- and Lake Research Partners, a Democratic organization, tells us 60 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives.

But the specifics are even more telling. Twenty percent consider themselves very conservative, 40 percent somewhat conservative, 2 percent moderate, 27 percent liberal, 9 percent very liberal, and 3 percent don't know or didn't answer.

So John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 didn't deny they were the most liberal senators because liberalism has become a dirty word through a clever conservative propaganda campaign. They denied it because liberalism is a minority position in reality, albeit an extraordinarily effective vocal minority.

Obama will only come clean about his liberalism when he thinks he is in safe territory, as he did at the San Francisco fundraiser where he trashed small-town Americans, thinking his words wouldn't reach those he was belittling. Nor is Obama upfront about the liberal nature of his policy proposals, choosing instead to mask their liberalism and even disguise them as conservative.

How else do you explain his whopper that he is recommending a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans when we know that the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay very little income tax at all? His plan calls for giving many of these people tax credits, even though they are paying no tax or are paying a small enough amount that the credit would result in them netting money from the government. As others have pointed out, this is welfare, not a tax cut. "Tax cut" resonates well among center-right voters; "welfare" does not.

On foreign policy, suffice it to say that Obama would never want the center-right electorate to know the extent of his appeasement and retreat-and-defeat orientation, his support for the bankrupting and sovereignty-forfeiting Global Poverty Act or his goal of eliminating U.S. nuclear weapons, as reported by The New York Times.

But where Obama is really playing hide the ball is in his past and present associations. His campaign operatives and the mainstream media have done their best to divert any attention from these relationships by saying it's dirty campaigning to smear him through the acts of others. Well, folks, that's not how ordinary people think. In sizing up someone's character, we often consider with whom they associate. Sue us if you wish -- even start a class action -- but it won't change human nature, which leads us, rationally, to consider this factor.

Endless reports and many books have been written documenting Barack Obama's discipleship in the thug tactics of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." For Obama, community organizing was not an innocuous vehicle for assisting the needy. It was and is a cynically dangerous vehicle for the politics of extortion and intimidation and the usurpation of power by socialists, whose ideology and methods more closely resemble those of Josef Stalin than those of Mother Teresa.

These sources also prove beyond any reasonable doubt Obama's close -- not remote, not casual -- relationship with the nihilistic, America-hating, Pentagon-bombing radical William Ayers. Obama glibly dismisses the very idea that he should be blamed for a passing acquaintanceship with a guy who was bombing the Pentagon "when (Obama) was 8 years old."

Enough with the insults to our intelligence, Mr. Obama. You were not 8 when you launched your state Senate campaign in Ayers' home. You were not 8 when you served in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers was instrumental in establishing. You are not 8 today, though you are still Ayers' close friend, while he remains an America-hating radical, wholly unrepentant about his terrorist activities, other than to say he didn't do enough.

The fact that Obama would be seen in the same room with this guy should disqualify him from presidential aspirations. But he's not just in the same room. In many ways, he's on the same page, as evidenced by his default instinct to apologize for America and to blame America first.

But Obama will continue striving to hide the ball on this association and many others, including those with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko.

But beware; if anyone dares to expose those relationships and their sordid details, he will open himself up to malicious and fraudulent charges of racism and other Saul Alinsky thug tactics that make Bill Clinton's politics of personal destruction look like child's play.

Article Link

Since when is doing your job bad?

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:46:00 +0000

Since when is doing your job a political gimmick? What is so bad about Sen. McCain going back to Washington for a few days to help bring a good policy to the floor? Is it that Sen. Obama doesn't believe he could do the same? Or does it mean that they are scared that Sen. McCain might be a "maverick" again and really effect the current financial policy decisions?

Either way, when people start saying that doing your job is a "stunt," there is something wrong with America... or at least the crazy people saying it. Check out this article below:

A Presidential McCain
McCain's bold move could reframe the election--and win it.
by William Kristol
09/25/2008 12:00:00 AM

THERE'S A REASON voters in presidential races tend to shy away from electing senators. The primary skills of a legislator--talking, compromising, "representing"--are different from those of an executive--deciding, choosing, "executing." There are individuals who have the ability both to deliberate patiently and act energetically--but it's a rare combination. The best legislators tend not to be great executives, and vice-versa.

This year, for the first time in U.S. history, both major party nominees for president are sitting senators. The winner may be the one who can convince some portion of the electorate that he's less "senatorial," and more "presidential," than the other.

That's why McCain's action Wednesday--announcing he would come back to Washington to try to broker a deal to save our financial system--could prove so important. The rescue package that was so poorly crafted and defended by the Bush administration seemed to be sliding toward defeat. The presidential candidates were on the sidelines, carping and opining and commenting. But one of them, John McCain, intervened suddenly and boldly, taking a risk in order to change the situation, and to rearrange the landscape.

Of course his motives were partly election-related. But "the interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place." If candidate McCain, for whatever mixed motives, ends up acting in a way that results in a deal that is viewed as better than the original proposal, and that seems to stabilize the markets and avert a meltdown--he'll benefit politically, and he deserves to. For McCain will have acted presidentially in the campaign--which some voters, quite reasonably, will think speaks to his qualifications to be president.

As for the question of Friday night's debate, which some in the media seem to think more important than saving the financial system--if the negotiations are still going on in D.C., McCain should offer to send Palin to debate Obama! Or he can take a break from the meetings, fly down at the last minute himself, and turn a boring foreign policy debate, in which he and Obama would repeat well-rehearsed arguments, into a discussion about leadership and decisiveness. And if the negotiations are clearly on a path to success, then McCain can say he can now afford to leave D.C., fly down, and the debate would become a victory lap for McCain.

So the action of these few days becomes more important than the talk of that hour and a half Friday night. One could even say the contrast between the two men in action becomes the true debate over who should be president. The media, being talkers and debaters, love debates, overestimate their importance, and are underestimating the possible effect of McCain's dramatic action. In the debate itself, McCain should mock the media's greater concern for gabbing than solving our economic problems, and should associate Obama with such a talk-heavy media-type approach to politics. If the race is between an energetic executive and an indecisive talker, the energetic executive should win.

William Kristol is editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:00:00 +0000

This article discusses the true issues with Sen. Obama's tax plan. Why on earth would any one citizen aspire to be successful in today's economy if they will end up "patriotically" giving everything they EARNED to the government? I am all for reducing government waste and enhancing America's infrastructure, but higher taxes for anyone will not help it.

Obama's plan blatantly says that he would raise taxes on small businesses EARNING $250,000 a year or a household just the same. Not to mention that he wants to increase taxes on all companies as well as increase dividend and capital gains taxes. Guess what?! Everyone's IRA or retirement plan will be taxed under the Obama capital gains tax increases and whenever you tax a company a dollar... you get you pay another dollar at the register. That sounds like fun.

The only people who stand to gain anything from this are those who are either truly poor and not EARNING any money (who likely do need help from family and maybe some short term government assistance) or are poor by not choosing to EARN their money. This will additionally hurt the "American Dream" that you can do anything if you WANT to. The American Dream isn't supposed to be given to you... it's supposed to be earned. What will stop people from just not being productive and sitting on a couch waiting for their government cheese? Nothing under Obama. Therefore, Obama's tax plans will hurt everyone and make our economic issues even worse. Seriously... read the entire article:

Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution
By Ken Blackwell
September 23, 2008
During his Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sen. Barack Obama responded to one question where the statistics contradicted his position by saying that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." He then went on to say that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax break under his economic plan. That's ironic, because his comment on "damned lies and statistics" is the perfect commentary on his own plan. Taken with Sen. Joe Biden's novel definition of patriotism, Team Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought.

The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.

That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist.

American voters don't buy Team Obama's arguments. A recent Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans believe that Mr. Obama would raise their taxes. A recent Zogby poll shows a majority of Americans understand that raising taxes will hurt the economy.

Energy prices have pounded the U.S. economy. The recent woes on Wall Street have further shaken our weakened economy. Certain pillars of our economy, such as productivity gains and American ingenuity, continue to be powerful economic assets. But the current debt situation, spending trends, the cost of combating global terrorism, along with the energy crisis, leaves our economy in a truly precarious position.

Most credible economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn only makes the situation worse. Given our current economic situation, Mr. Obama's tax plan is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire.

Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Dividend and capital gains taxes will take money from all those. Those Americans on Main Street who own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase.

Businesses and corporations do not pay taxes; we do. Businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in the closet that they simply turn over to government when taxes increase. For every dollar that you increase taxes on a business, they simply increase their prices by a dollar. Who then pays the tax? We do. We do, when the product that we bought last week for $20 suddenly costs $21.

Mr. Obama's plan for universal health care and increased spending on just about everything costs hundreds of billions of dollars. To keep his promises to provide those things while eliminating the deficit and giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans receive a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more when buying food and clothes, they are worse off.

Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration. Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under Mr. Bush. In 2000, the top 1 percent of earners paid less than one-third of all income tax; now they pay 40 percent. The affluent already carry more of the burden.

The ancient Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder once said, "In wine there is truth." It means that people tell you what they really think once they have a couple of drinks.

I don't think Mr. Biden was drinking on the campaign trail last week, but it was a rare moment of complete candor when he told ABC News that people who are well-off have a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. That perfectly states the liberal Democratic philosophy that those who do the right things in their personal life to make more money have an obligation not only to pay more taxes (which they do even under a flat tax because 17 percent of higher-income is more than 17 percent of lower-income), but that they should pay an ever-higher additional percentage on top of that. Liberal Democrats consider it patriotic to pay more taxes, and have a consistent record of voting to help nurture our patriotism for us.

That reveals what is really going on here. The statistics don't lie. Team Obama's plan is not economically prudent, and it's not a patriotic tonic for what ails our economy.

Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, the American Civil Rights Union and the Buckeye Institute in Ohio.

Article Link

False Ads to wtach for from Obama

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:43:00 +0000

A good blog entry from the newspaper that represents our big Florida blue counties to the south (Palm Beach, Miami, etc). The blog, along with a Washington Post article also linked, is letting everyone know just how false one of Obama's current ad's really are. Glad to see that he is trying to stick to facts... or at least something somewhat close.

Obama pushes "simply false" social security claims in So. Fla. TV spot
Posted by Josh Hafenbrack at 1:31 PM

With a new poll out showing Barack Obama with a two-point lead over John McCain in Florida, Obama is going up with a new TV aid in South Florida hitting McCain on social security, a hot-button issue especially for seniors.

The hard-hitting social security spot, airing in the Tampa and West Palm Beach-Boca Raton markets, claims that McCain wants to privatize the system and cut benefits in half. It's a claim that the Washington Post calls "simply false" and is "stooping to the kind of scare tactics (Obama) once derided." Factcheck.org says Obama's claim that McCain would cut benefits in half is a "rank misrepresentation."

Meanwhile, the Mason-Dixon Florida poll has Obama with a 47-45 lead over McCain, in a Sept. 16-18 survey of 625 voters. The margin for error was 4 percent.

See Obama's new spot here.

From Tallahassee, Josh Hafenbrack
Article Link

Governor Sarah Palin Wows Crowd, Breaks Attendance Record in Florida

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:14:00 +0000

Sun 7:09

The Villages, FL-Governor Sarah Palin participated in a Road to Victory Rally today in The Villages, Florida, telling the 60,000 attendees how she and John McCain will reform Washington and turn the nation in a new, positive direction.

"We were thrilled to welcome Governor Palin to Florida for her first trip to the state," noted RPOF Chairman Jim Greer. "Change is coming to Washington, and it will begin on January 20th when we start referring to John McCain and Governor Palin not as 'Senator' and 'Governor,' but as 'Mr. President' and 'Madam Vice President.'

The crowd at The Villages, estimated at 60,000, heard from Attorney General Bill McCollum and Chairman Greer and enjoyed entertainment by country music star Aaron Tippin and other local artists. People traveled from across Florida and from other states to hear from the Republican Vice Presidential nominee.

"Today Floridians were fortunate to have not only one but two of the nation's most popular Governors, with the highest approval ratings, in our state," concluded Chairman Greer. "Today we proved that Florida is not only McCain Country, it is Palin Country too."

McCain Was Right on Fannie and Freddie… Since 2005

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:07:00 +0000

A good blog entry from the California Students for McCain blog, posted by Alan, that I believe hits the current economic babble by Obama on the nose (of course it's McCain's fault like Obama says... even though he attempted to warn the rest of Washington about it three years ago):

Democrats and the Obama campaign have tried to blame John McCain for the recent financial crisis. But, John McCain saw this coming three years ago, and tried to stop it then. As a principal sponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (which was not passed), McCain said:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Sen. McCain speaks in Tampa, FL

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:15:00 +0000

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe and why Gov. Palin wasn't incorrect

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:03:00 +0000

When Gibson asked Gov. Palin "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"... Charlie showed that HE didn't know what the Bush doctrine really was in the first place! Gov. Palin said "In what respect, Charlie?" This was a perfectly good question since the Bush doctrine can be defined if four different ways. And after attempting to make Gov. Palin look bad... Gibson picked the least respected version of all four... which is currently not in use in the political field of study. Even if Gov. Palin didn't know what he was talking about... it's ok. The "Bush doctrine" is not easily defined (like I said... it has four very different versions) and is not an established doctine such as the Monroe or Truman doctrines.

I think Charles Krauthammer's article below discusses the issues perfectly:

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Obama Tries to Stall Troop Withdrawal in Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (Justin York) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:41:00 +0000

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

LONG VIEW: Barack Obama tours Iraq with Gen. David Petraeus in July, when he sought to stall any agreement for US troop withdrawal until President Bush left office.

Last updated: 4:10 am
September 15, 2008
Posted: 4:02 am
September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

100 days

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:50:00 +0000

It's has been 100 days since Senator McCain invited Obama to town hall meetings. I must admit... I don't blame Obama for skipping them. Sen. McCain is pretty good in town hall meetings. But it's too bad that Obama won't even attempt them.

Reflections on a Group of People

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Olson) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:59:00 +0000

Disclaimer: This article that I wrote is STRICTLY an editorial, found on my personal editorial blog titled "The News Is Next" hosted on LiveJournal. I look forward to anyone's rebuttal to my arguments. Again, this is an editorial, very opinion-based article. Thanks. Here it goes.

People can be very strange. There is essentially no such thing as “normal” anymore because something that one person sees as “normal” instantly turns to insanity for someone else. The idea of going to church, to me a perfectly normal, acceptable, and even practiced idea is craziness and blasphemous to someone else. Even the ideas of politics can be simply insane to people.

I’m here to tell you about one of those groups of people. These are simply my opinions, however at the same time I hope to hear rebuttals from anyone and everyone, whether or not you agree with what I’m saying. After all, this is an editorial.

That group of people (lumped into one, sorry if you don’t fit all of these stereotypes) are democrats. No, scratch that, extremist democrats. The kind who are so unwilling to accept any outsider perspectives that if you don’t agree with them you deserve to be thrown in jails. They feel that anyone who doesn’t agree with their agendas and personal beliefs closely resemble the character “V” in the movie “V for Vendetta.” If you haven’t seen the movie, “V” was a social anarchist who’s overall mission was to destroy the British parliament building (the idea of this taken from the plot from Guy Fawkes who attempted to do the same thing on November 5th).

I say that I don’t like Hillary. I’m automatically labeled a “sexist.” It doesn’t matter at all that I’m making an educated disliking towards her based off of her past records and experiences, nor does it matter that I disagree strongly with a lot of her platform and agendas that she’s running with. None of that stuff matters, but since she’s a woman, I’m automatically a sexist.

I say that I don’t like Obama. I’m automatically labeled as a “racist” for that statement. Never mind that I feel that my wallet, credit cards, checking accounts, mutual funds, and stocks and bonds wouldn’t be able to afford his new tax plans. Never mind that I feel that he has nowhere near enough experience in any sort of executive position to effectively run our country. It makes absolutely no difference to them that I also feel that the solution to the health care crisis is to eliminate the superfluous lawsuits instead of starting a socialized program, which is essentially going to be paid for by you, me, and everyone else. No, none of that stuff matters at all. I’m a racist for not supporting their candidate.

I also love the popular argument that McCain’s VP Candidate, Sarah Palin, doesn’t have enough experience to run a country. I’ve got some good news: she isn’t. She’s the vice president. And by the time she becomes president (if that were ever to happen) she will STILL have more experience in an executive office than Barak Obama! So how then does this make her a bad candidate? I don't think it does.

If they would look into her record of achievements, they would CLEARLY see that she’s done many good things, including selling the former Alaskan Governor’s private jet on Ebay because the government had no usage for it. I love how she also pushed for cleaner oil, including repairing sections of the pipeline that may not have been really clean.

There are many things about Obama’s campaign that I sincerely disagree with, mostly those to do with tax increases. Everything Obama wants to do is going to increase taxes, which does absolutely nothing for economic stimulation. The socialized health care plan is going to send taxes through the roof. And please answer me this, how is it remotely fair that me, a person who doesn’t get sick all that often, is going to be required to pay for someone who gets sick all of the time to see a doctor? The caliber of medical care is going to go down. Did you know that one of Canada’s leaders went to New York to have open heart surgery? Ever hear the reason? It was because Canada doesn’t have the resources and was going to put this person on a waiting list for this life-saving surgery.

In short, Democratic extremists have labeled me as a racist and sexist simply because of my opinions. They also blatantly refuse to recognize that my opinions are backed up with plenty of fact. If being educated and wanting the more competent person to be the leader of the country where I live, then I’m proud to be that “racist and sexist” that the Democratic Party hates. Because being educated does not make me a “racist and a sexist” American, but instead it makes me a competent voter, an educated American, and it makes me someone who will make the right choice in voting for our next president, Senator John McCain.

“The News Is Next…”

Candidate Speeches

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:41:00 +0000

Sen. John McCain's speech to the RNC:

Gov. Sarah Palin's speech to the RNC:

And this one just for fun...
The Honorable Rudy Giuliani's speech to the RNC:

Why we can not stop now...

Billy.USFCR@gmail.com (Billy) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:20:00 +0000

Ladies and Gentleman... it is time to really hit the pavement and put the great state of Florida in Sen. John McCain's pocket this November. Not only is it very possible... it is crucial to the McCain campaigns success. Hard work from students and youth across Florida these next few months can make or break the campaign. Please get involved with an existing campus organization, an area organization, or ask us how to create one!

The time is now to put a little work into getting this ticket elected... please reach out now.

''Don't think for a minute we can walk out of this convention -- even after Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani sliced and diced -- that it means we're going to win this election,'' Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum told Florida delegates in a pep talk Thursday morning over omelets and hash browns. "We've got to go out and work very hard for it.'' -Miami Herald

Quote and photo from the Miami Herald.

Florida Students for McCain

A Liberal Supermajority

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

Obama's 95% Illusion

It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.

The News Is Next--An Educated Political Viewpoint?

The Last Month

In Clearwater, Palin Presses Obama's Link To Ayers

REMARKS BY JOHN MCCAIN IN ALBUQUERQUE, NM

CBS Poll: Presidential Race Tightens

Gov. Palin won the debate

Joe Biden was no match for "Joe Six-Pack."

By PEGGY NOONAN

Many students agree, McCain won the first debate

Why did our current financial crisis happen?

Let's see what Biden is up to...

The Mac is back... and HE won the first debate

Lets face it: Obama is very very Liberal

Hiding the Ball

Since when is doing your job bad?

Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution

Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution

False Ads to wtach for from Obama

Obama pushes "simply false" social security claims in So. Fla. TV spotPosted by Josh Hafenbrack at 1:31 PM

Governor Sarah Palin Wows Crowd, Breaks Attendance Record in Florida

McCain Was Right on Fannie and Freddie… Since 2005

Sen. McCain speaks in Tampa, FL

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe and why Gov. Palin wasn't incorrect

Obama Tries to Stall Troop Withdrawal in Iraq

100 days

Reflections on a Group of People

Candidate Speeches

Why we can not stop now...

Obama pushes "simply false" social security claims in So. Fla. TV spot
Posted by Josh Hafenbrack at 1:31 PM