Archive for August, 2008

Tied Again: No Lasting Bounce for Obama Camp

Posted by: Jason | August 31st, 2008 · 11:52 PM

A few new polls are out which suggest either Obama’s bounce was never there, or was short-lived by Friday’s media firestorm over the selection of Governor Sarah Palin to share McCain’s ticket.

Obama up 1 in new CNN:

On the eve of the Republican convention, a new national poll suggests the race for the White House remains dead even.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Sunday night shows the Obama-Biden ticket leading the McCain-Palin ticket by one point, 49 percent to 48 percent, a statistical dead heat.

McCain up 2 in new Zogby:

The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.

Obama up 3 in Rasmussen:

Today’s numbers show a one-point improvement for McCain, but Obama still leads 47% to 44%. When “leaners” are included, it’s Obama 49%, McCain 46%.

Full disclosure, Gallop has an Obama +6 poll. I didn’t avoid it for partisan reasons, but because it was taken “just” after the Palin pick and thus would be unrepresentative.

Being as though this race was tied going into convention row, and considering other convention bounces have been higher for traditional Democrat aftermath, shown below from Gallop, shouldn’t Obama be further along than either up three or down two?

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Notice Anything Different This Time?

Posted by: Jason | · 11:24 PM

Let’s call it like it is folks… Governor Bobby Jindal’s doing a hell of a job down there in Louisiana tonight. If you watched any of the Governor’s various press conferences today, the man is calm, informative, and in total control of the situation to the best of his ability. We can only pray it’s all that’s needed.

It’s sad, quite frankly, that Louisianans weren’t fortunate enough to have this man running the show three years ago, for after viewing his performance today, I think we’d all agree he’d of saved precious lives.

Further, in exploring the political ramifications of Hurricane Katrina–for let’s face it, with the timing of the Republican National Convention, seeing Republican response is the big elephant in the room (no pun intended) this weekend–it’s clear now that President Bush was a political victim to an ill-prepared, no-nothing incompetent Democrat Governor named Kathleen Blanco who failed at every level.

But what’s more serious, is that it’s also clear that because of a lack of preparation and effective leadership on the part of folks like Blanco and Ray Nagin at the state and local levels, hundreds of people needlessly died. Katrina and the entirity of it’s sad aftermath was not President Bush’s fault, any more than we should blame the new moon for the night’s darkness.

Politically, and let’s pray for saving lives first and foremost as we await the chaos to come for our American brothers and sisters of the south, but dare I say politically… this performance on the part of not only Governor Jindal, but Governors Barbour, Perry, Riley, and Christ alike, have put on notice the stark difference in leadership to Kathleen Blanco’s former incompetence, who not only failed to initiate the mandatory evacuation plan suggested by the federal government days in advance of Katrina, but who thought it wise to funnel a city of poor residents into a hell hole without food or water. The woman ought to be in jail!

The American people need a lesson in government. State and local authorities, such as Governor Bobby Jindal today, are in charge of such natural disasters for their own states first, only to be followed up later by the backing of the federal government upon request. And what you’re seeing now, under the leadership of Jindal, is responsible government to the fullest extent which could have been given in the preparation for Katrina.

So you see, as much as the Democrats enjoy exploiting death and tragedy for political gain as in Katrina and Iraq alike, as we’re reminded of this week in Barack Obama’s acceptance speech (because… you see… President Bush “wanted” to watch a city drown and not do anything), it turns out that good, strong, Republican government works.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

McCain 90% Bush? I Don’t Think So!

Posted by: Jason | · 6:39 PM

Next week, we’ll also hear about those occasions when [McCain’s] broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but, really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time? I don’t know about you, but I am not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change.

Barack Obama, Democratic Party Convention Acceptance Speech 2008.

The claim being currently used by Barack Obama that “John McCain votes with George Bush 90% of the time” is blatantly misleading, and after numerous occasions he’s mentioned it, made most famous in his national address to 40 million Americans this week, the media should be ashamed of themselves for not doing a better job of reporting the facts!

Here is the truth about McCain’s voting record, according to factcheck.org, which gathered its statistics from Congressional Quarterly:

While it is true, John McCain did vote with President Bush and his party 90% of the time, this statistic only applies to the year 2007, when he began running for office.

What Barack Obama doesn’t tell you however, is that John McCain voted his party line only 77% of the time in 2005, and has gone as low as 67% of the time, as he did in 2001.

Now, we should examine Barack Obama’s record in response, for you’d assume a man who talks the talk in campaign speeches about bipartisanship, must have a clear record of bucking his own party, right? An independent voice?

Anything could be further from the truth. The same Congressional Quarterly report showed Barack Obama had voted, get this, 97% of the time with his own fellow senate Democrats in 2005 and 2007. But Obama did bless us all with at least one year of bipartisanship in 2006, improving from 97% to a whopping 96%. This means, in Barack Obama’s entire three-year career of senate experience, he has never, not once, gone below voting with his own party line more than 96% of the time. That’s bipartisanship?

John McCain is much different than Barack Obama on bipartisanship, he’s actually lead on the matter. Time and time again, at the expense of conservative support, McCain has bucked his party’s line on the “major” issues of the day. Here’s the proof:

Despite being a major contributor to the Republican Party, John McCain has constantly called for accountability from big oil, and has supported reforms they’ve opposed, sometimes as the loan Republican voice to do so. He sponsored a campaign finance reform bill with liberal senator Russ Feingold, which his party opposed. John McCain backed legislation against big tobacco, as conservatives called for his head. McCain worked with Ted Kennedy, one of the most liberal senators in Washington, on an immigration reform package that received scathing criticism from the Limbaugh nation. He voted against the Bush tax cuts, an unthinkable gesture of disunity at the time in 2001, considering it was the first major piece of legislation floated by the president.

John McCain opposes Bush’s spending record year after year, calling for an end to earmarks and pork barrel projects, even those his party supports. John McCain has parted ways with Republicans on climate change, and has recently co-sponsored a bill with Joe Liebermann calling for cap and trade laws. And finally, at the near expense of his political future, John McCain criticized, not backed, President Bush’s and Donald Rumsfeld’s initial Iraq War strategy, when doing so was seen as traitorous within the Republican ranks.

The fact of the matter is, most US Senators, even the liberal ones, have voted with President Bush on a substantial amount of items. Obama himself, in fact, voted 49% of the time with President Bush in 2006, and 40% of the time in 2007 (this number clearly tapered off after Obama started running for president, where you’d assume a more liberal record would suit him).

How could Obama agree half of the time with President Bush’s position you ask? It’s simple. The majority of bills that reach the senate are small bipartisan measures like naming buildings and dedicating memorials. All senators, Democrat and Republican alike, including the President, usually support such matters without disagreement. This falsely boosts an individual senator’s record to other federal colleagues, like that of say… McCain and Obama, to seem more in agreement with President Bush than they really are. If you think I’m fudging the truth, ask yourself if you believe Barack Obama agrees with 49% of President Bush’s positions on major issues? This proves the 90% charge is completely misleading.

But the fact remains that from oil, to campaign finance, to tobacco, to the Bush tax cuts, to immigration reform, to spending, to climate change, to Iraq War strategy, John McCain has proven his independence with George W. Bush more than any other Republican on the national stage. I may disagree with him on those matters, but those are the facts which should eliminate the false 90% charge, and credit we should give to Senator McCain.

By contrast, we should remember the man who claims the title “a new kind of politics”, Barack Obama, has consistently voted 96-97% of the time with his own abysmal Democrat congress, which currently features a 9% approval rating, only 1% of which rates them as doing an “excellent” job. The true independent, as stated numerous times on this website, with numerous facts to back it up, is John McCain, not Barack Obama.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

On McCain, Obama, and Reform.

Posted by: Jason | · 11:26 AM

From born alive, to votes on judges, bipartisan statement bills and spending measures alike… Barack Obama has proven time and time again that the only change he offers is a generic return to the unproven liberal ideas of the Carter era. Tax the rich to give to the poor. Negotiate with evil in the world instead of defeating it. Expand government services rather than finding ways for people to help themselves. By contrast, John McCain has gone against his base on the oil companies, on tobacco legislation, on immigration reform, on the Bush tax cuts, on opposing the initial Iraq War plan, on campaign finance reform, and on climate change. So I ask, which candidate represents real change and reform?

Debra J. Saunders has a piece out today on Governor Sarah Palin, which talks about real change in Washington, and how outsider mavericks like Palin are best suited to deliver it.

A point I came across, and it’s nothing groundbreaking, was of interest to me because I’m starting to find a plethora of sensible points on the web which highlight why I think Sarah Palin is, in fact, more impressive and experienced a political figure, even as a #2, than her countering #1 opponent, Barack Obama. Here’s one:

That said, as a governor, Palin has more experience running a government than Obama, who began serving his first term in the U.S. Senate in 2005. And unlike Obama, Palin has shown herself willing to challenge her jaded ethical policies within her party. That’s change.

Simple, but an excellent point. In order for Barack Obama to carry the change mantle to the national stage of politics, one must assume he’d bucked his own party in the past at some point, right? I mean, you can’t be for any serious change, at least the kind Obama is promising (which at many times has extended to saving the world), without displaying numerous occasions you’ve performed such miracles at the state level first, a far easier venue.

But in fact, we find no such evidence of change on the part of Barack Obama. This is a man who’s voted right down the party line, no matter what the issue, every… single… time. The bipartisan efforts he espouses? Unworthy of even reporting but here they are:

Obama first claims he’s a reformer by his willingness to support welfare reform in Illinois. He has suggested as such repeatedly, both on his stump speeches as in his national address this week. Yet, Obama opposed welfare reform as a state senator from Chicago; he voted against it!

In fact, his very contradiction stands corrected in his own words, as Obama admitted as much in his appearance at Saddleback Church just the other week. When asked, “what is the single greatest position you’ve changed in 10 years” by Pastor Rick Warren, Obama replied that welfare reform had been the issue. So… I’d ask this question. Which is it? Did Obama indeed support the kinds of sweeping welfare reforms that took hold in the 1990’s as he talks about on his campaign stump and his acceptance speech to a national audience, or did he in fact oppose such measures as he suggested to Rick Warren. The answer is in the facts, for it’s on record that Obama did indeed oppose welfare reform while serving in the Illinois Senate. We’d just like him to admit it instead of lying to look good to independent voters.

Obama also talks about his sweeping ethics reform in congress, as a major crutch to his persona of a reform candidate. Yet he fails to add that he was merely one name on a bill of many other bipartisan senators. This was hardly a bill which Obama bravely bucked his party to pass. Yet in turn, Obama has demonstrated numerous times his unwillingness to buck his base on the simplest of issues. Remember the “David Patreaus or David Betrayus” ad created by MoveOn.org, which called our leading general in command of Iraq a traitor? Obama didn’t vote for a resolution, despite his being in the senate at the time, condemning it. This is just one of the glaring examples of a lack of bipartisanship, and a total endorsement of liberal ideology at any cost, on the part of Barack Obama.

From born alive, to votes on judges, to bipartisan statement bills and spending measures alike… Barack Obama has proven time and time again that the only change he offers is a generic return to the unproven liberal ideas of the Carter era. Tax the rich to give to the poor. Negotiate with evil in the world instead of defeating it. Expand government services rather than finding ways for people to help themselves. By contrast, John McCain has gone against his base on the oil companies, on tobacco legislation, on immigration reform, on the Bush tax cuts, on opposing the initial Iraq War plan, on campaign finance reform, and on climate change. So I ask, which candidate represents real change and reform?

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Palin vs Biden: What the Undecideds Should Consider Now

Posted by: Jason | August 30th, 2008 · 4:10 PM

Now that we have our running mates, we should analyze the race beyond their selection, what each says about the candidates, and more importantly, what it says they’re lacking. If there’s any persuasion to be had now of the independent and undecided voter, I believe such analysis should put them in the direction of reexamining John McCain. Here’s why:

The purpose behind Governor Sarah Palin’s selection is clear, and it shows three things about John McCain. First, that McCain is confident in his own ability to lead as president. I believe the nay sayers who have called this a pick of desperation have it entirely opposite, for it shows McCain believes in his own ability to be Commander in Chief first.

Second, that McCain wishes to seriously embark on bringing women, a traditional stalwart for the Democrats, into the GOP with a vengeance this election (no, not just Hillary voters, but “all” stripes of women).

And third, that he acknowledges his campaign, thus far, has lacked any real passion from the types of “boots on the ground” workers he’ll need come election day. McCain’s hope is that Palin, who’s quickly become a heroin of the right almost overnight, will ignite Republicans and right-leaning independents into the 60-day stretch of the election season.

Joe Biden is a completely different pick. Since we know the state of Delaware hardly provides electoral worth, it’s clear Barack Obama can only have one thing in mind by this selection. Obama believes that Biden’s presence on the ticket, however stale a figure he may be, shores up any remaining doubts among voters who fear his lack of foreign (and let’s face it, domestic) experience will come to haunt him.

So what does this say about each candidate? What should the independent or undecided voter take away from these last two weeks?

Let’s start with McCain. Should the undecided voter look at the Sarah Palin choice and loose any confidence in John McCain as a potential president, because he selected someone within a particular demographic which could help him win an election? Should they really care, as independents and undecideds, that his base of conservative voters has never really felt he’s one of them?

For the independent voter, wouldn’t they want someone like John McCain who’s considered, like them, independent of party? Doesn’t Sarah Palin’s pick prove that John McCain, indeed, is an independent or a maverick, and thus, needed help with the conservatives and partisans within his base?

For the conservative, however overjoyed we are at the selection of Sarah Palin, one could still make the argument that it’s entirely sensible for many last minute conservative voters to ponder their skepticism of John McCain’s former maverick record. But for the independent, or the voter who values common sense bipartisanship, seeing Palin running with McCain should be proof positive that McCain, not Obama, is the true independent from his party.

On the other hand we have Barack Obama’s choice, in a 36 year veteran of Washington insider politics. Joe Biden is a man Obama felt could right the flaws of his inexperience, and nothing more. What Joe Biden says about Obama, is that “I’m not ready to govern myself, I need help with my future time in office, and Joe Biden will be there to help me make the executive decisions”.

But shouldn’t the elected President, not the Vice President, be making the decisions? Shouldn’t Joe Biden’s selection give independents pause for concern, that one of the two major party candidates is not up to the job?

Shouldn’t they feel more comfortable, as independents, with a man like John McCain, who is so confident in his own ability to be president, that he merely needed election help and went outside the box on his VP choice, not to a Washington insider as did Barack Obama?

Time will tell, and whatever sticks will show who made the better case in the coming weeks. To me it’s clear.

John McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin for help with women and conservatives, this shows John McCain to be a true maverick politician, slightly alienated from his conservative base. A true independent. In contrast, Barack Obama, who’s spent just 140 working days on the national stage, and for his first major decision of the campaign, picked Joe Biden because of fear, a fear that he couldn’t govern as president alone.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

“One Heartbeat Away”

Posted by: Jason | · 2:28 PM

The new tagline for the Democrats post-Palin is, she’s “one heartbeat away from the presidency”. This is designed, first, to place the word “heart” in the news, to subliminally suggest President McCain is going to die soon. And two, that Palin is too inexperienced to assume the presidency when this happens, despite two years of governing a state.

But there’s development. In the blogs, I’ve come across a fresh tagline to counter the “heartbeat” comment:

Joe Biden, at age 65, presents risk that Barack Obama, a man with exactly 140 days of experience in Washington, could be a heartbeat away from having to make decisions on his own.

Thought it was a good point.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

I Am Not A Token

Posted by: Jason | · 11:30 AM

“What makes picking a woman any different than say, selecting a Catholic blue-collar rooted Pennsylvanian as your running mate who shores up lunch bucket Democrats you’re too liberal and black to reach?”

After the dust has settled on McCain camp’s choice of Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President, there are two major attacks which we will see the Democrats make in hopes of minimizing the damage.

First, that McCain has made a colossal error in judgment by picking someone with less experience, that he should have gone with a more traditional choice like say… Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty (ehmm… I wonder why?).

Second, and this is the one in which Republicans must be prepared to fight the most out of the gates, is that women shouldn’t be stupid enough to fall for this cheap political ploy, for Governor Sarah Palin hasn’t any business on the national stage, and thus, was merely used as a stunt.

The first line of attack is simple to defend. John McCain is running for President, and Sarah Palin is running for Vice President. The two jobs are completely different, one entailing daily