The Minnesota Senate Race...

Well, I thought about writing on this before, but then I got busy...

The entire process has been nuts over there, and it isn't just Franken I want to complain about...
If I recall correctly, about a month ago Coleman tried to get it so that any ballots that voted for both McCain and Franken be cast out, due to voter conflict or something.
I may be a Republican, but my goodness, if you are going to win, win fairly, or lose fairly, I know a lot of people who voted Obama and then all the rest GOP, not so many that were reversed, sure, but I can definitely see it happening...

Now though, I need to complain about the canvassing board over there. Now, I am getting my information here from FoxNews, so for those that despise it, please look at the article first, as they are using actual ballot examples to illustrate the problem.

Article link.

Now, I was wondering how Franken all of a sudden took this huge lead, but if what this article says is true, something is really fishy over there, and it definitely looks like they are trying to "get" Franken elected.
You don't even need the dreaded "massive voter fraud" - which Democrats always claim is a myth when you bring it up about them (remember ACORN?) and then proceed to accuse the GOP of (seems kinda schizophrenic to me, but I dunno...)...

Well, either way, it will be interesting to see how this all works out, but Gov. Pawlenty seems to think it will all be over sometime soon next year, and he won't have to appoint a temporary replacement - let's all hope, it is about time this election is over - because we're just going to get another one started here soon...

Happy Holidays everyone :)

The Future...

I have been doing a lot of thinking since the election.
What is the future of the Republican party - what does it need to do to survive and flourish?
What is the future of this blog?
How will Obama govern with the Dem majority in Congress?
How will the world react to Obama now?


I have felt for a while now that the future of the GOP is the moderate vote.
I believe the GOP must become the party of the moderates, the open-minded, etc.
This does not mean we throw aside our conservative message, but it does mean we start to welcome more views in, we start being willing to fight hard for our beliefs, and be willing to compromise on some.
The Democratic party has for as many elections as I can remember had a larger amount of people registered than the GOP, which means that the Republican candidates need to, and have gotten, a larger percentage of the Independent, generally moderate, vote.
This election was odd. We selected a rather moderate (especially in comparison to Obama) candidate, but Obama won a larger percentage of Independents than Kerry did four years ago, or Gore won 8 years ago, and I think Obama is the more liberal of them...
The reason this happened, I think, is that the far-right "base" of the party was in outrage at McCain being selected - so he had to extremely visibly court them. Obama on the other hand already had the far-left part of the Democratic party behind him, so while McCain had to look ever more right-wing, Obama was able to portray himself as the centrist candidate.

Personally, I think it is not McCain, or Palin, or even Obama that cost the GOP the election this time - I think it was the right-wing part of the party. We need to get to the place where no one wing of the party is "the base" - and we need to get it so the "social issues voters" (ie, the pro-life/anti-gay voters) are not the primary focus of the party - because at the end of the day, it will be whether our economy is strong, our military is strong, our trade is strong, and our future is strong that will determine whether we continue to have the right to even debate the "social issues".

I am not trying to demean those issues, I believe that allowing abortions is taking away the right to life of infants, and hurts our society as a whole, as life no longer becomes important. If we have the right to kill others simply because they depend on us, then it becomes a slippery hill that will eventually destroy this nation to follow that line of thinking through.

I do disagree with the anti-gay crowd, I believe gay should be able to have civil unions (though not marriages, the word marriage is specifically defined as a social institution between a man and a woman - dictionary.reference.com, let's not have the government changing the meaning of our language just to benefit one group....) as they should be able to get the same benefits from living in the same house, or insurance, or being family or whatnot in the event of death - that is their right under the constitution, but I am willing to debate that with people, I just think it is more important to first ensure we will have the opportunity to debate it.

I think we need to become more visibly active in the environment - I don't care whether you are doing it because of global warming or not, it is also a national security issue, an economic issue, a quality of life issue (regardless of global impact being from man or not, it is never good for our health to live in polluted areas), so let's start showing people that we mean business about the environment and aren't just going to keep pushing the status quo - which is what people think of us.

We need to lay out specifically what the government should and should not do, and then explain why we believe the way we do on each issue using that as a reference - because from what I have seen most people agree that a smaller government is ideal - so let's show them why that is, and why our views will accomplish that to all of our general good.

Another thing we need to do is start reaching out and bringing in more minorities and young voters.
In California, Prop. 8 passed (the ban on gay marriage), and one of the biggest reasons is that the majority of the black population that voted for Barack Obama also voted to ban gay marriage.
Many of these voters are more in-line with what Republicans believe than what Democrats do, it is just the Democrats have always made a big show of helping them, and are now reaping the benefits of that.
We need to show them why our views will in the end help them more, and help everyone more.

For the young voters, I think we just need to talk to them and show them why we are correct - I think the GOP does not target them enough, at least from what I have seen.
Young voters like to think they know everything, or at least "enough" - they also feel they are on top of the world - so because of that they tend to gravitate toward the party that claims to offer everything, because they firmly believe anything is possible.
We need to lay out for them why we can't have everything right now - it is possible, but it takes time to work towards it and make it happen, and, in the end, what Conservatism offers is better than what Liberalism does, once it is working.
Do you really want a good, strong, working system, plus high taxes and a huge government that barely functions - or do you want a good, strong, working system that also has low taxes and a small, functional government?


As far as what we need to do right now - we need new leadership and a clearer message.
I think Michael Steele is an awesome choice for Chairman of the RNC.
Eric Cantor is running to move up to the head whip position in the house (running unopposed last I heard), which is another good choice.
Both of these reach out to minorities (Steele being African-American, and Cantor being Jewish) as well as bringing a clearer, more Conservative, as well as a more level-headed, view for the party.

For the next election, and future leadership, I think Palin will be up there, but she won't be ready yet in 2012, I would say 2016, but who knows?
For 2012 I am personally watching Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, and Tim Pawlenty.
I think if Eric Cantor runs he will be up there too, and he is getting more of a national name for himself here of late, but I think he will wait and get a little more experience first.
Also, if Palin does run this time, she will definitely be popular, but on her own I don't know how well she will stand up against more experienced candidates...

I think of those that ran this time, only Romney will be a quality candidate in 2012, and I think he will pour himself even more into 2012 than he did this year, as I think that will be his last real shot, the others I am watching will all also do fine in 2016 or later.

Huckabee was only viable among the "social issues only" voters to begin with, and that is not the direction we need, as he would tear a huge rift in the party.
Ron Paul was always a joke as a candidate - he was older than McCain, few Republicans will take his foreign policy, and he just seemed not to have a good television presence.
Ron Tancredo won't tread any better a second time than he did this time, especially with the decreased focus on immigration (though that may cause him to run again itself...).
Duncan Hunter will do better I think if there is no good "Reagan Republican" running, but I think in a field with Romney, Jindal, Pawlenty and possibly Palin and Cantor he will be overshadowed.
Fred Thompson and McCain won't even run again - or if they do they will be perceived as too old, or has-beens.


As far as my blog, I have two options I think.
I will be turning 19 here soon, and will no longer be a teenager the next time an election comes around.
So, I can either end this blog at that time and start a new one (or rename this one possibly), or, I can pass it on to another to continue.
It has been surprising to see that my blog has generated some spin-offs in it's short existence already, like the Asian Conservative Teen or the ConservativeTeenager, so I would like to see this blog continued as a voice for all of the "young voters" out there who are Conservative.
If anyone would be interested in helping out (the more the merrier I think, we can have multiple people writing here, and I think more perspectives, even disagreeing ones, would be awesome) just comment here, or email me at gallfire [at] gmail [dot] com (replace with "@" and ".").


How will Obama govern?
I am really quite apprehensive of what he (and Reid/Pelosi) are planning, but to be honest, I hope it is not as bad as I think it will be, rather, I hope he does well.
If he does really well I will be the first to admit it - I probably won't just give up my views just like that, but if he is successful for two terms AND the President after him does well that will certainly shake some of my views.
Waiting time now though, to see what it will be, heaven, hell, or the same.


How will the world react to Obama?
I think they will do exactly as Biden predicted they would.
Several nations have already made it clear they will wait for Obama to discuss things, because they don't like what they are getting with Bush.
Russia seems to have either though Bush was weak now, or Obama would be weak, as they began to more visibly flex their muscles after the election.
I see nasty days ahead, but perhaps Obama will be stop them, otherwise I hope he has what it takes to get us through them...


I'm going to try and keep following politics and the news on this blog, but updates will be less frequent now.
I will continue to write about my ideas, and probably criticize the government.

So, my first criticisms of President-elect Obama:

1. Rahm Emanuel - while I appreciate the sentiment about reaching out to the Jewish population and Israel, Chief of Staff is hardly a foreign policy position, so I interpret this as a meaningless gesture.
2. Has anyone else noticed Obama is acting like he is already President? I think he should scale back and let Bush finish his term before he starts dictating policy.
3. Obama's government growth program - he is already planning an Environmental Security Agency (or something to that effect), and two of the top candidates for the Secretary of Environment Security are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Al Gore - why can't he just wrap "whatever" it is he plans to do with this into the other environmental agencies?
4. Will he now, finally, start dealing with all the allegations of his heritage? I can understand not wanting to give credibility to them during the election, but he really needs to address them now.
   

There are probably more I have forgotten, but that is enough for now.

A long night...

Ok, so I am watching exit poll data on FoxNews, they are already giving Kentucky to McCain and Vermont to Obama, with 10% of the vote in or so - which I think is a little early.
Now they have added West Virgina to McCain.

But the interesting thing is, McCain is leading on average through the BattleGrounds by 7-10% out of a few hundred thousand votes already - so perhaps some good news, but way too early to be able to trust these numbers...

Virgina looks to be having 2 Democratic Senators, so that does not bode well for McCain.
I heard as well that apparently the Obama campaign has virtually given up on North Carolina, which could bode well for McCain and Elizabeth Dole, who is one of three GOP senators in close races I predicted would hold their seats (the others being Norm Coleman and Saxby Chambliss) due primarily to the ground game going to the GOP.


I'm going to stay up until we have a winner between McCain and Obama, but mostly good news so far for McCain it appears...


EDIT 1:
Ok, so I am going to make a few predictions, besides the one about which GOP Senators I wrote about above...
Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Florida will go for McCain.
Ohio and Pennsylvania will be closer.

Beyond those states, I have no clue, but it will be interesting to see what happens based on the first exit polling...


EDIT 2:
FoxNews now projects that Kay Hagan has defeated Elizabeth Dole - but only 4% reporting. Dunno how this will affect McCain, but it looks like I was wrong on at least one of my Senate predictions.


EDIT 3:
FoxNews and others are now projecting Obama will win Pennsylvania, but I have yet to see a single vote count, so I am a bit skeptical...
On a brighter note, Saxby Chambliss is now projected to keep his seat.

EDIT 4:
Now Ohio has been projected to go to Obama - looks all but impossible for McCain now...

EDIT 5:
Obama is now up in Florida and North Carolina. Although McCain maintains a steady lead in Virginia, it may not matter any more.
Going to wait now for some absolutely solid vote counts before I post again, because, from the projections alone, it looks like Obama will win quite handily...

EDIT 6:
Obama now has a 50,000 vote lead in Virginia with 91% of precincts reporting, and Pennsylvania is also showing a large lead for Obama.
If there is a silver lining to this, McCain is now on top on North Carolina - but it won't be enough.
I think most likely Obama has won now, even if McCain comes back in Florida.

Looking back, I think it was McCain who killed himself. Months ago he could have attacked Obama on his connections and on his socialist plans, both of which have done well for him these last two weeks, but he needed to make them sooner.
In the end, I think where he failed was that he was tentative on the economy.
Coming out of the conventions he had sometimes double digit leads in the polls.
Then wall street crashed, and Obama gained as large a lead.
McCain at that time didn't come out with a strong, decisive plan for what to do, instead he appeared slow and confused about what to do.
In the end I think he did eventually come out with the better plan, but it was too late, the public had already formed the opnion that he was inept on the issue.


I think, after all this, McCain was the best candidate for us to pose.
The reasons being:

1. With the econimc crisis, few of the possible GOP candidates could have survived it, and Romney, who is most likely to have been able to, would already have been too far out on other issues, and he would have had a harder time with the base even than McCain.
2. McCain losing will not hurt the GOP next time around, because he won't be running, so perhaps Romney can come back without having lost last time.
3. Palin was a bold choice, and I think she is going to be a strong contender next cycle for President.

I must say well done to Obama (or his campaign staff) on a good run in the race - and I just request that I don't have to congratulate you on a grand farce in a few months, and you actually come through on your promises...

Milestones...

Today my blog turned one year old. It seems incredible how much the political landscape has changed in just that time, and how fast it has gone.

Another awesome milestone - it appears as if we have now, finally, won the war in Iraq.
This article has a lot of good stuff. I have heard more encouraging news as well, but I can't find any links at the moment - but there were no American deaths from combat in Baghdad (a first) and last month saw the fewest deaths of American soldiers ever during the war.
As well, apparently one commander began sending troops in his province home, and is now down to about 500 (again no link, sorry :S ), and this by his own power saying the situation is firmly under control and ready for them to move out.

Now let's see what milestones come tomorrow, if any, though I think there will be a few.

McCain landslide shaping up?

It sounds way too good to be true, but some reports are showing McCain doing far better than mainstream polls are indicating.

Zogby reports that on Friday (only, no 3 day average) McCain surged into the lead, 48-47%, with undecided's beginning to break heavily for McCain - I have seen reports that the margin may be as high as 4 to 1.

There is also a poll out, supposedly from GOP internal polls, that indicates McCain having a larger than 20% lead in PA, an 8 point lead in New Jersey, a 10+ point lead in Michigan, and within a point in California. (link)

While this sounds the most far-fetched of anything I have seen yet, and I was ready to dismiss it mostly when I read it, I found some other links that seems to verify the trends it represents, if not the actual number themselves.

As well, Paul Marston (hats off to Casey's Critical Thinking blog for the link) predicts McCain will win by at least 42 electoral votes, due primarily to PUMA voters.

Finally, there was a post at redstate.com that supposedly was from a former Hillary Clinton staffer turned Barack Obama staffer.

In it she explains the 4 "true weaknesses" of the Obama campaign.

Here is a link for the full thing, but there are some interesting parts I would like to point out.

First, the four weaknesses themselves:

1. Hillary voters - apparently the Obama campaign has internal data suggesting they are only getting about 75% of them...
2. Sarah Palin - really threw them a curve ball when she was picked, they have fumbled it since the outset and are now seeing some negative reactions from it.
3. Obama's radical connections - apparently it doesn't play well with voters to see the full line-up of Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi, etc.
4. The "Bradley Effect" - they seem to think it is going to be as much as 10 points they have to accept as lost to it.

Now, there really isn't much new here from first glance, regardless of whether this is a real report, or a fake.

The post goes on to point out how many of the mainstream polls are receiving as high as 80% "refusal to respond" results - and that the majority of the RTR's are McCain supporters. Combine that with the already known issue of some polls taking a much higher sampling of Democrats as it is, and you can get some pretty skewed results.

Now, if that above statement is true, that could indicate the numbers being reported in the GOP internal poll are perhaps more accurate than not.

Again, I think the above results are a bit too good to be true, but they are interesting to think about.

Let's see what happens if we try to quantify and apply all these "biases" in the polls:

1. Assuming for the moment that the Bradley effect is real, we'll put it at 4 points (considering the peak to be about 10 points 20 years ago, and an apparent weakening of the effect since then).
   
2. Now assuming it is correct that up to 80% of people contacted for polls refuse to respond in some polls, and there is a bit in all, we will put it at about 50% average at least refuse to respond.
   
3. Next, assuming it is accurate that a majority of the refusals to respond are McCain supporters (ok, now how can they really know that?) let's put it at 60% for McCain - which means a total disregarding of about 10% of McCain support (20% more RTR for McCain for 50% total refusals...).
   
4. Finally, assuming Democrats are indeed sampled 15 points more than Republicans, we will subtract away 7 points for the approximate weighting of Democrats to Republicans as reported by rasmussen, that leaves us with an 8 point bias to Democrats.
   

Taking the math that way - rasmussen currently reporting a 51-46% lead for Obama - it would not be hard to get it to McCain having a 52-45% lead after factoring in just the Bradley effect and the sampling bias. If we also include the refusal to respond bias for McCain, it could be as much as 57-40%.

Now, all those numbers are pure conjecture on my part, but it is liberals who keep going on and on about the Bradley effect, not me. If we take my number for that effect alone, then the race is basically tied, with Obama having an insignificant 1 point lead.

So I think, for the purposes of trying to understand that data, that bit of math is at least good for showing how skewed the polls could/might be - whether they are really or not we will have to wait for Tuesday to truly see, but this just confirms for me that this is indeed very much McCain's race to win or lose now.

Will it be a landslide? I doubt it.

Will McCain pick up the states he needs to win? I think it is plausible, if not likely.

Go McCain!

3 days to go...

In my previous post I remarked on how it was now McCain's race to win, as it had been Obama's to lose and he blew it.

Apparently the things he had already done weren't enough for him though.
Now, Obama has come out saying anyone who doesn't support his "redistribution of wealth" plan is "selfish".

The polls continue to move in McCain's favor as well, as he now clearly has the momentum in the race.
From rasmussen McCain has now moved to within in 4 points in Pennsylvania, a large movement from just two weeks ago, not to mention a month.
As well, on a variety of issues (economy, national security, taxes and social security) he is now trusted more than Obama. He is also now tied at 47% with Obama on the issue of Iraq.
Obama does still lead on a few key issues, such as ethics, balancing the budget, energy and the environment.
But what these polls show is that McCain truly has been successful in not only stealing Obama's thunder on the economy, which was arguably Obama's strongest point - and McCain's weakest, he has also regained the publics trust on the issues that he is strong in, but Obama had surpassed him in with his large surge.

Does anyone else notice (or rather, not) Biden?
I haven't seen him out campaigning very much anymore since his last gaffe, at the very least not on the scale of Sarah Palin.
Even McCain is getting out more than Obama from what I am seeing. That can't be a good sign for Obama.

I am only hoping McCain wins, or, if Obama comes out on top, he really makes good on his word, and everything is all fine and dandy...
The only problem with that is, I don't want another Bush.
I think he has ruined a lot of our government.
Now we have a candidate who we know even less of, promising things just as grand or more, and I'm supposed to just trust him to make everything right.
Yeah, that's a good idea, just see where that got us last time...

The final stretch...

With 5 days to go, it is now John McCain's race to win.

Before this week it was primarily Barack Obama's race to lose, and I think he has.

With the Dow rising again this week, Joe the Plumber (more importantly Obama's response) surfacing the other week, the video of Rashid Khalidi the LA Times won't release (probably causing more damage for Obama than less),  McCain being able to get the race topic back, at least a bit, to his stronger point on security, and Biden being almost totally ineffective due to his gaffes.

McCain has been able to take Obama's probably strongest point, the economy, and take command of that issue, to some degree, with Joe the Plumber and his being able to portray Obama as a tax raiser, while he will cut taxes for everyone.

Every chance Obama has had to blow the race he has taken.

Now, with the polls closing, Republicans are getting more and more enthusiastic, as they are seeing again that we can win.

McCain is looking better and better and more comfortable, and Sarah Palin is looking more confident and in command every day.

Then we have Obama's infomercial last night. I only watched the first 10-20 minutes of it, but it doesn't look like it will change the race at all. Primarily it was other people speaking of their troubles and him commenting on it - in fact, the highest point of the whole thing for those polled was when he commented on someone losing their retirement, which is all fine and good, but he didn't go on in detail on ho he would actually help fix that issue.

There were a few scattered moments when he got back to policy.

I noted he has again changed his designation of "well-off" to $200,000 a year, down from $250,000  a year.

There were many other spin statements made, here is a link to an AP fact check on it:

AP fact check

All in all, that is why I think the race is now McCain's to win, Obama made a desperate attempt at closing the deal last night, and he didn't do it, now is McCain's turn, let's see how he does.

2 weeks to go...

Lot's of happenings these last few days.

Biden made a serious gaffe on Sunday, which McCain has already begun to use in his speeches. (link)
Basically, Biden said that the world is watching this election, and if Obama wins, he will be tested with a "generated crisis" to test his mettle.
Obama supporters are trying to spin this to mean that the generated crisis in Iraq will test whoever wins.
The problems with that, though, is that Biden specifically said Obama several times, clearly and was not talking about "either candidate", and he was referring to a new crisis that will be generated specifically to test of Obama.
Hard to spin that gaffe...

A new poll was released by the Military Time (link) shows support for McCain at an overwhelming 67% to Obama's 23%.

Rasmussen also (link) shows McCain slowly beginning to gain momentum again. Joe the Plumber and Joe the Senator are giving McCain his best shot at this he has had in ages I think.
Obama still boasts 50% support, but that is down from his peak of 53% a few weeks back. McCain is up as many points as Obama is down, and is now within 4 points again.

Another person who is helping McCain is Representative John Murtha, who backtracked from his blanket "Western Pennsylvania is a racist area" to stating that there are a large number of rednecks, but that it was worse years ago - as if that is a bad thing.
If anything will get the Republican vote out more than anything it is people continually calling them dumb racists.

Some Humor...

Well, this campaign has been getting rather heated, so I think everyone must have agreed it is a time for a truce, and a little self examination (read bashing).

Tonight McCain and Obama "squared off" in their final meeting. The subject? Humor.
There were some good ones from both, but you have to watch to really get them all, but it is definitely worth it...

McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRSmQqw65Pg

Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SWQJWm6Tg


Now after that, for a little dumb voter humor (I can't find the one from about the protesters at the GOP convention, but this one is funny too)

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/999596/

Final Presidential debate...

This was by far McCain's strongest showing - in my view as well as others (including Democrats).

I think McCain actually won this debate, in that he made more points, he was on the offense more, and he actually gave specifics (such as which government programs he would cut).
Obama was more eloquent (though he did stutter a bit as he was trying to phrase tough answers so as not to offend anyone) and survived.

In the end that may be all that matters - McCain didn't destroy Obama, thus he lost the event (not the debate, but the night).

Frank Luntz' ran a focus group as well during the debate. Most of the people in the group (all moderate undecideds) said Obama won, but only 4 out of 23 said they now supported Obama.
McCain's biggest points came when he told Obama "I am not George Bush, if you waned to run against George Bush you should have run four years ago."
For Obama it came when he highlighted how he hoped the atmosphere of the campaigns for the next few weeks should be.

Should be interesting to see how this plays - but I don't think McCain will get a large boost from this, but I don't think Obama will either.
The difference is though that McCain needed it, Obama didn't.

Barack Obama is a socialist...

Following Obama's notorious statement about "spreading the wealth around is good for everyone" (link) - and the obvious socialist tint of that, some new information has come out about his past political associations.

Remember when everyone made that big fuss about Todd Palin being a registered member of a radical third party in Alaska? Well now it has been shown that he was a member of the "New Party" (established by the Democratic Socialists of America) - a party that has been proven unconstitutional. Funny how it is so big an issue for the spouse of the VEEP canidate being part of a radical third party, but not when it is the actual POTUS candidate from the other side...

When the news of this first came out Barack Obama was quick to say that he had been endorsed, but never a member of the party, and that he couldn't control who supported him or not.
This is untrue.
Following the links in this article (politicallydrunk and American Thinker) it is clear that he was indeed an active member of the party and sought out their endorsement.

The first part of his statement that he was not a member was thus a lie, and the second part is untrue, because if he actively sought out their endorsement then he did have control over their supporting him, at least to an extent.

The article also reveals that the party then systematically attempted to cover up this connection, purging articles from websites.


Another interesting note (from this link) reveals that by 1995 ACORN was at the same time the biggest asset for the New Party, supplying a large number of registrations every month.
By 1996 ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body.

Obama was the council representing ACORN in 1995, and from 1995 - 1999 (the same year that the new party was found unconstituional and died) he led the CAC which supplied funding to ACORN and was the brain child of Bill Ayers. He remained on the board until 2001.

From all this it is clear that Obama was a member of a radical Socialist Party. It is also clear, once again, that he has lied on an important issue and has proven once again that you can't trust him at face value.


EDIT:
It is a little difficult to find anything about Obama and the New Party on the web at this point, but the old google (link) which was released recently, shows what google looked like in early 2001 - with links to the web archive for any pages you find with it...
It has revealed some interesting things so far...

Obama not walking the walk on Women's pay...

Barack Obama continues to attack John McCain on the issue of equal pay for equal work for women.
While this is all well and good, maybe he should start doing what he is speaking...

In Obama's Senate office, women staff make 83 cents on the dollar what men are paid.
Of his top 5 payed staff, only one is a woman, and of his top 20 only 7 are women. (source/link - cbsnews, and JohnMcCain.com)

Compare this to John McCain's 17 male employees who were payed on average nearly 2000 less than his 25 female employees. (same links)


This is just another example of the Obama campaign using made-up issues (and outright lying) to attack John McCain and Sarah Palin.
When the Obama campaign actually starts to "walk the walk" I will accept their line about being the issue and fact based campaign.
Until then, perhaps they should do a little self-examination.

McCain's in trouble...

Well, following the last debate I had the distinct impression Obama won (yes, you read the correctly).
McCain just seemed very... off, and little whiny (part of that is just how he talks as it is, but still...).
Obama on the other hand seemed Presidential and ready to tackle these issues.

While I still disagree with him on a lot of issues, and i still don't think he has the experience, and I still don't believe he truly is ready to handle all these issues as President, I have to hand this performance to him.
So I see the debates to have gone a tie for the first, a tie for the second (Palin/Biden) and a clear Obama victory for the second.

Now, McCain claims he is going to "whip" Obama's "you-know-what" at this next and last debate.
He sure needs to to even have a chance at this point.


Following the polls from rasmussen they seems remakably stable - Obama has had 50-52% support for weeks, and McCain has had 44-45% in the same period.
The closest they have been in that period were following the VEEP debate and today, with Obama at 50% and McCain at 45% support.
That is really bad news for McCain.

Another unsettling trend in the polls - in most of the swing states that were close before, Obama has opened large leads.
In only two has McCain gained any ground since Obama's surge - Indiana and Virginia.
Virginia he is still down but competitively inside the margin of error now, and in Indiana he has extended his lead to make it pretty solidly in his favor.

So that's about it for the polls, now for other interesting occurances since my last post...


McCain tried to tone down the attacks on Obama a bit, instead pointing out a few of his good features. Obama responded by thanking McCain and pointing out some things good about McCain, and thanking him for his service to the country.
Both comments were met with boos (and a few cheers too, but not as many).
I guess people on both sides would prefer the divisiveness we have now instead of getting to the meat of some of these issues.

Which is something that bothers me tremendously. On the campaign trail candidates really don't have a lot of time to go into great detail on what they plan to do. Neither do they get the chance in these 90 second response debates.
A lot of the time we have to wait for them to get elected to Congress (or the Presidency) before you really know what they plan to do, and by that point it is really hard to figure out exactly what people proposed or what all was in a bill the voted for and how it will effect you.
Just think how Bush said a lot of good things, but then his idea of implementing them has been really stupid.
I think we need a plain old debate that is set to run for longer (a lot longer) than the current ones. And then give the candidates some actual time to debate the issues - only moving on once they are finished.

I don't know if that is possible, but it sure would be interesting I think.


Another thing that happened last week - Palin wore a white dress (again, oh no!) - which, to some, meant she was being racist.
I guess that means Michelle Obama is a white suppremacist too, as she wears white often...
And Palin must be a black suppremacist the days she wears black.
Really quite stupid...


And now, to the really interesting occurance - the Palin investigation report.

It claims that it was perfectly legal and within her power to dismiss the state commisioner - like she has been saying all along.

It then goes onto say that she abused her power as a state official in her (and her husbands) attempt to get a state trooper fired.
It claims that the commisioners failure to discharge the state trooper was a contributing factor to him being dismissed (or reassigned actually I think...) - but not the sole reason.
In this she apparently broke a state ethics law that states that one may not use official action for personal reasons.

Now, I can understand this if the only reason she had given for attempting to get the state trooper fired because of his divorce from her sister.
But this is not the case.
This state trooper had tasered one of his step children, illegally killed several moose, driven drunk in a patrol car, and other issues.
The document states that these (and not the personal "he was involved in a bitter divorce with Palin's sister") were the primary complaints raised against him.
Now, I do not see where complaining about a state trooper not being fired due to conduct (and illegal actions) falls under that state ethics bill.

Either way, though, the report does not think anything "illegal" was done, nor does it push for any criminal investigations or any sanctions.
So, how can she have violated a state ethics law if she had done absolutely nothing illegal?

The first two debates...

Following the first Presidential debate, Obama has opened a large lead, both nationally and in many key battleground states.
The polls have now remained steady for a week - so the only conclusion I can reach is Obama did indeed win the first debate.

McCain did far better than I was anticipating, and it looked like point for point he got in more hits on Obama - but obviously the American audience disagreed.


Now, following the VEEP debate, I think McCain will rebound in the polls, at least moderately, if only until the next Presidential debate.

The reason's being are simple.
First, I think Obama is already above the real ceiling of support he can get, being around 50-51% steadily across several polls.
Second, nothing Palin did will have put off anyone who had not already written her off to begin with.
Third, Biden did nothing, in my opinion, to gain any kind of new support for Obama.

That leaves things to remain as they are, or go in the direction of McCain.

I think they will move in his direction, though, because it appears most people agree Palin won the debate. She appeared far more knowledgeable than most gave her credit for, and she was successful at attacking Obama/Biden several times.

Frank Luntz held a focus group during the debate that was split evenly between people who went for Kerry and Bush in 2004.
When asked who won the debate, all but, to my count, 3 or 4 people said it was Palin.
Also, the most well-received statement in this (or even in the first debate as well, if I recall correctly) came from Palin.

On the other hand, Luntz' focus group during the first debate gave Obama the win, as well as the best line.

Also, the response from Democrats, that I have seen, has been far more subdued this time than with the Presidential debate - which for me is a clear indicator of who really won.
A lot of them are saying she did absolutely nothing but avoid questions and get back to her talking points.
But that is also exactly what Biden did throughout.
Is it a good style - yes, and no.
I disagree with it because I would prefer to see more substance, but, it appears to work with people, and the sound-bytes play well in the media, so I'm not surprised.

So I think that without doubt, this will be reflected positively in the polls in a few days once they begin to register it.
It may disappear again with the next debate, but we will have to see.

Well done Governor Palin!

Joe Biden...

He seems to be in quite a pickle - and for good reason.

When he was first picked I was actually quite pleased - but not in the same way as some Republicans were, in that he is gaffe prone.
I actually quite liked Biden - because he seemed a lot more experienced, reasonable and better on the issues that matter to me than the other Democrats who had run for the presidency.

But the more I listen to him, the more I am starting to think "What on Earth?"


Now he has really started to show his true colors.
Even Obama is starting to get worried I think, because, with everyone already complaining that Palin is inaccessible to the media, and not in the limelight and whatnot, Biden has really been pulled back, and hasn't been as visible now for a few weeks.

So let's look at some of his most recent statements that have caused this situation for him.

Paying higher taxes is the patriotic duty of wealthy Americans...
This is seriously weird.
The founding fathers of our nation were the wealthy, and when England decided to start raising taxes on them (and the rest of the states) because of their economic turmoil - they stood up and said no.
Were they unpatriotic?
Is it really "patriotic" to pay a larger percent of taxes so that we can keep going with the same policies we have had for years?
Spend more, more special programs, more this, more that.
I say enough.

There is more than enough tax-payer money going into Washington already.
What would truly be the patriotic response to this turmoil would be to cut government expenses, and get back to small government principles.
If we keep on just adding more and more departments and programs and spending to the government, then, frankly, we will always need to raise taxes.
It will never be enough.

We cannot get out of debt if we keep on spending more and more.
While raising taxes on the rich will provide a short term "quick fix" for the problem, it won't be able to last unless we work on the parts of government that are failing.

Patriotism is not giving everything you get to your government to keep it on it's feet, so that it can give a "fair share" to everyone, that is communism.


Biden attacked Obama's new ad portraying McCain as out of touch merely because he is not computer literate.
Then - the campaign released a statement that he had not yet even seen the ad - so he was in no position to comment as he did, and that he now agrees with the ad.
Please - either he is simply trying to destroy Obama for whatever reason - or he knew what he was talking about and now is trying to cover is rear region.


While in Virginia on Saturday - Biden stated that Obama most certainly was not against the Second Amendment right to bear arms - and that he would have an issue if Obama tried to take away his guns.
In actuality, Obama endorsed the Illinois state gun ban.
Obama believes state or local government can constrain the exercise of the right to bear arms.
So, basically, Obama's position is to support the Second Amendment, but allow states to restrict it.
Read more here.

You know, it is really funny, Democrats are always complaing when someone says "Leave that to the states", "That is a state, and not a federal responsibility", etc.
With this, though, he is saying it is ok for a state to go blatantly against the Constitution. How would they respond if a state enacted a law banning all abortions?


Biden has also stated that Hillary Clinton may have been a better VEEP pick...
Ouch - I guess that just shows how good Obama's ability to make important decisions is... even the person he picked thinks he made a dumb move.


Now Obama has chided Biden for voicing opposition to the federal bailout of AIG.
I guess even Obama is finally realizing he just plain doesn't mesh well with Biden...


Biden recently stated that neither he nor Obama support clean coal, when, well, Obama does. Then,once again, he flipped around once he realized that he had just gone contrary to his own campaign...


With all that speaking opposite of his own campaign - it can't really be a surprise that Biden is being kept a little low-profile at the moment.

It shall be interesting to see how this goes from here - but I think Palin may actually have a good chance in a debate now, if Biden can't keep from gaffeing up all the time...

Obama's lucky stars...

With a lot of people commenting lately about how he being black has been a major contributor to why he is not absolutely destroying John McCain in the polls, I started getting rather annoyed.

Personally, I would suggest that he start thanking his lucky stars that everyone thinks he is an African-American, instead of complaining about people voting against him because he is an African-American.
There are an awful lot more Americans would vote against him if they knew he were an Arab-American than are voting against him because he is an African-American.

It is really quite hilarious sometimes, any time someone raises a question about his ethnicity (being Arab not African), his religion (being raised by Muslims and attending a Muslim school), or his name (being Barry Soetoro and others) they are ridiculed beyond belief. It is off-limits to question him on just about anything, except for some policy issues.

Which may not be all that bad - I mean we are voting based on policies and where we want this country to go, but, the problem is - can we trust Obama?

I keep thinking back to G.W. Bush - he was supposed to be the conservative candidate - and ran as such against McCain.
In the end, though, he has not followed through on that.

There have been very few things he has actually done that he promised really.

Now we have a candidate in Barack Obama, and even if you disagree with his views and whatnot, who is claiming he can fix America.
He is promising that we will be out of Iraq ASAP, we will commit more to Afghanistan and try and gte out of there soon and that will be that.
He is promising to bring the economic crisis under control.
He is promising to increase America's standing in the world.
And he is also promising to take America down a more liberal road.

Now when you look at that list, it is an impressive goal - I may not agree with it all, but it is still an impressive goal.

How, though, do we know he truly is looking out for what is best for us?
How do we know he won't become so consumed in the Middle East that he will lose sight of those promises?

If he truly is half (or close to it) Arab, he truly went under different names, he attended Muslim schools, he was not born in the USA, or any of these other attacks, then he has lied to the American people - and we should seriously be wondering if he is looking out for us.
If none of those are factual then fine, he should be able to prove it extremely quickly - but he has not.
He should be counting his lucky stars that these things have not become big issues - that no one is asking any questions about them - because he has not been able to answer them yet, and that is one of two major problems I have with him.

There are too many questions that have been raised that he has not answered for me to feel confident about his honesty.
The other big issue for me is, he has not had even close to the experience necessary to make me feel confident in his leadership.

Leadership and Honesty - those are my biggest issues.
John McCain has not led a perfect life - but he is as honest as any national politician I have seen.
He has proven for longer than Obama has been eligible to vote that he can be and is a leader.


John McCain - the right choice if you want honesty and leadership in the Presidency again.
Barack Obama - the right choice if you want a "messiah" with no credentials...

McCain's pick is looking more and more Brilliant...

New polling data from rasmussen, this being the first day to really take into account Sarah Palin's speech, has some interesting results.
First, she is now viewed favorably by 58% of voters, compared to 57% apiece for McCain and Obama, and only 48% for Biden.
Second, McCain is now back to within one point of Obama, trailing 46% to 45%, and, I would like to mention, this poll does not yet take into account the effects of McCain's speech or the end of the Convention.
This means that before the end of the Republican convention, McCain/Palin had already negated all bounce Obama/Biden got last week.

It seems her speech was liked very well, and, expecially considering she had to wing it for almost half the speech with the teleprompter being messed up, I am really impressed. Her second national speech and she is doing awesome - if this is her as inexperienced and unkowledgeable on the issues - I can't wait to see how she does when she is an expert...

Now to see how well McCain's speech played. I think it will do quite well actually - it was meant to appeal to moderates and independants - and it had plenty of actual policy specifics to let people think about what his presidency would bring, but not enough that he overdid it.

John McCain's speech...

I thought he did a really good job, considering the crowd kept drowning him out every sentence to paragraph - and often in the middle of a sentence.

I think it had way more substance than Palin's, but wasn't delivered as well.
But Palin's goal was to introduce herself, and for that substantive, policy discussions are not as necessary.

McCain ended on a particularly good high note I think, even better than how Palin's ended.
He had a stream of lines culminating around the theme of "Stand up!". And the crowd was roaring after the first, and continued throughout the whole list. And for me it was nice to see McCain continuing on, over the roar of the crowd to continue - it really got me fired up.

Very well done Senator. Now let's go elect you, and get these changes we all need, and hear so much about, actually accomplished!

You go Governor Palin!

What an incredible speech this was. The policy, the points, the wit and humor, the attacks and defenses. It was perfect, or very close.
The audience was one their feet more often than not.

In that speech she really looked VEEP, or even POTUS material.
The way she described her approach, and McCain's approach to politics and issues was delivered very well.

And the one liners - wow. Usually I don't like them much as they really don't get to the heart of the issue well in most cases, but she had so many really good ones, that did get to the heart of the issue, it was really incredible, and it was probably a good thing she stopped when she did.

Some of my favorites.
"Some people use change to advance their career, and some use their career to advance change."

"Here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion — I'm going to Washington to serve the people of the country"

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

Really an awesome speech, and, between her and Giuliani, I think this was far more electrifying than anything the DNC delivered last week.
The organizers at the speech couldn't control the crowd, trying to get people to sit down after they had been clapping and cheering and chanting various mantras for some time, and the people kept going.
This even makes me think that she may be able to go toe-to-toe with Biden, and maybe even steal the show from him. If she can be as straight as she was tonight, if she can cut to the issues, then I would tell Biden watch out - she is one tough woman.

Well done, Governor. And G-d bless you!

EDIT:
Here is a transcript:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94118910

Biden better get it in writing!

Well, I missed most of the speakers tonight - but I've been watching Rudy Giuliani - and he has been rocking - I can't wait to see Palin after this!

And he has highlighted one of th worst traits of Obama - change position every different day.
Accept federal funds, then not.
Support an undivided Jerusalem, then not the next day.
And the list goes on...
As Giuliani says, Biden better get that VEEP deal in writing.

On foreign policy, from Iraq to Georgia and Russia, to China, to Iran.
Obama has gotten it wrong, after stating he would do it the right way.
And John McCain has not shifted his position -and it was the right position the whole time.
As Giuliani says, Obama, before you discuss foreign policy, talk to John McCain!


McCain has sacrificed for this country, has served in the Senate, working on important legislature, working with anyone who wanted to help America.
Obama was a community organizer, and a "present vote" politician before his only term in the Senate.


It is time. We need a leader who has already been tested, and we know has passed with flying colors.
We need to elect someone who knows what he believes, and has not waivered on these beliefs even when it was not politically correct!

Well done Rudy, and, as he says, let's elect John McCain and Sarah Palin!

The Republican Convention...

Well, I totally missed the first day, and was really bummed out, as Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman were slated to speak Monday...
Then I woke up this morning and saw that I hadn't missed them, they'd been moved to Tuesday!

So, I started watching just as Fred Thompson stepped up. He definitely looked healthier and more energetic than during the campaign.
I really liked his speech, though I thought it might be nice if he were to elaborate on some details better. It was really cool that he linked McCain's POW experience to his character, and made the distinction that it doesn't mean he should be president sense he was a POW - this helps get away from people like frmr. President Carter saying he is milking it for all it is worth.
It was also nice to see how he was able to show how gov. Palin does have more experience than Obama as well, as that has been something I have been seeing the media attack Palin for as well.

Lieberman's speech was quite good as well. I've come to really like him recently, but I was nervous he was speaking at the RNC in such a prime-time slot (or at all really). He seemed to pull it off reasonably well. It wasn't as stirring as Thompson's, but the message was good, and it appealed to me, and obviously to the people in the stadium too.
It was also quite nice to see him hit Obama a bit for his inexperience and "not reaching over the aisle" - as I get really annoyed anymore with him saying we all need to come together. Obama's version of together is everyone come to his side and be quiet and listen.

Once everything was said and done, I really wished it would continue, and usually I don't feel that way about conventions - so I think tonight went really well.
I will be interested to see now how the other speakers do now tomorrow...

Barack Obama - illegal immigrant?

A while back a forensic expert apparently proved that Obama's birth certificate was forged. (read the analysis here)
Now there is a lawsuit in federal court (link) started by a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter.

He also, reportedly, has had several other names, "Barry Soetoro", etc. Thus he was lying in his bar application in Illinois when he stated he has never gone under any other name.
He was adopted in Indonesia, and the lawsuit linked above contends that this negates any citizenship he might have had. I have no idea on this one but once you are a citizen, don't you keep that your whole life (assuming it isn't revoked)?

And then we get to the heart of the issue.
If he is not a natural born citizen, obviously he can't be president.
Not only that, but obviously he has not immigrated here (or at least hasn't stated he has) ... so, that would make him an illegal immigrant... and thus he would not even be eligible to be a senator...


It will be interesting to see how this turns out, but this could be a big problem for Obama, unless he manages to provide some answers.

This should be interesting...

Well, McCain picked Sarah Palin. While I was hoping for Eric Cantor, Palin was my third favorite, after Romney. I just don't think she will bring as much in terms of experience or help in key states as the other two.

Clearly McCain is hoping Palin will appeal to a wide range of people, from Clinton supporters who were hoping for the first woman, to conservatives looking for someone to add a little excitement to the ticket, to independants who wanted to make sure McCain would pick a Veep who was just as willing to take on corrupt politicians from either party, and be willing to work with Democrats to get things done.

When I first turned on the news this morning I was really quite shocked, and a little worried that McCain had picked her. I just don't think she has the experience needed. And I am very nervous about how well she will be able to go toe-to-toe with Biden.

She hasn't had to take on serious Democratic opponents yet, as far as I have seen, as Alaska is a very Red state.
Biden has been debating in the Senate since Palin was 9 years old.
Watching her speech this morning, it was plain, that while it was a great speech, and she is a talented speaker, she was also very nervous. McCain kept encouraging her along - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it shows she has little experience speaking on a national level, and that may hurt her.
So, I will be very interested to see how well she will fare against Biden.

Also, the fact that she is a pro-life woman, may be more threatening to Clinton supporters than men who are that way - so she may end up alienating them more than bringing them in.

Another thing is, she is not going to help much in any of the swing states for McCain, unlike Cantor or Romney would have. She may bring in some Clinton supporters, but, in the end, it is all about the electoral vote, not the popular.
Clinton supporters will definitely help with the latter, but I have doubts as to how much the will assist with the former.


I think McCain just decided the election with this selection. If Palin winds up being able to do well against Biden, and is able to bring in a lot of Clinton's former supporters, and she does well in the other areas McCain needs her, then he will win.
But if she can't handle Biden, or can't deliver Clinton supporters in key states, then it will be an uphill battle for McCain.

The other problem with her some people have voiced is that she is currently under investigation from her state senate.
Basically, they are saying she fired someone because he failed to fire a state trooper who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister.
The trooper reportedly threatened to kill her father (and Palin's), tasered his 11 year old stepson, and violated game laws.
Palin asserts that she did not fire the official for this, but instead because he had failed to fill State Trooper vacancies, and because he did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues.

I think this is the weakest point against her though, considering the problems Obama has had with this kind of thing, and the problems Biden has had as well, this should not be a serious issue, especially considering the person in charge of the investigation into Palin's dismissal stated that commissioners serve at will, thus she could fire them at any time, it does not appear this will cause any lasting difficulty for her.

Who will be McCain's VP pick...

After Obama picked Biden it has become even clearer that the VP's may well decide this race. With McCain and Obama about even in every poll, it may come down to wh picks the better VP.

I think Biden was the best choice for Obama. For numerous reasons, but for me personally because Biden was my personal favorite of the Dems - which isn't saying much I know. Another reason is his experience will help Obama a lot.

For McCain then it is down to 3 or 4 choices I think.

First, Mitt Romney is the one I personally would like most, or second most. The biggest problem with him, though, is that with McCain hammering Biden about his criticism of Obama and support for McCain, Obama will be able to say the exact same thing about Romney and McCain, as I don't think they really like each other much - and they were very heated during the primaries.
On the good side though, he will certainly help in Michigan, Colorado, Nevada, etc. And you know he would be willing to go toe-to-toe with Biden.

Then you have Tom Ridge. I think this is a very bad idea, mainly because McCain has not assured the vote of a lot of conservatives, and Ridge would only alienate more. The one good thing he brings with him is a good shot at Pennsylvania...

You also have Eric Cantor, I think. He is the other that I would like most. The reason he is better than the other younger possibilities is because he does have some more experience, he will help with the Jewish vote in some places, and because he will help in Virginia, another must-win for McCain. He will also help with conservatives.

Finally, there is the possibility he might pick Pawlenty. I think this would be the worst, as I don't think he'll bring Minnesota, and I don't see what he would bring to the ticket. Also I hear he is not as a good a debater - which the VP must be this time around.

There are probably other choices too, but I think their bad points out-weigh their good ones.
Rudy Giuliani will add nothing but more scandals.
Joe Lieberman will not add anything McCain needs with Republicans - and while he might bring in a few Independents, will that offset the conservatives who could not swallow the Republican party adding a past Democrat and liberal to the ticket?
Palin and Jindal, I think they won't add as much as Cantor - but who knows?
Condi Rice will only draw the parallel to Bush that McCain does not need.

I think Huckabee is also completely out of the question - he would add nothing but more problems with conservatives for McCain.


I think right now, of the choices above McCain should pick Cantor, or Palin.
Pawlenty might help if McCain thinks he really can bring in Minnesota - but I doubt it, and he doesn't strike me as a bulldog that will help outside of Minnesota either.

I think, though, in the end it will be Ridge that he picks. Mainly because he will combat Biden in Pennsylvania and because he has foreign affairs experience, and because of his pro-abortion stance he will help bring in some more of those Clinton supporters who are on the fence. I just hope he doesn't alienate conservatives too much with the choice.

The polls

Well, I woke up this morning, and I checked rasmussen as I usually do. Yesterday I received an email from John McCain's campaign about how they were expecting Obama to get a little bounce in the polls out of the DNC and Biden. And Obama had gained two points on rasmussen since he picked Biden - so I thought maybe they were right...

Now I checked this morning and McCain is once again tied with Obama - 46% apiece.
Other polls are showing a similar gain on McCain's part as well.

Another interesting thing is, rasmussen keeps track of state polls too, and they have an "electoral college" line-up of who they think will win where and whatnot...
And the awesome thing is that McCain is up from 165 to 183, while Obama is down from 210 to 193.

I noticed a similar trend when I looked to see which states had switched - and every single state in the last month has moved more Republican. From Likely Dem to Leaning, or Leaning Dem to a toss-up, or a toss-up to Leaning Rep, etc.

The best news for me, and the most disturbing for Obama, is that he is supported by only 78% of Democrats - almost a quarter do not trust him yet! 21% of Democratic women say they will be voting for McCain.
McCain has slight lead among unaffiliated voters as well.
Similarly, McCain is viewed favorably by 57% of voters nationwide, with Obama attracting 53%.

Very encouraging news, now let's hope that McCain will make the right choice for his VP.

Ok, McCain...

Well - following McCain's speech the other day - I was truly surprised.
He looked strong. He had a vision. He talked about the same change Obama is always throwing out - but also added the specifics on how we will get there.
When I saw him - it was plainly clear he knows where he stands, what he has planned, and how to get there.
He did not look flustered as he has in the past. Nor did he contradict himself - or not make sense.


When Bush spoke before the Knesset it clearly highlighted the differences between the Republicans and Democrats.
Bush said a few very good things - and the Democrats immediately took it as a personal attack against Barack Obama.
Bush merely was stating this to curb future talk of dealing with terrorists at all.
They are radical, fanatical, and want only the destruction of anyone not Muslim - but especially anyone who is Jewish.
They are beyond the understanding of westerners - because they are not acting for political reasons, defensive reasons, or any of the "modern" war-causing issues.
They fight because of their religion - they believe it is so supreme that they must fight to prove it - or they have already failed. You cannot appease or make peace with that.
The only ways to stop it are to utterly destroy it, or for those who profess it to lay it aside in the pursuit of peace.

I was most disappointed in Clinton. Seeing that she is less fanatically against Iraq as Obama, I made the foolish assumption that she would not blast this perfectly reasonable remark from president Bush.
Instead - she appears to maneuvering for the VP spot - thus she cannot very well continue blasting Obama.
McCain on the other hand feels exactly like Bush - and I know will not let Israel down due to political pressure.
I cannot say the same for Hillary or Barack.

While listening to McCain I began to realize that the purpose of the next presidency will focus mainly on the aspects of his platform that are pretty good - and less on the parts that aren't so good.


Hillary is once again looking nasty.
The only change I can see is that I realized, once again, that she was merely trying to come over to the moderate stand-point to get voters.
She has not ever been more conservative than John McCain.
And I am now pretty sure that indeed John McCain will not hinder the conservative movement as much as Hillary Clinton will.
That was the only thing really making me go for Hillary over John McCain to begin with.
I thought that perhaps Hillary would be able to galvanize Republicans into fighting against her - instead of getting some pretty liberal stuff along with the good of John McCain - and not being able to figh tour own candidate as well.



So, again, as it has so often already this campaign season, I have changed my opinion.
I now support John McCain - and will not vote for the Democrats anymore.
If John McCain made the serious blunder of selecting Huckabee (or any of the other moderate/liberal Republicans) I would be forced to look to a third party candidate - or perhaps not vote.

I do not think avoiding voting is the way to go though - as it is a responsibility, and will indeed impact our country.
I will instead eagerly await John McCain VP choice - which I would suggest he make soon - allowing him to make full use of the balancing they would hopefully provide.
I will also look to see who else will be running form the third parties.

Strange indeed...

Well, I'm back now from a break following the buildup and climax of Super Tuesday.
I haven't been posting a lot, but I certainly have been thinking a lot since then.

It is really strange how my opinions on many things have changed since I started this blog - and even since my last post.

I now think, of the three remaining contenders, that Barack Obama is by far the most dangerous.
John McCain, in my opinion, is a loose cannon, and you never know what he is going to do - and may very well be more dangerous to the conservative movement than either of the other two.
Hillary Clinton, seems to me, scarily enough, to be the only one that only looks better and better the more you investigate.

Now, there are few big things there, several of which I never thought any conservative would ever say, let alone me, but here is my reasoning.

Barack Obama speaks in very vague terms, which makes it hard to pin anything specific on him.
The scary thing about him is that he is so believable. He is the Democratic version of Reagan - very believable to everyone, even those outside his own party.
The thing that makes them different is that Reagan spoke in specifics, Obama speaks in generalizations.
Obama has virtually no foreign affairs experience, except his travels, which are not foreign affairs in my opinion.
His version of foreign affairs seems to be that you learn everything you can from these other countries, and then emulate them here, instead of trying to negotiate with other countries to protect the way of life we have now.
He wants us out of Iraq right. now. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
He supports abortion fully.
He is pro gay marriage (in fact some have stated he has had gay relations, but a lot of people seem ro consider anyone who says this to be loony...)
Beyond that, all I can pin him on is that he is rated the "most liberal senator".
Which means he is probably pretty liberal, comparable to Dennis Kucinich?


John McCain has been described as a maverick - that is a perfect description.
How many people know where he really stands on gay marriage? He has proclaimed, in the course of 5 minutes, that his views are in line with both sides of the argument!

How about abortion? He thinks it should be acceptable with no limitations in the case of rape of incest, and doesn't think testing if there actually was a rape is needed. Beyond that, he says he is pro-life, but doesn't seem talk about it a lot.

The economy? He seems to always be saying it is bad, while offering very few solutions. Beyond that, I don't think he is very good on the subject despite his adamant statements that he is (and prior to that "that he is not...").

There seem to only be two things that are clear from his statements:
1: Stay in Iraq, and possibly extend into Iran, while at the same time annoying Russia and anyone else by interfering with them.
2: He contradicts himself way too often to be an effective communicator. I hope it is merely that he doesn't communicate his ideas well, and not that he really doesn't know where he stands on the issues.

Another thing that scares me is that it seems that his entire life since he returned form Vietnam has been all about trying to get into the White House. He went into the House of Representatives very quickly - then to the Senate. He involved himself in as many important issues as he could, trying to get as many bills passed as possible - whether they were liberal, moderate or conservative seems to have had little bearing.
He ran against Bush in 2000, after he lost threatened to leave the party - even meeting with important Democrats about becoming Independent.
In 2004 he offered to run with his close friend, John Kerry, against Bush.
And this election has been a zoo that seems to have been a well-orchestrated attempt at insuring he got the nomination - and I am not being a conspiracy theorist, I will explain.

1. Rudy Giuliani stated throughout his campaign that "If I weren't in the race, I would be supporting McCain".


2. Fred Thompson entered the race at the precise moment when it looked like McCain was done and Giuliani and Romney were the only two serious contenders.


3. Previously, before entering, Thompson had been making phone calls on behalf of McCain, and supporting him.


4. In 2000, Thompson endorsed McCain over Bush, and even became one of his campaign co-chairmen.


5. Huckabee worked with McCain to attack Romney, and defend each other.


6. Thompson and Giuliani seemed to slow there campaigns, and then quit, as soon as McCain began to take a lead.


7. Once it was down to McCain, Huckabee and Romney, McCain and Huckabee began sharing delegates from states, to make sure that one of them would beat Romney. Such as in West Virginia where Romney had nearly 50% on his own (about 45-47%), McCain instructed all of his delegates to go to Huckabee, thus giving him the majority.

While I supported Thompson, that chain of events seems highly suspect, and at the very least rather coincidental.



Hillary Clinton is the Republicans worst nightmare, or so we've been told.
At least with Clinton, you know most of the bad stuff there is to know about her - and it isn't really that much worse than Obama or McCain, in fact, it is often better.

She is not as bad as Obama on most issues - she wants an ordered retreat from Iraq - even stating that we might need to be there until 2010.
She is wishy-washy on things, but no more than McCain who changes his mind mid-sentence more often than he says it right the first time, or Obama who rarely has an opinion at all, let alone a wishy-washy one.

While she is for abortions, she is also for parental notification and against late-term, partial birth abortions.
On immigration she is definitely no worse than the other two, if not better.
On foreign policy - she is not as bad as Obama, but also not so interested as McCain about getting into a world war.

She is indeed bad on gay marriage, but how much worse than the other two?



These issues have raised some interesting questions for me.
While I supported Thompson, I find his actions highly suspicious.
While I never thought I would say this, I'm not sure McCain is better than Hillary.
My views on Obama have gone from the "He seems to be saying good things" to "wow, how did I ever believe him, and not look deeper?"

So, at this point (though it seems my points never last more than a while ;) ) I will vote for McCain over Obama.
But if the Democrats pick Hillary I will need to think a bit more - but I am leaning towards Clinton.

Right now, it looks like Hillary will be both easier for McCain to beat and also better than Obama should McCain lose.

I know that recent polls have shown Hillary shooting up past McCain - but McCain is also not attacking Hillary anymore - so I'm not sure how much I would trust those numbers.

If McCain picks Huckabee as his running mate - or any other moderate VP - I will not be voting Republican.
Whether I would go to Hillary, or vote third-party, I don't know, but McCain is scary enough as is, we don't need them together...

Looks like it's going to be...

McCain/Huckabee against Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton or something, take your pick...).

Huckabee won the first Super Tuesday state, West Virginia, when John McCain's campaign ordered his delegates to swing to Huckabee to propel him past Romney, who had nearly 50% or the vote on his own.

It now is clear that McCain and Huckabee are working to destroy Romney together.

They tag-teamed him in Iowa and NH, they covered each other in Michigan and S.C.
They blasted him in Michigan and Florida.
And now, they are making sure that if Romney is winning a state, their delegates go to the stronger of the two and make sure it is Huckabee or McCain who wins...

If this pans out to a McCain/Huckabee ticket, I am voting democrat.

Now that Fred is out...

After Fred left, I felt rather disappointed, but I soon came to the conclusion that I should find another candidate to support, because I did not want Huckabee, Giuliani or Paul to be the nominee, and voting for Thompson would in essence be a vote against the more conservative alternatives.

I had by that point already narrowed the choice to McCain or Romney.
So, I decided I would investigate them, and see if the most recurring attacks on them are true.
I knew that McCain was bad on immigration and iffy on abortion at this point, but beyond that I thought he was pretty good.
I was wrong.


John McCain:
The most recurring attack on McCain is that he is a maverick, and that he is bad on taxes and illegal immigration.

After researching McCain for a while, I have come to these determinations:
He is indeed a maverick, and is willing to do anything to get into the White House, he even thought about changing his party affiliation to Independent, following his loss to Bush in 2000 (read about it), and he also offered to run with Kerry against Bush in 2004.

He is bad on taxes, and flipped on them. He states that the Bush Tax Cuts were a foolish tax cut that only helped the rich, but he now states that we should keep them since they are already in place.
He also supported some new taxes as Senator.

He is bad on illegal immigration, but once again flipped.
He opposed the wall on the border, but when polls showed people wanted it, he said he'd build it.
He is opposed to sending all the illegals back.
In 2006 he was rated at 17% by the USBC (link to a recent article on McCain), indicating an open-borders stance.

So far, all the attacks on McCain seem to be well-founded.
But there are other areas, outside of the common attacks, where McCain is also bad.

He is not good on abortion, having voted to increase embryonic stem-cell research.
He was rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion.

He says gay marriage should be allowed (watch the video).
Though in the same video he did later say he was against it, sounds like he pulled a Hillary...
In 2006 he was rated 33% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay marriage.

For the reasons listed above, and for far more, please go to:
http://therealmccain.com/index.php


Mitt Romney:
The most recurring attack on Romney is that he is a flip-flopper.
He is a flip-flopper on abortion, gay marriage and gun rights.

Abortion.
Yes, Romney used to be pro-choice, feeling that he should not force others to hold his personal views on this issue, which are pro-life.
He came to that conclusion when a close friend died during an illegal abortion in the 70's.

In 2004, though, he had a conversion:

In 2004, Romney had a change of heart on abortion. It was triggered by a meeting with experts to help him better understand stem cell research.
"At one point, the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days.....it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality." - Mitt Romney

At that point he decided that his personal views on the matter were the only that were acceptable.
On abortion it seems that the attacks that he supported abortion were correct, but I don't think the flip-flopper attacks are quite on the mark, he genuinely converted (that is if any politician can genuinely do anything).


Gay Marriage:
This is kind of a gray area from what I have found.
He did say that he supported gays and that he would work for equality and non-discrimination. But that was at the time when gays were not under some (all?) of the anti-discrimination laws in Massachusetts, he never stated that he supported gay marriage or even civil unions.
He did once say that he supported civil unions only if marriage was the only other option available.
So it appears that the attacks on his record on gay marriage were not quite right.


Gun Rights:
Romney supported the Brady Bill and renewing the restrictions on bans on Assault weapons.
The Brady Bill seems to have been an honest attempt to make guns safer, but it doesn't work, and has just become a way for the government to control more of our rights.

Assault Weapons Ban:
Romney did indeed support this, and has now flipped on it, stating that he doesn't think we needed any new laws to make guns safer, just that we need to enforce the ones we already have.
Yes a flip, and I have seen no reason for this one except that he wants to appeal to social conservatives here.

Beyond these issues, I haven't seen a whole lot of substantive attacks on Romney. There were a few about his health-care plan and taxes vs. fees as governor.
On health care it seems he supports free-market "no mandates" solutions to get everyone insured, but I may be missing something here...
On taxes it looks like he cut them, and has always been for removing waste and cleaning up government to decrease the deficit, before ever considering new taxes.


In conclusion, I feel McCain is good on foreign policy (though I don't think we should stay in Iraq forever, there does come a point when we will no longer have anything worthwhile to do over there), he is good at cutting waste, and almost acceptable (though far from perfect) on social issues.

I do have some reservations about Romney's health care plan, and about why he is not for gun control now.
But I also feel he has flipped less than Huckabee or McCain.
And where he is a question mark on taxes/health care, McCain and Huckabee are bad.
And on the issues of abortion and gay marriage, neither Huckabee nor McCain are perfect either (Huckabee campaigned for pro-choice Democrats against pro-life Republicans while governor, he also spoke at a large pharmaceutical company that specializes in finding cures for diseases using stem cell research).
Gun Control alone seems to be the issue that Huckabee and McCain absolutely trump Romney.

But what I respect is that, unlike McCain and Huckabee, Romney does not change his record, or lie about it, or deny it.
He acknowledges his mistakes and says he has changed.
Huckabee ignores and distorts his own record tremendously.
McCain seems to be pretty consistent on a several issues, but he has twisted or backtracked on quite a few as well.

In light of these records, I have come to the conclusion that I will not vote for McCain or Huckabee if they are the nominee.
They may not be nearly as bad themselves as Hillary or Obama, but they will cause a huge rift in the Republican party, will cause the Republican party to go more liberal, and will make it very hard to win another election any time soon.
They will cause very liberal changes on most issues in Washington, and my feeling is that we should let the Democrats cause a mess if they want to, but don't let everyone blame Republicans for the higher taxes, worse economy, and terrorist attacks.
I will vote for Ron Paul over Hillary, but not Obama.

I therefor feel that Romney is the only remaining candidate who is a Reagan conservative, and the only one I can trust of the Republicans (except Paul, but I trust him to be a disaster) not to be a RINO on most issues.
I will vote for Mitt Romney in my primary, if he is still in.


A new list of the candidates in order of who I would vote for.
Note, this does not mean I will enjoy voting for Obama or Clinton.

• Mitt Romney
• Barack Obama
• Ron Paul
• Hillary Gack! Clinton
• John McCain
• Mike Huckabee

Redraft Fred Thompson in '08 or vote for Romney.

The candidates in a Star Wars setting...

My brother and I got this idea after something similar was started at blogsforfredthompson.
Basically, we took each pf the candidates, and our impressions of them, and compared them to Star Wars characters.

So, first, the Republicans.

Mike Huckabee - Senator Palpatine/Darth Sidious, because at first glance he appears to be all for the good of the country (or Republic if you are in Star Wars ;) ), thus he is not a visible threat with his several non-conservative traits, like big-government, higher taxes, poor foreign policy, which he is just waiting to reveal if everyone gives him the chance.

Rudy Giuliani - Master Luminara Unduli, because, while he is a jedi (jedi = conservative in this comparison) he has a few places where he doesn't agree with the council (mainstream conservative beliefs) and he has some personal issues. (Yes, I realize the Luminara is a female, but I Rudy was asking for that when he dressed up as a woman ;) )

John McCain - Master Qui-Gon Jinn, because, while he firmly believes he is doing the right things, on a number of subjects he disagrees with mainstream conservatism, and he has his own way of doing some things that is conflicting with what most people want.

Mitt Romney - Anakin Skywalker, because he can't decide whether he is good or evil.

Fred Thompson - Master Yoda, because, while he talks slower, and doesn't get all consumed by ambition, he has the knowledge and wisdom to lead. And, when the need arises, the passion and ability to defeat just about anyone, without getting all consumed with his power and place.

Ron Paul - Viceroy Nute Gunray, because he is all for free-trade (well, ok, the TF is only for free trade for themselves...) and because he can't stand a fight (he would rather send in a bunch of disposable droids...).



And now for the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton - General Grievous. I think this one is pretty self-explanatory, but if not, Hillary is a clear and visible threat that represents a secession from the values that have shaped our country. And because neither of them look extremely healthy...

Barack Obama - Darth Maul, because he came out of nowhere to a high position, and because he is a very visible threat.

John Edwards - Count Dooku, because, while he is very wrong in how he is going about it, he does appear to truly think he is doing the right thing.

Dennis Kucinich - Jabba the Hutt. He is against conflict (it isn't good for business if everyone dies is it?), he is for more governmental control, and he opposes most, if not all, of the morals that this country is founded upon.



Well, I think that covers most everyone, but if I forgot someone, just let me know ;)
If nothing else, this serves to make me like more the values that the media are blasting Thompson for, slow, deliberate, powerful.

And if you are wondering, I see Huckabee as the most dangerous, followed closely by Hillary and Kucinich.

Fred Thompson - may the force be with us.

Iowa: if you're ready, here comes Fred Thompson!

Thompson is doing 8 events today, 5 television and radio, and 3 are city calls to Waterloo, Cedar Rapids and Davenport.

Here is the complete line-up:

*All times central
7:30 am
Fred Thompson does a live interview on "Morning in America" with Bill Bennett

9:35 am
Fred Thompson does a live interview on "The Laura Ingraham Show"

10:45 am
Fred Thompson is a guest on Fox News' "Happening Now"

12:50 pm
Fred Thompson meets with voters at event in Waterloo, Iowa

3:15 pm
Fred Thompson meets with voters at event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa

5:00 pm
Fred Thompson does a live interview on "The Mark Levin Show." LISTEN LIVE HERE

6:00 pm
Fred Thompson meets with voters at event in Davenport, Iowa

9:00 pm
Jeri Thompson does a live interview on Fox News's "On the Record with Great Van Susteren"

10:00 pm
Fred Thompson does a live in studio interview with KCCI's Kevin Cooney and Stacey Horst in Des Moines, Iowa

It seems he is really starting to attract attention again, and the polls show it.

Zogby, which has been placing him lower than most other polls, now has him with an increase of 4 points over the week.

All other candidates are down a point or two.

If you are still unsure of who to vote for, then I highly recommend you watch this speech from Fred. It is specifically to Iowa voters - but its message is relevant to anyone.

just go here: http://fred08.com/

and then click on the video "Fred's message to Iowa voters".

It is 17 minutes long - so make sure you have the time, but it is well worth it.

Fred Thompson, the right choice if you want principled leadership in Washington.