Draining the Swamp

After overwhelmingly winning the 2006 elections, Nancy Pelosi promised to "drain the swamps of corruption". After all, corruption was a big reason why Democrats took over the Senate and the House that year. See Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Ted Stevens, et al.

Now that they are in power, the corruption scandals seem to be favoring the party in power, the Democrats. However, Pelosi remains disturbingly quiet. What a surprise, when the other side does it, she shouts from the rooftops. When her side does it, all is quiet about her and her parties' self righteousness.

Examples of said Democrat corruption:

• Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich auctioning off Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. Darn wiretaps caught him though.
• Charlie Rangel- Not paying taxes on income and speaking engagements, as well as taking Caribbean trips on the Governments dime. Worse though, he heads the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.
• Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who racked up $420,000 through a series of suspicious real-estate deals.
• Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, came under scrutiny this fall for questionable earmarking.
• West Virginia Rep. Alan Mollohan has been under investigation for a separate earmarking mess.
• Banking Senate Chair Chris Dodd taking sweetheart loan deals from Countrywide, saving over 80K.
• North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad also taking sweetheart deals from Countrywide.
• Baltimore Mayor Sheila A. Dixon was charged with 12 counts of felony theft, perjury, fraud and misconduct in office, becoming the city's first sitting mayor to be criminally indicted.
• Former Rep. William Jefferson was found with over 90K in cash in his freezer, from bribes and other illegal activity.
• New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is accused of rewarding a contract company over 1M worth of work for contributing to his campaign. The trial starts soon....
• Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaragoisa had an affair with a news anchor, while lying about it. He gave the anchor preferential treatment with interviews and finances.
• Former VP Candidate John Edwards had an affair with one of his staffers, while his wife is battling a life-threatening cancer. He lied about it until finally getting caught with pictures. Classy!

Chicago Politics and "Change"

It's starting.....

Regarding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's indictment:

Barry Obama said today that he didn't speak to the governor about the senate seat being vacated by Obama. However, on November 23rd, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, said that Blago and Obama have discussed it..... And now today, Axelrod is laying on the grenade, saying that he misspoke, and that indeed, Obama didn't speak with the governor. Do we really believe this?

Remember, Blago and Obama have something big in common, besides being a part of the liberal gutter Chicago politics: They were both under the convicted felon Tony Rezko's umbrella, as Rezko helped start both of their political careers in Chicago.

Dodgers offseason

Well, as we approach the Winter Meetings for baseball, it will be very interesting to see what the Dodgers do. There are plenty of holes, yet plenty of freed up salary to go after some players. I will say that I'm very annoyed by our owner, Jaime McCourt asking the fans if it's more important to sign a high priced free agent pitcher, or build little league fields in the community. She fails to realize these examples are exclusive from one another. Community involvement and fielding a good baseball team should not be a choice of either or. If success results on the field, more $$ and revenue will come off it. And of course Dodger fans want the best player possible. The McCourts are the owners to win, not be charity to the community.

As to what we should do, I've stated in previous posts the need to keep Furcal. Unfortunately, Furcal and his agent are wanting a four year deal. Being that he has only had one injury free season as a Dodger, they are not willing to give Furcal that kind of contract. However, the Oakland A's are the front runners, and appear like the ones that will match Furcal's contract desires. It's a shame, but part of the business.

The good news regarding Manny Ramirez- Even though the Dodgers have taken their initial offer of 2 years/45 Mil. off the table, we've offered him salary arbitration. If he accepts, he should make as much, if not more than A-Rod. Even though it would only be for one year, it would make him the highest paid player for a single season in the history of the game. A lot of the Dodgers optimism of keeping Ramirez has to do with the lack of interest by other big revenue clubs. The Yankees want Sabathia and more pitching, plus they already have three corner outfielders who make a ton of money. The Mets want starting pitching and a closer. The Phillies don't appear interested. Forget about the Red Sox. The Angels want Teixeira and/or Sabathia. The Giants have said they won't pony up that money for him. Who else is there? The Dodgers still appear to be the hands on favorite to keep Manny, whether it be through the one year arbitration, or if they hammer out a 2-3 year deal with an option.

My dad keeps telling me that the Dodgers might be better off letting Furcal go, letting Berroa take over. This would allow more money to be freed up for other signings. Although I understand the point and it makes sense, I'd still LOVE for Furcal to come back.

Infield takes shape- Casey Blake's agent says the Dodgers and Twins are the favorites to land him. If the Dodgers were to get him, it would possibly allow the infield to be set, given the above scenario with Berroa.

Catcher- The need to get a decent backup to Russell Martin is important. Martin is so valuable, that we cannot wear him down toward the end of every season. For that reason, we need to get a capable backup, such as a Javier Valentin, who is available. Since Martin is capable at 3B, he can give Blake a blow once in a while as well, allowing Valentin to catch 30-40 games. This would help Martin immensely.

Starting Pitching- Do we sign a middle rotation guy? If so, our pecking order would be Billingsley, Kuroda, new guy, Kershaw, McDonald. This doesn't look strong enough for me. However, it would be good enough to compete for the NL title. But is that all we want? If we can get a guy like Sabathia, that would turn everything on its head. We'd immediately become the favorite in the division. And if Manny accepted arbitration, we'd have a huge payroll next year, but then Schmidt and Jones contracts would be gone.

Outfield- Ethier and Matt Kemp are definite starters. If Manny comes back, there's our outfield, with Pierre being the fourth outfielder. Ethier, Kemp, and Pierre is simply not a good enough outfield, especially if Furcal doesn't come back. But the question looms, who bats leadoff?

Here's my best guess on who the everyday lineup will be, on the eve of the Winter Meetings, where a lot can happen.

CF- Matt Kemp
2B- Blake DeWitt
LF- Manny Ramirez
RF- Andre Ethier
1B- James Loney
C- Russell Martin
3B- Casey Blake
SS- Angel Berroa
P- Chad Billingsley

P- Hiroki Kuroda
P- Clayton Kershaw
P- James McDonald
P- FA pitcher to be named

Small favors from God

My friend said that to me in an email after it appeared Coleman had beaten Al Franken in the Minnesota Senate. As of now, it's still under recount. However, Coleman has a lead that shouldn't be overtaken unless for a miracle.

Also, Saxby Chambliss was able to hold onto his seat in Georgia. So the Democrats will not have a Super-Majority in the Senate, Thank God!!

Defeat

Well, this was expected. The outcome of Tuesday's election was not at all surprising. In fact, "only" having a 53-46 loss isn't too bad considering what it could have been.

Ladies and gentleman, I now give you President elect Barack Hussein Obama. Sounds weird, doesn't it? Anyway, I am very concerned that he will fight against all of the values and beliefs so many of Americans stand for. Take four examples, for instance that covers economic, social, and foreign policy issues:

• Obama promising to undo NAFTA that Republican congress and Clinton Admin negotiated. Aren't Democrats the ones that complain that Bush did things on his own too much? Isn't it ironic that it isn't a big deal when Obama wants to do the same.
• Obama promising to install the FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act). This basically takes out any restrictions on abortion throughout a pregnancy.
• Obama's promise to be a 21st Robinhood. Seriously, why does anybody believe that taking from one group and handing it out to another is good for anybody? Basically this equates to a Bible analogy. Instead of giving fish to the hungry, the hungry should learn how to fish and take care of themselves.
• Iraq- Obama is still debating 2003's decision to go into Iraq. And based on that decision, he seems inclined to just let Iraq go down in defeat. Apparently, Obama knows more about our military options in Iraq than General Petraeus does.
  

Additional races and amendments and props I'm watching

Besides the big one, here are some important Senate, Congressional, Gubernatorial, State, props, and amendments I'm closely watching. I'll add a quick blurp as to why it's important.

• California Prop 8: Defines marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. Maintains equal rights and benefits for same sex couples, but doesn't redefine marriage. NOTE: This passed in the liberal state of California several years back (Amendment 22), but was reversed by the CA liberal Supreme Court 4-3. My old home church, The Rock, and our pastor Miles McPherson is one of the leading vocal backers. Big bands, such as Third Day, have come to play music at the church in support of this prop. Yes
• Colorado Amendment 47: Union workers should be able to vote privately, and have their vote counted, rather than the higher ups determine their vote. Yes
• Colorado Amendment 48: Defines personhood at moment of conception. Yes
• Colorado Senate seat: Udall is ahead in the polls against Bob Schaffer. Vote Schaffer.
• Colorado State Senate: Matt Fries. He introduced Jess and I to Fort Collins. Told us about the town, what churches are around here, etc. Great guy!
• Colorado Rep: Marilyn Musgrave
• Colorado Rep: Bob McCluskey
• Pennsylvania Rep: Iraq War Vet John Russell over John Murtha. Murtha last week called his district 'racist' and 'redneck'. Also accused our troops of murder in Iraq. Murtha has been in the House for 34 years. This would be AWESOME if he got defeated. It's close right now.
• Washington Gubernatorial: Republican Dino Rossi against incumbent Chris Gregoire. In case you missed 04, Rossi initially won, until the 2nd recount, when Gregoire went ahead. Many independent analysts say Rossi was cheated and the fight was stopped when Gregoire finally went ahead. Even the liberal Seattle Times endorsed Rossi.
• Kentucky Senate: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in dog fight with Bruce Lunsford. I'm not a big fan of McConnell, but he's better than Lunsford. Would be a huge loss in red state, and having the leader in the senate defeated.
• Minnesota Senate: Now if Al Franken defeats Norm Coleman, I will consider my wife's home state officially delusional (I think they already are, but it's not the point right now). Franken is a communist hack, he has no place in leadership. The Independent candidate may hurt Coleman's chances, just like Perot killing Bush Sr. chances against Clinton in 92. I still think Coleman wins, but it's one to watch.
• North Carolina Senate: Elizabeth Dole is about to get defeated by Kay Hagan. Dole has great name recognition and all, but I personally am not impressed with her. I like her political views of course, but she lead the Senate re-election fight in 06. It was bad anyway, but she was brutal in interviews defending the GOP's case. I could have done a better job than her. :)
• Oregon Senate: This would be a landmark victory for Dems. Gordon Smith is the last Republican Senator on the West Coast. He's in a dead heat, but I believe he'll go down because BHO is popular in my Dad's home state. Hey, at least my Dad thinks Obama is crazy. I couldn't be any more proud, Pops!
• Louisiana Senate: Mary Landrieu is about the lone Democrat that has a chance at losing. The state is trending even more strongly GOP, but she may be moderate enough to still win.
• Nebraska Senate: It will stay in GOP hands, but thank God Hagel is retiring. I actually wish he would have ran again, so he could suffer the humiliation of getting pounded in a GOP primary.

Polls to watch Tuesday

Though Republicans and Conservatives (sometimes two in one) have little to be happy about right now politically, there still is hope. I've followed politics for several cycles now, and know that what pundits say doesn't necessarily determine what will actually happen.

Right now, if I were a betting man, I'd say 75-25 for Obama. But you have to understand that 25% can be hit at any time. Did anybody give the Giants a chance to beat the Patriots? I'd say less than 25% did.

So, what has to happen on election day for McCain to still win? Here are some key points looking at the political landscape and at some key states:

1. There are still many, some polls say as much as 18% undecided voters. Most pundits expect the majority to break for McCain. Reason being? If one is on the fence with Obama still, they most likely aren't very comfortable with him. Also, there are NO undecided blacks. And when you factor McCain's usually 15 point advantage among whites, the numbers say McCain will get the vast majority of the undecideds.
2. Joe The Plumber- Many independents are economically conservative and socially liberal. Since social issues are not as front as center this year (gay marriage, abortion, poverty), economics take rein. And many of the independents and soft democrats worry about the government taking more of their money. And Obama admitted as much by wanting to "spread the wealth" around. This isn't popular to most Americans. Fact is, Obama will raise dividends, capital gains, on the majority of small businesses (who fall under the "rich" category), estate tax..... And don't forget the welfare handout- 40% of the 95% that Obama is promising tax cuts to, aren't even paying federal income taxes. This is essentially a government handout, eg- socialism...

States to focus on Tuesday:

1. Ohio- Obama leads most polls now, around the average of 4%. I don't believe it's 4% though. I still think, call me crazy, that McCain will win here. If he doesn't, which is very possible, the numbers don't add up to McCain winning the Electoral College.
2. Florida- As Ohio, Obama is showing a lead. But again, I still think McCain will win. The absentee ballots in Florida, which historically go around 70-30 for Republicans, aren't taken into account in most polls. This is still part of the South, albeit its own beast. Alas, I think McCain will still win. As I said in earlier posts, Giuliani (national security hawks), Gov. Crist (Centrists), Senator Lieberman (Jews) will help tremendously.
3. North Carolina- Once again, McCain needs this state. He's running behind, but again, he has a great chance at still winning here. Like I pointed out a few months ago in a post, blacks and the university triangle around Raleigh and Durham, will come out in droves for Obama. But NC is still a GOP bastion and has a huge military influence.
4. Virginia- A few months ago, I never thought Obama would hold a commanding lead. But he is showing a 6-7 point lead. GOP has won 13 of 14 presidential elections, so the GOP has hope still, at least historically.
5. Colorado- This looks like it's going to Obama. There's only 9 EV here, but it would be a huge loss for McCain.
6. Missouri- Toss up. Still McCain has to be favored here.
7. Nevada- Toss up. Obama is slightly favored. Only 5 EV here.
8. New Mexico- Wind at Obama's back, he should win.
9. Pennsylvania- This is the first state that Bush didn't win. The above 8 were red states in 04. If McCain can stun Obama here, that would be the opening he needs.
10. New Hampshire- Obama has the edge, but McCain has a big following here. 70-30 Obama in my mind. Only 4 EV here.

All in all, here's the scenario I can see if McCain can win:

If McCain can keep Missouri, Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida, which I think he can, he has a chance. Keeping these states, he can lose Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), and New Hampshire (4) that Bush won in 04. The big kicker is McCain HAS to win Pennsylvania to make up for these losses. Possible, but it's like McCain getting an inside straight. If all of this happens, McCain wins 273-265 (270 Electoral Votes is the magic number).

Christianity- Voting against liberals and Obama

I understand everybody has their right to vote their conscience. Although I think many people, including Christians, get caught up in the hype of a candidate. This couldn't be any more true than this year, where it is "trendy" to tell people you are backing Barack Obama.

Many Christians cite several reasons as to why their faith supports their backing of Obama. Here are some of them- Obama cares more for the environment; Obama wants to give more to the needy; Obama doesn't want war; Obama is moderate on abortion rights; Obama believes marriage is between one man and one woman; Obama has been a Christian for a few decades, etc. (Let me know if I'm missing a big argument).

Here's the counter that I see as a Christian in no particular order of voting against any liberal, which includes Obama:

Giving to needy- Republicans give FAR more to charity than do liberals. In 2005, the percentages was something like 7.8% to 2.6%. (Don't quote me on this, but it is something close to this as I remember). The point is, we shouldn't be told what or where we should give our earnings to. So don't let a liberal fear you into believing Republicans don't do the "Jesus Act" of giving. We just want to be able to decide this for ourselves, not having the government decide where our money goes.

I believe the Bible teaches us to respect the environment and take care of it. There's a fine line between doing that, and worshipping it the way many liberals do. McCain has fought and introduced a bill limiting carbon emissions, and against warming of the earth (although I don't believe we are the main cause of warming). It seems there is a logical, fair balance between taking care of our Earth, and letting it determine how we live our lives.

Obama isn't against war- He wants more boots on the ground in Afghanistan. He believes that we went into Bosnia and Kosovo for the right reasons. So for those who support him because he is against war, these people are either mis-informed, or drinking the Obama kool-aid. Obama just chose not to support the Iraq war. Even today, he doesn't support the successes in Iraq, even though success is near and a new democracy is being formed in the middle east.

About war- Who do you trust as a Christian? Charles Stanley's belief that the Bible isn't against war, that there are times for it. Or do you trust Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, that all war is immoral?

Obama believes his old church was "a normal Christian church". Now that is a load of crap. If ANYONE believes that Jeremiah Wright's church is a normal church, their intelligence should be checked. Seriously, can one imagine if McCain, or any other Republican, attended a racist church? That in and of itself would disqualify them from running for President of the US. Obama sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's racist, anti-semitic, over the line church for 20 years and didn't think there was any problem? What does that say about judgment? That's right, I forgot, Obama never heard any of these crazy sermons where Wright Damn's America, saying the chickens have come home to roost after 9-11, that our gov't created aids to kill off blacks, that our country should be called US of KKK A. Obama's next book should be called "The Audacity of Ignorance".

Had Father Pfleger and Wright as his spiritual advisors. Once again, WOW. That is absolutely breathtaking!

Abortion- For me, supporting a politician starts right here. If one believes in the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 1:5, among others), how can you support such a radical pro abortion candidate? Here's Obama's past and record regarding abortion:

• Voting against the Infant Born Alive Act in the Illinois state senate.
• Vowed to Planned Parenthood that the first thing he'd do is fight for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) once he got into office.
• Believes that Partial Birth Abortion is a normal medical procedure and should be legal.
• Said if his daughters got pregnant, he wouldn't want them to be "punished" by their mistake.
• Has a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Organization.

Obama believes that much of the Bible is not practical to life in 2008. Although doesn't it say in scripture that the Bible is "THE LIVING WORD?" Apparently, Obama seems to think some of it died along the way.

Regarding same sex marriage- http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11991

Outlook going into the weekend

I haven't done a post in a couple weeks. It's not the gloom I've felt being a conservative. :) Work has been pretty busy.

Anyway, here's a rundown of what I've seen from the polls over the past several weeks and where we are today:

On September 25th, right before the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, AIG, etc. economic problems, McCain led a Real Clear Politics average of 2.1 points. Ever since then , Obama has had a lead that kept growing and growing. At certain points during this surge, there were polls that made it look like things were close again. But then we'd see more tracking polls with a wide lead for Obama. As for whether McCain should have suffered from this, it's only natural. Whenever bad news hits, the party in the White House will almost always receive the brunt of the criticism. As I posted previously, this thing is everybody's fault, not just Bush.

As of this past week, the average is 5.9 for Obama. Some of the most accurate polls in 2004 Investors Business Daily and Rasmussen, have the race even closer than that. So even though McCain is looking for a small miracle, it is still very possible. There are some things that will have to break his way in the final 5 days. We'll see....

Dodgers are done

The fairy tale Dodgers run is now over. Though stuck in mediocrity through August, The Dodgers ran away with the division over the past week and a half.

Next came the beatdown of the Cubs.

And for the series against Philly, the Dodgers lost 2 closely played games. But it came down to clutch hitting by the Phillies. And the Dodgers really didn't have any answer to them. Case in point:

Andre Ethier and Russell Martin. These are supposed to be our second and third best hitters on the team. Even though Manny was unbelievable, Martin and Ethier were brutal. In fact, pretty much every hitter was brutal. Besides Manny, Loney was the only one who was fairly consistent when guys were on base.

Blake DeWitt- Terrible. This guy KILLED rallies. He looked completely overmatched in the postseason. He did get one big hit, albeit against softball pitcher Jaime Moyer.

Matt Kemp- He had a few hits, but none when he had a chance to drive in runs and make an impact. He oftentimes looked overmatched. Plus, he made a few defensive blunders.

Rafael Furcal- Looked ok on offense, nothing great. But I would give him the benefit of the doubt, being that he missed 145 games with a back injury. His defense in the Philly series hurt us quite a bit.

Casey Blake- Had a couple nice hits. Most of his chances though, he didn't come through.

The pitching seemed out of synch. The list starts with Chad Billingsley. He looked unsure of himself, and things continued to plummet once things started going wrong. He seemed incapable of righting the ship.

Is it over?

I guess most people are saying the race is over. There is a ton of evidence to make this a strong claim. And for those who do, many conservatives included, the odds are for them. But, 25 days is an absolute eternity when it comes to politics. Especially when we are dealing with a politician that is pretty well liked by the majority of Americans (McCain), and one who many still are unsure of (BHO).

Certaintly, the time when things were starting to turn on its head was when the economic calamidy happened. The fact that we have a sitting Republican president will get blamed by the majority, even though most even handed analysts say this problem was induced by all parties involved. To admit otherwise, most wouldn't take you seriously. Nonetheless, the fact that we are heading into a recession, the Dow has dropped 20% over the past couple weeks, credit is in the toilet, the housing market is in the outhouse, this is what you get. And the thing is, it's on every front page paper, every single day. And when people check their 401K's, they get pissed. And the Bush Administration would be the face of their anger, rightly or wrongly.

So, what needs to happen for McCain to get back into this thing? Here's some reasons to not feel totally deflated and depressed.

• With a spiraling economy, unpopular war, 8 years of a now unpopular president, McCain still is on average down 6 points when you take in account all polls. This includes Gallup, Hotline, Rasmussen, Wash Post, CBS News, Quinnipiac, etc.
• Ford trailed Carter 30 days out of the election by 30 points. Carter ended up winning by 1 point.
• McCain still leads big over Obama when it comes to who people see as a leader and Commander in Chief. This is no small thing.
• Obama is stalling. He is playing very catious. No bold moves. You know what happens when a defense in football plays prevent defense? They usually get burned in the end.
• Obama has so many ties to radicals, Marxists, very left leaning people and groups: William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, attended the Million Man March with Farakhan, ACORN, Saul Alinsky.
• Obama has lied about his relationships- Not knowing of Wrights racists rants in church, saying Ayers was only someone in his neighborhood, when everyone knows he was MUCH more than that.
• ACORN- Already voter fraud allegations in 13 states. This includes battleground states Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, and Florida.
• ACORN cont- Several ACORN members have already been arrested for voter fraud.
• Country wants more bipartisanship- McCain provides this. Is against his party and with Democrats on GITMO, Global Warming, Against Constitutional amendment defining marriage, torture, against drilling in ANWR, part of gang of 14 on judges, pro-embryonic stem cell, etc..
• Obama has not opposed his Democrat party-line on ANYTHING, despite his call for change.
• Obama, without a doubt, is the most liberal candidate in history. Fact is, our country is still a center-right country.
• Bradley effect- Nobody knows what having a black candidate will result at the polls. There are many white democrats who just can't see themselves voting for Obama because of race, much less independents. Many say the Bradley effect (where voters won't admit to pollsters that they won't vote for a black candidate), can result as much as 3-5 points in certain states.

Obama's socialism

Obama wants to raise taxes on the top income earners in America-

• To Charlie Gibson, he says it's only fair.


• To O'Reilly, he says it's the neighborly thing to do.

I call it income redistribution. Moreover, socialism. The top income earners pay more than their "fair share". I would invite those who disagree to look at the tax charts. You'd be amazed at the % they pay.

Obama all over the map on capital gains and dividends tax. But he has promised to raise this from Bush's levels. In the primaries, he said in the ballpark of 25-30%.

To O'Reilly he said he might go down to 20%. He's incoherent on this. He's simply stating things the people want to hear. Can we get a straight answer Obama?

In spite of what he says, Obama has 293 billion in extra spending. Economists say there's no way he can take enough from the upper income taxpayers to pay for this spending. In the end, he will have to raise taxes on the middle class.

Then you can add on his wanting of Universal Healthcare, how much will that cost? Obama simply hasn't stated what it will cost.

Obama extending lead in battleground states

Things haven't looked so bleak for the McCain campaign. More on him in another post. The fact is, Obama is riding the winds of a economic crisis. It's a political gold mine that keeps on giving for Obama. As long as it stays on Page One, it helps him. It's nothing he's saying or did that increases peoples thoughts on him, it's that we have a Republican President and if things aren't going peachy, the party will got blamed.

• Quinnipiac state polls have Obama blistering McCain in a few key states. If these polls are closely true, game over.
• Florida- Obama is up 50-43. Obama has spent heavily here, and McCain hasn't spent a dime here. It is telling though, that there was an extreme oversampling of Democrats and blacks in this poll. And an undersampling of Cubans (reliably Republican). In my mind, I don't believe this poll until I see a few others like it.
• Pennsylvania- After being neck and neck, all of a sudden Obama is up 54-39. This isn't just an outlier, it's wrong. There is NO way Obama wins this state by 15. Not even close. This state, if Obama wins, will be no more than 5 points. However, big numbers like this only help a candidate.
• Ohio- 51-42 for Obama. Again, this poll is not to be believed unless there is another poll to support this.

In summation, the winds are very heavily at the back of Obama, and he has gained clearly on many battleground states. But these huge leads outside the margin of error truly cannot be believed. They just can't.

ACORN and Obama

I've spoken about the many, questionable to say the least, associations Obama has. ACORN, a pretty much "shake you down" organization that Obama worked for and represented, is another example. ACORN is a company that the Democrats put in the bail-out deal, that ACORN would profit off this deal. It's been notated and shot down by Republicans, rightfully so.

Here's an article that talks about ACORN and Obama-

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307667123149723

Quotes from Obama camp

The following are quotes I've rounded up that would make them blush with embarrassment.....

"America in 2008 is a downright mean country!" - Michelle Obama

"If they need me, they can call me." -Barack Obama's answer to the financial crisis as he continues to prepare for his debate, while McCain goes back to DC.

"The Obama has a friendly relationship to Mr. Ayers." -Obama Sr. Advisor David Axelrod on unrepented terrorist William Ayers.

"I don't want my daughters to be punished with their mistake." -Barack Obama regarding getting pregnant at Planned Parenthood event.

"For the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country." -Michelle Obama

"I would meet with any world leader, without pre-conditions." -Barack Obama

"John McCain has no honor." -Obama spokesman Bill Burton

"That is above my pay grade." -Barack Obama's answer to when life begins.

"I belong to a normal, Christian church." -Barack Obama defending Jeremiah Wright's church.

Obama in clear lead with 40 days to go

Obama is in the clear lead now nationally, and is looking stronger in a few important states. This has to do completely with the economic crisis. And despite whose fault it is (I believe all parties involved are at fault), the party in power at the top will get blamed. And to some regard, rightfully so. But of course the Democrat controlled congress has a whopping 17% approval rating this week, so they shouldn't be let off the hook either.

A few updated polls:

Wash Post/ABC Poll: Obama leads 52-43. This is the biggest lead for either side to date. Yet this is a heavily skewered poll. It's 38 Dems to 28% Republicans polled. Because of this, and matching to other polls, this seems to be an outlier.

Rasmussen: Obama leads 49-47. I'd say this is spot on. Like I've stated before, Rasmussen is clearly the most accurate of all polls. I'd believe anywhere between a 1-4 Obama lead.

Gallup: Obama leads 47-44. Pretty accurate.

A few new state polls and/or my prognosis as of now in order of interest and importance....

Colorado: Obama leads in about every recent poll now. Some have him up here as much as 7 points. That's inaccurate. However, Rasmussen has it a 2 point lead, which seems reasonable. It's still going to be a barn burner here. I'm a little less convinced of a McCain victory than I was 2 weeks ago. I'd say it's still 50-50 at this point, as there are still 72,000 more registered Republicans in the state. Will come down to independents, which is slightly less than Republicans, and slightly more than Democrats.

New Hampshire: McCain gets his first lead here, 49-47. This is great news for McCain. Like I've stated repeatedly, this is the one New England State that can go to McCain. He has a good chance. The independents love McCain, and now the base is shored up with Palin.

Florida: Rasmussen has McCain still up 51-46 here. Although a few polls have it tighter. Once again, McCain will win here I believe. A new Hispanic poll in FL says McCain is up 51-41. If that's right, game over. Obama has to dominate all minorities in this state to have a chance. Although Cubans cannot stand the socialist minded Democrats, which fits right into Obama's stances on the government. Reminds them too much of the hated Castro.

Pennsylvania: Obama leads within the margin of error. If Obama doesn't win here, I say game, set, match for McCain. This state to me is more interesting than the others because Clinton trounced Obama here, and it's been reported that many conservative Democrats are scared to death of Obama. But when you vote Democrat your whole life, do you change at this point? Philly and Pittsburgh will vote heavily for Obama, especially with expected high black turnout. But the rest of the state is for McCain to take. Obama has the edge, but wouldn't be surprised if McCain pulled the shocker.

Michigan: The second most interesting state to me. I'm SHOCKED Obama leads by 4-5 points here. As I explained in a previous entry, with Obama's ties to a convicted mayor of Detroit, a very unpopular Governor, and many social conservative Democrats (home of Reagan Democrats), I'd expect McCain to do better here at this point. If Romney were McCain's choice, it may have made a difference, being that Romney has deep roots here. Obama has the edge, especially with blacks in Detroit, and union workers who are reliant on government intervention and help. However, the Detroit suburbs could not stand the indicted Kilpatrick, so will he help bring Obama down? Probably not.

Wisconsin: Hair whisker close the past two elections. Obama is up by a couple points. I see him winning by roughly .05-2 points here. A lot of pasty white liberals, plus a university town so liberal and whacky, they rival Berkeley and Boulder. Note: That is not a compliment to be compared to those places.

Ohio: Still McCain's to lose. He's up a few points still. If Obama wins here, he will win the election easily.

New Mexico: Within the margin of error, but consistently with Obama ahead. With many Hispanics dependent on the government, a socialist type politician, read Obama, should get them in droves. It's Obama's to lose here.

Nevada: Similar to NM, more registered Dems here, but McCain still has the edge. Living in a neighboring state also helps here.

Virginia: Very close, with McCain hanging on by a thread. McCain has to win here. If not, he has to steal a Michigan or Pennsylvania. Northern Virginia trending Dems, but the southerners are still strong GOP country. I still say McCain wins, with help from the heavy backing of vets.

Missouri: McCain has been ahead in every poll I've seen, usually around 5 points at least. He should win here, roughly by 4-6 points in my opinion. It's been said over and over that the GOP doesn't win the Presidency without the Show Me State.

North Carolina: McCain still leads by around 3-6 points in most polls. It's McCain's to lose. However, Obama will draw huge black support and university support.

Minnesota: Per usual, the race is neck and neck, ala 00 and 04. Yet the Dems seem to win here by a couple points. Being how far off liberal and deranged the Minneapolis area is, I'm shocked Republicans can even come this close.

Oregon: Most polls say Obama is up 4-7 points. He should win here easily. I'd say anywhere between 5-10 points.

New Jersey: Per usual, there will be a few polls that show it close. It won't be a blowout, as many Democrats here are socially liberal, but also want our country protected (they will vote Obama and pray that he shows strength).

Indiana: Polls show McCain up 5-8 points. Obama is spending heavily in his neighboring state to try to close in. Tall order, not happening unless it's a blowout.

Easy street for McCain, to varying degrees: Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Kansas, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alaska, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, Wyoming

Easy street for Obama, to varying degrees: California, Washington, Illinois, New York, Mass, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, DC


All in all, at this point, I'd say Colorado, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Virginia will be the bellweather for this election. Whomever can grab three of these five will most likely win, if this election remains close. But like I state above, if Pennsylvania or Michigan turn red, or Ohio or Florida turn blue, those WILL be game changers.

Speaking of close, it won't be close if.....

Obama gets Ohio. That means Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania are safe for Obama because Ohio is more conservative than the others.
Obama gets Florida. Unlikely, but if he pulls it out, McCain's math to 270 gets very difficult, if not impossible.
Obama gets Colorado and Virginia. These account for 22 votes, essentially the same as Ohio and Florida.

McCain gets Michigan or Pennsylvania. If so, that means Ohio, and probably Wisconsin go his way as well, as they are more conservative.
McCain retains the Western States: Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. If so, Obama's only hopes would be to steal Virginia, Florida, or Ohio, and hope he holds everything else in place.

At this point, I'd call it 55-45 Obama as to who wins. With so many variables left- fallout of crisis, McCain postponing his campaign, the debates, potential gaffes, etc... In all honesty, if Obama doesn't win, that would be the ultimate embarrassment for Democrats. Republicans have several nooses around them: An unpopular, albeit successful war going on, sour economy, 2 straight terms with one party in the White House, and so on.

I'll make further predictions as events plays out, and continue to update my poll predictions.

Blame game Phil Gramm

For those who want to blame Phill Gramm for the de-regulatory on the current economic struggle:

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/schumers-straddle/86393/

Obama used Gramm on the stump yesterday in Wisconsin. Will he say that Schumer and Robert Rubin were full throated supporters of this bill? Doubt it. Will he say that Clinton signed it enthusiastically? Doubt it.

I'd suspect they are using Gramm because he made a stupid comment a few months ago, saying we can be a "nation of whiners". Not the best use of words..

Once again, for someone who claims that politics of the past are changing, Obama sure seems to want to come back and want to play these games... over and over and over and over and over again..

Obama and his old church

It was very, very convenient for Barack Obama to choose to go to his Black Liberation Theology Church in Chicago for over 20 years. He was able to "get in" with the black political establishment by being a pal of Jeremiah Wright and others who help control the ever so corrupt political machine. NOTE: If you want to know more about it's corruption, do a google search on it. You'll learn a lot.

Nonetheless, Obama maintains that he had NEVER heard any of Wright's racist, anti-American, anti-establishment, cussing at the pulpit. If you believe Obama on this, I feel very sorry for you. First, that you would believe this lie. Second, that you would allow yourself to be led by someone who goes to a hate filled church, and doesn't see it as that. Obama, on numerous occasions, said that his church is "a normal, christian church". If his church is a "normal" Christian church, then maybe I'm out of touch.

State Polls

Interesting Polls over the past week:

New York: Sienna Poll has Obama 46-41. I don't believe it's this close. Obama will still win by double digits, just maybe not by 20 points like you'd expect. Nonetheless, it's interesting seeing a NY poll anywhere near sniffing distance.

New Jersey: Two polls have 48-45 last week. To an extent, the same thing as New York. Obama would have to do something very bad in order to lose New Jersey. Or McCain will have to over produce expectations. I still see Obama by 7-9 points here. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it became a little tighter the way Bush was able to do in the waning weeks of 00 and 04 by getting within 2-3 points before tailing off.

Minnesota: Rasmussen has it 45-45. A couple others have 47-45 Obama. Obama is still the odds on favorite here. Bush came very close twice, but still lost by 1-3 points. I'd expect the same, even if McCain were to pull ahead. The tide is in the Democrats side this year, especially in a state where Republicans always are competitive, but never seem to cross the finish line.

Wisconsin: Several polls have it within a point or two, some have it dead even. Either way, if Obama loses this state, he's in trouble. With that being said, I expect Obama to eke out a victory here.

Ohio: Polls are all over the place here. A few polls have Obama ahead, but the majority have McCain still ahead. I'd be very surprised if McCain lost here. If he does, Obama wins the election.

Pennsylvania: Most polls are within the margin of error, but I believe Obama still has the edge. Once again, if McCain wins, or pulls resources away from Obama's team, that might be good enough here.

Michigan: Obama is still showing a 2-4 point lead in most polls. I'm a little surprised McCain isn't dead even here. I believe the election may hinge on this state. If McCain pulls it out, it may not matter if Obama flips states such as Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico.

Iowa: Most polls have Obama leading outside the margin. Once again, I'd be SHOCKED if McCain came close here, despite Bush winning four years ago.

Colorado: Still a toss-up, with polls being all over the place. I'd still say McCain wins, but it'll be close.

Virginia: McCain still is a little ahead. And once again, I'd be surprised if McCain were to lose, despite the growing Northern Washington suburbs favoring the Democrats.

Nevada: McCain leads most of the polls, but within the margin of error. Obama has a chance, but McCain wins here.

New Mexico: Just like Nevada, but the reverse. Obama should win here.

Florida: McCain will win. Period. Even if we see Obama take a lead, I still don't believe he has a chance here.

Updated polls from this week..

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama has seen a positive shift in momentum since his bad last 3 weeks in the polls nationally. In most polls, Obama has an insignificant lead within the margin of error. Most of them hover around 47-45 for Obama. There's a couple of them out that has McCain still up. But for the most part, McCain's convention bounce has subsided.

A few things that can/will dramatically shift the race in the next six weeks:

• The presidential debates. In 2000, Bush overperformed expectations and went from being down 4-6 points, to being dead even. Gore looked like the class bully, the know it all.
• The VP debates. 3 things could happen- Palin could look overmatched on foreign policy; Biden could look old and tired; or they have equally good and bad moments.
• Big economic news; This past week, Obama has gained because of Lehman Brothers, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, Merril Lynch, showing weaknesses. In other words, no matter whose fault it is, it will look bad for Republicans.
• Foreign Policy news; Can look good or bad for each party: The Russia/Georgia conflict hurt Obama, as he looked weak-kneed. And Americans were reminded that Obama has a United Nations mentality- give the bad guy every benefit of the doubt.

Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae debacle

Just to set the record straight for all those who think it's the Bush Administration's fault for all the Wall Street mess-

The Clinton Administration founded Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as a partial government assisted financial agency. This agency was designed to make mortgages more readily available to people who would otherwise not be able to get a loan for a home. As you can imagine, top Democrat officials have received huge benefits from working with these mortgage giants. Jim Johnson, Jaime Gorelick (26M), Franklin Raines-Clinton Budget Director (50M) all received enormous sums from these companies, yet we don't hear a peep from the mainstream media about this. Wonder why??

The top senators who received money from Freddie and Fannie are Chris Dodd (167K), John Kerry, and none other than Mr. Barack Hussein Obama (126K). This is after just FOUR years in the senate. Pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Obama? If you haven't noticed, Obama is blaming McCain for being a part of the lobbyists in Washington. In his career, McCain has taken 20K from Fannie and Freddie. I wonder who is in bed with these company's?? Based on the donations, Obama seems to be.

For all you Democrats and/or Liberals

This is a case why I know, for a fact that your policies, ideas, way of thinking in America are wrong for our country.

CHOICE:

• Abortion. Democrats, in large part, are so socially liberal, being pro-life means being treated like a pariah. Take Gov. Casey being dis-invited to the 1992 convention to speak because he was pro-life. Does anyone know that Clinton, Gore, Gephardt, Jesse Jackson, etc. were pro-life before running for president? I'll get some of their quotes soon, they're astounding in their support for the unborn. What gall to all of a sudden think they don't have rights anymore, now that they run for high office.
• School. Democrats think that parents don't or shouldn't have the ability to send their schools to the school of their choice. Obama, like all other Democrats, oppose school vouchers. A recent poll I saw said that 80% of blacks support school vouchers.
• Social Security. Republicans think that its citizens should have the ability to invest some of their OWN SS in higher return places, such as stocks and mutual funds. Democrats (see Al Gore) want to put that money in a "lock box". Therefore not allowing seniors to even try to get a higher return on their investment.

DEFENSE:

• Democrats give the bad guys the benefit of the doubt. To the extent that they believe terrrorists deserve habeas corpus and legal council. Give me a break, should we give them tea and cookies while they are waiting? THEY WANT TO KILL AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!
• FISA, Patriot Act, Gitmo- I'm lumping these all into one for this argument. Even liberals and Democrats agreed with these after 9/11. Reason being? EVERYBODY thought we'd get attacked again and we needed to use every measure possible to keep from allowing this. If you want to, go look at the Democrats who supported these new functions after 9/11. The same jerkoffs who say it is infringing on our civil liberties. SCREW THEM!!!
• FISA- Liberals think the telecommunication company's and the evil Bush are listening to our personal calls. And these people are pathetic enough to think that our government has time to listen to them. They cry their civil liberties are being taken away. Wake up- They are only listening on calls coming in of the country, going out, or calls within that has evidence that the person may be a potential suspect.
• GITMO- These are terrorist suspects being held in our prison in Cuba. It's been documented that many of them that have been released have been seen in the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet Democrats think they deserve every right as an American. They are terrorists, not enemy combatants. Yet on multiple reports, it's been known that they get very decent lifestyles, in which they DO NOT deserve.
• Treating Terrorism like law enforcement - How many times did we hear Clinton in his state of the union speeches address the need to respond to terrorist attacks. Same went for Kerry. You'd need a lot of time devoted to hearing this from Kerry in 04. During the primaries, to impress the liberal die-hards, Obama said countless times how we need to respond in kind to those who attack us and bring them to justice. Difference is- Republicans go after them and want to cut their heads off!
• Iraq- The vast majority of Democrats voting to go in and take out the regime in 2002, saying it had to be done because of fear of the chemical and biological weapons that were unaccounted for. Now they sing a different tune. And least Hillary had the balls (seriously) to not apologize for her vote. She did the right thing with what she knew.
• Surge- Even though Obama says it's been a bigger success than even Bush could have predicted, he still says it was a mistake. Is he an idiot?? Apparently so! All the facts fly in the face of what he says about the surge.
• Still not attacked since 9/11- Do Democrats think this is an accident? Imagine Kerry or Obama in the wake of 9/11. Very scary!
• Obama smarter than Petraeus?- Obama believes we should still leave Iraq, no matter that we are winning. Petraeus, Crocker, Millen, and all other Generals say it would be disaster if we left now. We can leave winning WHEN the Generals on the ground say it's right to do so. Why doesn't Obama get called on this more often? Let me ask again, does Obama think he knows more than the Generals on the ground?

ECONOMY:

• Tax, tax, tax, that's what Democrats believe. Are we done?
• Democrats and liberals truly believe that they can handle your money better than you can. The proof is in the pudding. It's just a matter of fact.
• Democrats believe in- Death tax, Marriage tax, raising capital gains, raising dividends, raising income tax level, raising payroll taxes on businesses, raising oil tax, etc... Whereas Republicans killed the death and marriage tax, lowered Cap gains and dividends in half in some cases, lowered payroll, income, and pushed for lowering oil tax. These are facts.
• Obama's taxes are code for Welfare- Obama says he will lower taxes on 95% of Americans, but that's not really true. Instead, he wants those 40% or so who DON'T pay income tax to just simply get a rebate check. I call it a welfare check.
• Obama will lower taxes for the rest up until 95%, but has promised to raise the capital gains, dividends, bring back the death tax, and raise payroll taxes on businesses. I haven't heard him talk about the marriage penalty. So even though he wants to lower middle class taxes, will this be offset by raising taxes on said above taxes? Do your own math.
• Big Brother- Over-Regulation, wanting the government to be involved in EVERY little nook and cranny of ones life. This is what Democrats have always called for.
• Big Government Programs- With Obama's tax and spending plan, he has I believe 1 trillion in dollars that he has proposed that hasn't been paid for in his plan. Don't quote me on this, as I saw this on the news a few weeks ago... The point is, Democrats try they darndest to find ways to spend our money.
• Pork Projects- Although both party's are guilty of this, of the two candidates, only one tries to bring home the bacon for his state. That's Obama. Of the days he's actually been in Washington over the past 4 years, he's averaged nearly 1 million dollars per day in pork. Talk about wasteful spending. McCain rejects all pork spending.

CULTURE:

• Democrats and liberals have been labeled elitist, snobbish, arrogant for good reason. They look down at the fly over America. In general, they detest: 2nd Amendment rights, Christians or people of faith, pro-life advocates, those against same sex marriage, those for prayer in school, teaching of creationism in school, etc, etc, etc.
• 2nd Amendment- In 2000, Democrats lost because of this issue. Al Gore stumped on gun control and regulation in hotly contested states as Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee (his own state). Many say he lost because of this. Nonetheless, it doesn't mean liberals don't hate people who protect themselves, hunt, or use guns for sport. Obama in his acceptance speech said like-minded people can want the protection of the 2nd amendment, as well as keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of thugs. Obama misses the point entirely. It's the gangs and thugs who get ILLEGAL access to guns. They aren't the law abiding citizens. Obama's incredibly naive if he thinks the ones who get licenses are the ones to worry about.
• Faith- Some Democrats and/or liberals are of faith, but most aren't. The ones who are, Kennedy, Obama, Kerry, etc. speak differently. Notice the difference between how they and Bush speaks about faith. To them, it seems like just another thing. To Bush, it's personal. This is why the large majority of people vote Republican.
• Abortion- See above. To be certain, Democrats and liberals of faith don't want abortion to interfere with law. Such things as life and death. Joe Biden thinks life begins at conception, yet supports abortion???? How does that jive with reality? Do Democrats of faith read Jeremiah 1:5, or Psalm? Apparently not!
• Same sex marriage- Most people in the heartland- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. will start voting more consistently Republican, as long as Democrats and liberals keep pushing the envelope on moral issues as this. Do Democrats of faith not read Sodom and Gomorrah??? Do they not believe in certain aspects of the Bible? Are they like Obama, who believe some passages in the Bible cannot be taken literally anymore? What a COMPLETE JOKE LIBERALS ARE!!!!!!
• Clinging to our guns and Religion- Obama said that's what people do during hard times. He said this at a rally in San Francisco. I really think there is a very deep disconnect between liberals and people of faith. Faith is not something we "cling" to in hard times.
• Prayer in school, Pledge of Allegiance, taking down Crosses, etc.- This is the liberal mantra. They believe there is no place for this in the public square. Even though our country was founded on Christian principles and the majority of Americans believe in Christianity. Groups as the ACLU are a disease to our country. And we know liberals and Democrats support the ACLU in mass numbers. I've yet to meet a conservative who thinks what the ACLU does helps our country in any way.

ENERGY:

• I've covered this on a few blogs in August. Nonetheless, over 70% believe we need more drilling, yet liberal Democrats have spent the past year not allowing a vote in the House or Senate.
• Fact is, Liberals do not want oil drilling. This is because they in bed with environmental causes.
• Liberals and Democrats don't mind higher fuel prices- Obama admitted that he's more concerned about the rapid rise, rather than the actual prices. And when you add emission caps, etc., this only raises prices.

MORE TO COME ON THIS SUBJECT LATER..........

Obama's Foreign Policy

Here's some aspects of the way Freshman Barack Obama sees our Foreign Policy:

• In May 08 said that countries like Iran don’t pose a threat to us because they are ‘tiny’ countries, as opposed to USSR back in the 80's.
• Met with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez to discuss Chávez's support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. The next day, in Miami, he insisted any country supporting the FARC should suffer "regional isolation."
• In a debate last July, Mr. Obama pledged to meet, without precondition, the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba. He called President Bush's refusal to meet with them "ridiculous" and a "disgrace. He's claimed, in defense of his position, that John F. Kennedy's 1961 summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was a crucial meeting that led to the end of the Cold War. Not quite. Kennedy himself admitted he was unprepared for Khrushchev's bullying. "He beat the hell out of me," Kennedy confided to advisers. The Soviet leader reported to his Politburo that the American president was weak. Two months later, the Berlin Wall was erected and stood for 28 years. Hillary Clinton believes this policy is “incredibly naïve”. Even she gets it.
  
• Wants to meet with any rogue dictator, but hasn’t meet with General David Petraeus or Amb. Ryan Crocker about success in Iraq after the Surge.
• Obama makes blanket statement against having nuclear weapons at our disposal: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama said. He then added that he would not use such weapons in situations "involving civilians." Clinton blasted him for this: "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.

You can't make this stuff up

A few things that were kinda weird today from the campaign trail....

• Democrat Rep. Steven Cohen says, "Jesus, like Barack Obama, was a community organizer. While the person who had Jesus put to death was a Governor." Was he implying this to Governor Sarah Palin? Why else would he have said this?
• Carol Fowler, running the DNC in South Carolina said "Sarah Palin's primary qualifications is that she hasn't had an abortion." Wow, what a load of BS. She is a disgrace for saying this.
• Fowler's husband, Don, said before Hurricane Gustav that it proves that God is on the Democrats side because the hurricane would halt or suspend the Republican convention. I think the Fowler tandem needs to simply go away!
• Obama has now attacked Sarah Palin 5 times in the past 6 days. You would think that he was running against her. Embarrasing.

Dodgers 2009

Here's a look at what I think the Dodgers should do this offseason-

There are several big contracts coming off the books. These are close estimates: Nomar (9M), Kent (9M), Lowe (10M), Penny (8M), Bennett (2M), Loaiza (7M), Furcal (14M), Beimel (1M).

Nomar- Let him go. That's WAY too steep of price. Money better used elsewhere. He's not a starter anyway.
Kent- He'll retire. Even if he wants to still play, Blake DeWitt is ready to take over at 2B, and gets paid the minimum.
Lowe- Good pitcher, but let me walk.
Penny- Let him go.
Bennett- Let him go.
Loaiza- Dead money. He's already gone.
Furcal- Bring him back (more on him below)
Beimel- Re-sign him for one year.

And here's what we do with the 45M we let go (Furcal's $$ above not included in 45M, but will not require 14M to resign him, so the 45M may be as high as 50-52M:

Resign Manny. Do whatever it takes, even 4 years/80M, which might get it done. So that's 20M per season.
Sign CC Sabathia. Again, do whatever it takes. His salary, even around 18M, would just be a replacement of Lowe and Penny. And with Penny going downhill and oft-injured, it's basically a Lowe for CC swap. And word is the Dodgers are his first choice, so it can be done.
Resign Casey Blake at the same 1 year/6M deal he has now to play third.
Resign Furcal for 2 years, heavy incentive laiden. Where he can earn up to 10M if he's healthy. If the gamble doesn't pay off, keep Berroa, or maybe Hu will be ready. In any case, there's nothing close to the potential that Furcal has out on the FA market. It's worth the gamble. If healthy, next to Manny, Furcal's our best offensive player. And our best defensive. To top it off, he WANTS to be resigned by the Dodgers.
Resign Park to one year deal, around 2M.
Add a 5th starter for 2-3M.

So with all of this, our payroll next season will be roughly the same, depending on a few things. Nonetheless, it would be a GREAT sell. We'd definitely be the team to beat, merchandise and attendance would spike with CC and Manny. Plus, after next season, 34M of dead money is freed up (Andruw Jones, Jason Schmidt). So if McCourt wants to slash payroll a little, he just has to bite the bullet for one year, then get the refreshing 34M off the books with these bums.

Our lineup would look like this:

Furcal SS
Ethier RF
Manny LF
Loney 1B
Kemp CF
Blake 3B
Martin C
DeWitt 2B

Our rotation would look like this:

Sabathia
Billingsley
Kershaw
Park
Unsigned fifth starter

Pen:

Saito
Broxton
Beimel
Wade
Elbert
etc..

This would win the division, no doubt. The other teams wouldn't be able to match up against us, when you include everyday lineup, rotation, and pen. And all this for the same payroll we have this year.

More on recent polling

Now that we are almost a week out from the conventions, the polls hasn't really started to clear up yet. The reason? Sarah Palin. She has totally flipped this race on its head. A few interesting points now that she is on the ticket:

• Before she was nominated as VP, McCain was drawing an average of 1,000 at rally's. Over the past 5 days, they drew 5,000 once, and as much as 13,000. They say they are averaging about 10,000. That's Obama-Biden territory.
• We tried getting tickets for Saturday's rally in Colorado Springs, but they were sold out. That's the event that had 13,000.
• As long as the media is still perceived by the majority of the public as crude and rude to Palin, it'll drive the GOP numbers further up. Remember when Clinton rallied after the media was taking it to her? Same thing.
• Palin has not only SAVED the Republican base and got them energized for the first time, but she has the appeal to draw independents and conservative Democrats to the GOP.

And a few polls....... (Caution- Although these numbers look promising for the GOP, if Palin's lure starts wearing off, as well as the convention bounce, the numbers will steady a little more for Obama and be neck and neck again).

• Over all polls taken, McCain for the first time has a higher average than Obama. Many say McCain's not leading yet because of the GOP brand, but it's probably a toss-up at this point.
• Among independents, McCain has opened up a 15 point lead according to Gallup 52-37.
• ABC News/Washington Post poll: McCain ahead by two.
• CNN poll: Tie
• CBS News: McCain up two.
• Gallup: McCain up four
• Gallup (Likely Voters): McCain up 10. (possible outlier, this poll has always been high for McCain compared to others).
• Gender Gap: Women- McCain 46. Men- McCain 52. Bad numbers for Obama. Obama needs to win the women vote by 8-10. He currently leads women by 2-4. That won't get it done. Reason being? Men vote GOP in much larger numbers.

Close states

Of course, who really cares about national polls. They give you a picture, but state by state gives us a better picture. Here's what I see from some hot, contested states:

Iowa- Obama will win. I don't have much doubt. This is made up of a very liberal vs. very conservative state. Liberals love Obama, conservatives are luke-warm on McCain. So even though Bush won in 04, I see it flipping back to the Dems. Obama wins

Minnesota- Obama will win. Surprisingly, Bush barely lost in 00 and 04. However, I don't think Obama will lose. It'll be within 3-4 points I think. Obama wins

Ohio- McCain will win. There are too many conservative Democrats (Reagan democrats) that aren't too sure of Obama. Obviously, Obama will be big in the University (Columbus), as well as Cincinnati and especially Cleveland that have big black turnout. However, the rest of the state favors McCain. Should be within 3-4 points for McCain. McCain wins

Pennsylvania- If I had to pick, I'd say Obama, but in a squeaker. Just because his black turnout will be HUGE in Philly and Pittsburgh. However, just as Ohio, many conservative Dems will be scared of Obama and his liberalism. And McCain will dominate in the West and Plains. Obama wins

Michigan- Again, very close. If I had to pick, I'd say McCain will win. Although Obama is ahead in every poll I've seen lately, I just think McCain will sell well in Michigan. Same conservative Democrats will back McCain. Also, Kwame Kilpatrick, the mayor of Detroit, is now in jail for many charges. The reason this means something is because just 16 months ago, Obama supported Kilpatrick, giving him a big hug, saying he's "a great mayor". This will hurt Obama very much in the Detroit suburbs. Plus, the blacks in Detroit will feel betrayed after Obama renounced Kilpatrick today. Finally, the Governor, Granholm, is VERY unpopular in her state. But I'd even be more confident if Romney were the VP, as his Dad was very popular as Michigan's Governor. Right now, I'd say 55-45% chance for McCain. McCain wins (maybe)

Florida- McCain will win. I don't think it'll be close. More like 04 than 00. I'd guess a 4-6 point victory. Lieberman and Giuliani, as well as Charlie Crist will help McCain. And the Cubans in Miami, who already vote Republican in large numbers, are terrified of Obama. Giuliani and Crist will play well to the moderates, Lieberman to the socially liberal Jews, but strong on security. And Palin will rack in the conservatives in Tampa and the Panhandle. If Hillary were the candidate, it would be a 2000 too close to call. McCain wins

New Hampshire- I'd say McCain, but barely. McCain will win big numbers of independents. He's hugely popular there as an independent thinker. Independents in NH are much bigger numbers than anywhere else. This is really the only New England State that even has a chance to be in the GOP column. Lieberman will also be a help there. If this were a different year and the GOP didn't look so unpopular, McCain might win this state going away. As is, very close, but I'd still say McCain. McCain wins

Colorado- Now my home state. Before Palin was announced, I'd say 50-50. Now? McCain, but once again, barely. And I wouldn't be surprised if Obama won. Obama's numbers in Denver and Boulder will be huge. Denver suburbs will be a toss up. McCain will win huge in Colorado Springs. Very close, but McCain for now. McCain wins (maybe)

Virginia- McCain. It'll be close, but Democrats haven't gotten the presidential nod in Virginia since '64. They may choose Democrats lower on the ballot, but I don't think it'll flip. The huge black population will be offset by the huge retired military. McCain by 2 points here. McCain wins

North Carolina- Although Bush blew Kerry out after Dems thought they had a chance in 2004, will it be any different? I think so, but McCain still wins here by 5 points. However, McCain will have to show up here to defend his turf, which won't help. Obama will close in because of the big black turnout and the Raleigh-Durham school turnout. McCain wins

Nevada- McCain by 3-4 points here. The culinary union will be huge for Obama. But McCain is usually up here, according to the polls. Plus, he's in neighboring Arizona, so he's a Westerner. Very close race. McCain wins

Wisconsin- Obama wins here. Amazingly, Bush barely lost in 04. One of the closest 2-3 states last time around. However, just like Iowa, Obama has the tide rolling for him. He has a HUGE university base in Madison, plus pasty white liberals. Fairly close, but Obama gets the nod. Obama wins

New Mexico- I think Obama will barely win this state, just as McCain barely wins Nevada. Just like Nevada, there's more registered Dems than Republicans, but these Dems will stay home. They are more Indian and Mexican Democrats, who rely heavily on the government to help them. Plus, Bill Richardson, its Governor, will help Obama out here. Will be 3-4 point win. Obama wins

Washington and Oregon- Forget about it, Obama will blow McCain away in both of these states.

Entire South McCain will win, despite Obama getting big black turnouts in places like Mississippi and Louisiana.

In summation, this race will again come down to just a few states. As seen above, McCain will have to defend more red states than Obama will. However, Obama will have to take some red states. McCain just simply has to defend.

Like in 04, when it came down to close states as Ohio, New Mexico, and Iowa (Bush wins), and Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Minnesota (Kerry wins), it'll be decided by a select few. I'd guess that the BIGGEST states to watch come November 4th are Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, which were red states; and New Hampshire, Michigan, and Pennyslyvania, which were blue states.

If, for instance, Obama plucks Ohio or Florida, the only way McCain wins is if he can take a electoral rich state as Michigan or Pennsylvania. My guess is if Obama takes either Florida or Ohio, he wins. If he doesn't, but takes Virginia AND Colorado, he wins. On the other hand, if McCain can hold Ohio and Florida, if he takes Michigan or Pennsylvania, he wins no matter how many little states Obama takes.

As a Republican in 2004, I liked the map better for Kerry. However, Bush held everything he was supposed to. So it's literally impossible to know what'll happen in 8 weeks. My guess is McCain will win this election, but barely. However, Obama can still win going away and I wouldn't be surprised.

To be continued.....

A few interesting polls

On Friday morning, before the full 3 day affects of McCain's and Palin's speeches, Rasmussen poll has it 48-46 Obama (within the margin of error). NOTE: Rasmussen is the most accurate poll over the past two cycles. It nailed the 2004 election almost dead on.

CBS Poll- 42-42 dead even. Last week Obama was up 8 points. This has notoriously been a Democrat tilted poll.

51% believe the press has been unfair on Palin, according to Rasmussen. 35% say they have been fair.

58% approve of Palin; Obama and McCain are at 57%, according to Rasmussen.

The average of ALL polls taken have Obama averaging up 2.6. It's been going down, as last month it was in the 4-5% spot.

By the end of the weekend, we should know where things are at after the two VP picks and both conventions.

Obama and the truth separate

Let's count the ways. Call it flip-flopping, call it re-adjusting, call it lying, you make the call....

• Said in the primaries in 2007 and early 2008 that he would LEAD the fillibuster charge against wiretapping. He ended up voting for this bill.
• He consisently said the surge didn't work, even military wise. Finally, in May, he gave a crack that conditions have improved in small part because of the surge. But still said it was a mistake. Then, in July, said the same thing- that he wouldn't have supported the surge. Now, for the first time, he's saying “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” Umm, he's NEVER said this. We'll see when O'Reilly asks him, but he's still not said he made a mistake when he said after Bush announced plans for the surge. He said "I don't know anybody who thinks that an extra 30,000 troops would do any good."
• Obama consistently said that McCain wants war in Iraq for 100 years. Besides being a lie, there’s nothing wrong with this statement. McCain actually said as long as nobody is dying and they are safe, we should keep an unlimited presence there. Just like Japan, Germany, France, etc. after wars. Obama STILL has not cleared his lie as inaccurate.
• After all of Jeremiah Wright's racist, American hate filled comments, Obama said he had NEVER heard him say anything controversial..... The very next day in Philadelphia, he said "have I ever heard him say anything controversial, yes. But I can no more disown him than I can the black community"...... Five weeks later he disowned him after more comments. Now anyone who believes Obama didn't know anything about HIS pastor and close confidant are delusional, plain and simple.
• "The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. In late winter, 2008, on the campaign trail, Obama says he wants to bring the troops home yesterday -- you decide -- was he lying then or is he lying now?
• During ALL of the primaries, Obama said he'd accept Public Financing. But, he went back on his word and is now lying. His excuses were so weak, even liberals have to laugh. He said he's doing this because of all of the 527 groups will be attacking him. Well, apparently Obama doesn't think he has any 527 groups supporting him. Laughable.

To BE CONTINUED.....

Palin hits a homerun

WOW!!!!!!!!

That's the best word to describe Sarah Palin last night. It's true in every sense of the word. Great oratator (just like Obama), great moxie, very easy on the eyes. Here's a few quick things I noticed from her speech last night.

Palin's teleprompter failed her last night. During extended applause, the teleprompter continued to scroll. So for a large chunk of the speech, she ad-libbed. What an amazing job. She didn't stumble once, was strong in her words, yet seemed extremely relaxed and poised. Something many were surprised to see for a novice on the Big Stage. But many who know her (Bill Kristol, Dick Morris), were not surprised. It almost reminded me of Obama, and his eloquence when he speaks. Only difference is Obama has not proved he can speak well without being behind a lecturn, with a teleprompter. Not sure the date, but on CSPAN they showed a speech by Obama. His teleprompter went out. Until the problem was fixed, he stuttered, couldn't gather his thoughts, etc. It was quite remarkable given that he looks so smooth when he has the teleprompter.

That's probably the best GOP speech since Ronald Reagan. I mean, seriously, this speech was tremendous. She set this thing up in so many great ways: Introduced herself, her family, and her personal story; went into her accomplishments as a mayor and governor; defended many conservative qualities like lower taxes and drilling; ripping into Obama's inexperience, liberalism, and lack of judgment; and lifted her mate as the only truly tested candidate that can REALLY bring change to our politics in Washington.

Her blows on Obama hit the mark. She did it all with a smile on her face. Nothing was personal, just blasting Obama with the facts. My personal favorites were the blow about how Obama speaks to two different audiences (Scranton and SF); how Obama has two memoirs, but NO legislative accomplishments; and that as much as Biden and Obama say they will fight for us, only one in this race has truly "fought" for America. Classic!

Even the liberal media gave her kuddos. Although the liberal, borderline socialist MSNBC had some praise for her, she was still blasted. What a surprise. This network is an absolute joke, but that's another topic. The point is, after all of the media hubbub about her qualifications, Palin passed her first big test with flying colors.

More thoughts....

By Obama and Biden thinking this is a Bush third term, do they not see the differences McCain has with Bush and the Republican Party's orthodoxy?

• McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. I, along with 99% of Republicans HATE this law.
• McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform. I, along with the vast majority of Republicans believe NO amnesty is acceptable for law breakers.
• McCain-Lieberman Global Warming and Greenhouse Gas Law. Republicans believe this raises energy prices (which it does, and man-made Global Warming is a far fetched idea, which it is).
• Voted no on Constitutional Amendment defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. Bush and most all Republicans support this.
• ANWR- Bush and all logical thinkers believe getting 1 million barrels of oil a day in a matter of 7-8 years is more important than restoring an area where NO humans go to, and still wouldn't kill the only moving things that see it (Caribou). But McCain is against drilling in ANWR.
• McCain was in favor of full stem cell research. Bush opposed any destroying of baby embryonic cells.

I'm still waiting to hear from Obama, and how he might differ from his party????????

Fact is, he's a liberal, progressive, socialist, Marxist, whatever you want to call it. And if something doesn't seem to support these ideals, he won't be for it. As much as he says he can work across party lines, HE HAS NOT DONE IT!!!! Him and his campaign state that the elimination of nuclear weapons that he co-authored with Senator Lugar was reaching across party lines. Give me a break. That's something that 100% of the US agree on. It's like saying that a rapist is a bad person.

Finally, this is something that should be pointed out again and again, very revealing:

Palin- "We have faith that every baby is created for good purposes and has potential to make this world a better place.”

Obama- "I don't want my daughters to be punished by a baby if they make a mistake."

Who cares that Bristol Palin is pregnant

What's with all the frenzy about Palin's family issues?

• Bristol Palin is pregnant. Why is this still talked about?
• Palin's husband had a DUI 20 years ago.

To point #1, we heard almost NOTHING from the media on John Edwards affair, and possible having a love child with his mistress. This was a major candidate for President in the Democrat party.

To point #2, it proves he makes mistakes. And stupid ones at that. But why does something a candidates spouse did 20 years ago a point worth pointing out by the media. If this is such a big issue, why isn't Obama's snorting cocaine a big issue?

Sexism?

The choice of Sarah Palin as the GOP VP pick has raised a lot of anger in the liberal mainstream media. Since the primaries, the Clinton camp complained about sexism in the media. Well, if they thought she had it bad, imagine how it would be to a newcomer. A conservative, pro-life, gun owner newcomer no less.

Here are some of the headlines around the country:

US Weekly- "Babies, Lies, and Scandal
New York Times- "Vice in Go-Go Boots
Slate- "No Experience Necessary" (Are they talking about Obama or Palin?)
Daily Telegraph- "How Good a 'Mom' Can Sarah Palin Be?"

Now many pro-Clinton groups are coming to the defense of Palin.

Obama not practicing what he preaches

On the day of Hurricane Gustav, Obama said rightly it was inappropriate to attack his opponent. McCain said the same thing:

• In Scranton, PA, Biden gives a scathing attack on McCain, how McCain has very poor temperment for being a president. So Obama doesn't attack, but has Mr. Plagiarism (Biden) do it for him. Now is that CHANGE??
• Says anyone who attacks Palin's daughters pregnancy would be fired from his campaign. Well, does Daily KOS website count? Obama has accepted their endorsement, has already spoken at their conference, along with Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and the rest of the Demorats minions. Obama doesn't have the fortitude to confront the Daily KOS for their vicious attacks because they are the biggest part of his base. You know, the far off left kooks of our nation that wishes we were France.
• In his acceptance speech, Obama stated that if McCain wants to talk about judgment and temperment, "that's a debate I'm willing to have anytime." ANYTIME Obama? Obama has rejected having joint townhall meetings with McCain. McCain wanted to have weekly townhalls with Obama, but Obama rejected. It's clear that without a telepromptor (see Saddleback), Obama is a very challenged speaker.

News coverage of Palin

Here's a few thoughts on what we've seen over the past few days....

• On September 2nd, the New York Times ran 3 front page stories on Palin's 17 year old daughter being pregnant, and its ramifications.
• On September 2nd, there was ONE small story in the NYT on one of the back pages of the Iraqi government now in charge of the Anbar Province (one of the deadliest areas in Iraq that Al-qaidi focused on). Apparently Bristol Palin is better news than success in Iraq.
• The remarkable display of immaturity, in the tank for Obama that MSNBC is. Did anyone see the fighting on air between Olbermann-Mathews? Scarborough-Shuster? Olbermann-Scarborough? What a laughingstock they are. No wonder they are at the bottom of the ratings on a nightly basis.
• Obama saying he has more experience than Palin. Forget the argument, why is Obama have to defend himself against the other parties' #2? How embarrasing.
• Many conservatives are seeing deja vu all over again. How the MSM (mainstream media) is ripping Sarah Palin on a daily basis. Remember how they were to Ronald Reagan? I guess this type of scrutiny should be worn like a badge of honor.

Finally, right after Palin's pick was announced by Fox News, Obama spokesperson Bill Burton went on the attack about Palin's lack of experience. 3 hours later, Team Obama backtracked and Obama congratulated Palin on the pick. Good for him!

Too bad they went on the attack right after the announcement was made. What a joke. Obama constantly says he rises above politics and the attacks. Whatever. Time and time again, Obama and his campaign has shown that this mantra of change and partisanship bickering will stop, it really hasn't.

Palin's the pick

Sarah Palin is the pick to run with John McCain. As I was talking to people who were asking my opinion over the past few weeks on who it would be, my money was on either Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty. I always guessed the third choice to be Sarah Palin, but more of a longshot bet. I also lumped Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman in there as well, but their pro-choice stances made them even longer shots. Although I did hear that Lieberman would have been the choice had the "trial balloon" sent out by his campaign a few weeks ago hadn't have been shot down by all of the conservative big wigs.

So, here is my take on Palin, starting with the questions/counters:

• Question: Her limited time in government can be a concern. With less than 2 years as an executive of the State of Alaska, her national resume is fairly thin. One of the issues is the ability to step in and be president if needed. That may cause concern, as 25% polled over the past 24 hours believe she would be ready.
  
• Counter: Barack Obama, running at the top of his ticket, has about the same amount of experience as Palin. In reality, Obama has been running for President a year and a half into his first term as Senator. Plus, he's at the top of his ticket, Palin is #2. So although the experience thing might be somewhat muted for the McCain camp in choosing Palin, it doesn't totally dissuade the argument, as Obama is just as green as Palin.
• Question: Usually one of the top 3 or 4 reasons on selecting a mate is if they would help carry a particular state, usually their own. Well, there were some Alaska polls that had it fairly close for Obama and a state we was planning on putting money into. Even with the tide rolling against the GOP, I believe McCain would be safe in AK, even if Palin wasn't on the ticket, just makes it more of a slam dunk for those 3 EV (Electoral Votes).
  
• Counter: Although she will ensure an already red state for McCain, she may add some extra might to over Western states. This includes Colorado. We have a huge conservative base here, primarily in the Colorado Springs area. With this, it will get many social conservatives extra momentum to try to help the GOP carry this state. Having the influential James Dobson fully on board now, only helps. Also, if you look at Rust belt states as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. her credentials as a card carrying NRA and hockey Mom only plays into this region.
• Question: The debate poses a question for the VP's. Biden is an experienced, fiesty debater. Many in the beltway believe that Biden will walk over Palin the way Gore was supposed to (and never did) walk over W in 2000.
• Counter: Palin is a fighter. She won't let someone outdo her. Plus, she will look great on TV. She can't be cornered as a partisan, being that she has beat back the GOP corrupt establishment in Alaska. Also, if Biden looks to be the know it all (think the first debate between Gore and W in 00), he will look like the class bully. Also, Palin looks MUCH better than Biden on TV. If you don't think this counts, you're fooling yourself.
• Question: Without experience on the national scene, will it overwhelm her? Will there be a freudian slip? Who Knows?
• Counter: This is a big question that nobody knows. Of course, Biden is the master at slipups and gaffes.
  

Now, here's some reasons why I really like the pick:

• Revs up the base. With a pro-life, NRA, economic conservative (taxes, wasteful spending), support of our military, she has the full backing of all conservatives that really matter. Think Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Dobson, Krauthammer, Kristol, Levin. Think Rush and his 20+ million listeners a week don't matter? Remember Bush's plan for wanting Harriet Myers as his SC nominee, or his Immigration policy? These conservative thinkers helped make these Bush decisions very unpopular and helped defeat them on arrival.
• Maybe dent the Woman vote that went for Hillary. We aren't expecting much, but don't need much. The most recent poll (taken before the Palin pick), said 52% of Hillary backers are now on board with Obama, 21-25% with McCain, and the rest are undecided or won't vote. Now, there have been 3 or four polls that I can think of that had these similar numbers (Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Fox News, Gallup). Even if McCain gets 10-15%, that might be enough to swing the election in his favor. Remember, Reagan was the last person to get many of these conservative democrats. He didn't need much to make it a 49-1 state massacre of Mondale.
  
• Adds real reform to McCain's agenda. McCain has been known as a reformer to many. He hates wasteful government spending, even in his days in the House. In fact, he voted against the first Bush tax cuts in protest of all of the wasteful spending. Adding Palin, who is best known as someone who takes on the establishment, brandishes McCain as very serious in wanting to really change things up in Washington. Palin took on corruption in the House and Senate (Don Young and Ted Stevens), challenged, as Commissioner of Ethics of Oil and Gas in Alaska, the Republican corruption. And on it goes....
• Piggy-backing on the last point, she is not partisan. Conservative yes, partisan, no. America will love this if she sells it correctly.
  
• She is pro-life. Can anything be more important than this? Over 90% of babies who will have Down Syndrome, get killed in the womb. Well, she is one of the 10%. God bless her. In an election where you have a candidate as radical as they come (see earlier posts on Obama's abortion positions), there is clear distinction here. I like Giuliani, but always thought it would be tough to pull the lever for him if he were the GOP nominee. Even against Obama. That's how strongly I believe this issue is to me.
  
• Palin is not boring. The beltway consensus was that Pawlenty would have been a "boring" pick. Safe, but boring. To a lesser extent, same for Romney ( I disagree with that assessment, as I liked Romney a great deal). But Palin was a sexy pick. Just as Bobby Jindal would have been. New to the scene, having new ideas, etc.
  

A final, non-partisan thought on the two VP picks:

McCain's camp has spent so much time ripping Obama as not ready, too thinly experienced, etc. Now they choose someone with probably the least experience of them all. And Obama picks someone with experience.

Obama hits McCain on policies of old, no change. Now McCain picks someone with change truly in her arsenal, someone fresh who Obama says he is. And yet, Obama chooses someone of old, experienced politics as usual in Biden.


These are just thoughts off the top of my head. More to come as time goes on. We'll see if this is a good pick or not.

Isn't it ironic?

I didn't allow myself to watch much of the DNC convention this week. Thank heavens it is over. Now it's the big boys turn next week Anyway, something I noticed over the little I watched and articles I read....

If you notice the two biggest attack dogs this week on McCain?

They were recycled failed presidential candidates, Joe Biden and John Kerry.

Anyway, in the primaries, Biden argued that he thought John McCain would make a very good commander in chief. In fact, he wouldn't dismiss the idea of possibly serving with someone like McCain.

Back in 2004, it was widely known in political circles that Kerry confronted McCain about joining his ticket.

So isn't it ironic that these two now HAPPEN to see the light? What lying panderers they are. It's politics, but give me a break. How can someone be good enough to serve with you, but not Obama?

Obama's oratory flubs

Funny guy with those flubs (McCain gets murdered for flubs as being old and senile)…

• Said his birth was inspired by civil rights events that took place four years later. (He later clarified his dates didn’t match)

• Claimed to be campaigning hard in about 57 states, and had a couple more to go.
• Said his uncle help liberate Concentration Camps in Auschwitz, Poland. (Russia did, not the US.)
• Memorial Day speech saying America’s fallen heroes were present and listening to him in the audience.
• Says McCain wants war in Iraq for 100 years. Besides being a lie, there’s nothing wrong with this statement. McCain actually said as long as nobody is dying and they are safe, we should keep an unlimited presence there. Just like Japan, Germany, France, etc. after wars.
• "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.
  The death toll was 12.

Obama and terrorist William Ayers

According to Campaign Manger David Axelrod, Obama has a "friendly relationship" with unrepented Chicago terrorist William Ayers. Ayers and his wife were a part of the Weatherman Underground Terrorist Organization in the 60's. On September 11, 2001 of all days, Ayers wrote in the NYT that he is unrepented of bombing Capital buildings, the Pentagon, etc. and it fact, "wished we would have done more."

Now here's some facts-

• Ayers was one of the original grantees of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform organization in the 1990s, and was co-chairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one the two operational arms of the CAC. Obama, then not yet a state senator, became chairman of the CAC in 1995.
• Later in that year, the first organizing meeting for Obama's state Senate campaign was held in Ayers's apartment.
• Served on a board with Ayers and gave speeches together.
• Obama says that Ayers "is just a guy who lives in the neighborhood." Yeah, whatever Obama.

I, in no way think that Obama approves of Ayers radical actions in the past. As Obama correctly stated, he was a little one when all of this happened. The whole point is, what in the world is ANYBODY doing being associated with this A-hole, much less somebody who wants to be our President?

Nobody can convince me that this doesn't matter. Obama's judgment is sorely lacking in many areas, look no further than his associations.

Giants' Osi Umenyiora out for season

Wow, terrible news for the Giants. We lose arguably our most dominate player for the year. This, added with the loss of retired Michael Strahan, will hurt. This reminds me of the 1998 preseason when Jason Sehorn was lost for the year against the Jets. Too many preseason games. They should stick to two, as we see so many devastating injuries to great players every year.

Ugh! I think this might be a long season for my Giants. The last two times we made it to the Super Bowl, we had bad follow up years. We'll see how it goes. If it goes bad, I'll watch this years Super Bowl win over and over to make me feel better.

Issues with President Bush

As much as I've supported President Bush, I do question some of his moves that has hurt the conservative movement:

• Bad at communication. As good as Reagan was, Bush is just the opposite. Despite all the negatives on the Iraq war, why can't he successfully explain his positions? And now that the war looks successful, why shouldn't he be shouting this from the rooftops? Maybe he has and the MSM is more in the liberal tank than we thought. Even so, whenever Bush has a good idea, he's failed to convince the American public. Even Clinton did a great job of explaining his reasoning, even unpopular decisions. That's part of being a president, and that's a big reason in my opinion why so many don't favor him in a good light.
• His Small government mantra went by the wayside a long time ago. Convervatism is largely about the government not intruding on our everyday lives. Instead, out of control spending and the inability to cut unneeded programs have hurt his conservative legacy.
• The nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. Although she passed when under pressure, what on earth was Bush doing nominating her? Seriously, what a joke. There were so many obvious great constitutional thinkers that we KNEW weren't pro abortion, why couldn't he have seen this from the start? Oh well, at least he still got in two great justices, unlike his dad.
• Same as above for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Just seeing him speak and explain himself, I cringed. Someone as obvious and well liked as Orrin Hatch would have been a great pick.
• The amnesty of the illegal immigrants issue. Enough said. Does he now realize this issue is important to many Americans?

What is Change?

We all know that Obama is about change, but what kind of change? I've seen several people interview him on this, and here's what I get from what he says-

" To rise above party politics. To change the way people see Washington. To fix a broken Washington. To allow people to once again have hope in their leaders."

• The part about him rising above party politics is so very laughable. Why don't Democrats see this? Isn't it obvious? This man is a party line liberal voter. When has he ever sided with Republicans on ANY controversial issue? Just hasn't happened. Try a 97% party line voter, named most liberal senator by non-partisan National Journal. And don't be fooled by those 3% that they are any issues controversial.
• Is his change being in bed with: NARAL Pro choice, Planned Parenthood, Environmental groups, Unions, Peace groups, trial Lawyer issues, etc. Has anybody heard him stand up to ANY of these liberal groups? Obama abides by the "don't bite the hand that feeds you" notion.
• He attacks President Bush, McCain, and the "right wing attack jobs" just like any other politician.
• I guess his change is someone trying to run for president who has NO experience. Look: Here is Obama's résumé: an Ivy League law degree, a few years of community organizing, seven years in the Illinois senate, three and a half years as a U.S. senator. Kind of modest. What has he accomplished in any of those jobs? Not much, not much at all.