Water the lawn, Obama?

The house is on fire!!!! And what does the Obama administration do? They water the lawn!

This is basically what they are proposing in the 2010 budget. They are looking at energy (taxing cap and trade), investing with unions in more education and less chance for school vouchers, and starting the god awful universal healthcare... And yet, absolutely no focus is on the revocovering the economy in the omnibus spending, or the 2010 budget.... And very little attention in the "stimilus" package.

"Never waste the opportunity of a great crisis." That is what the chief of staff for Obama said after the election. That statement says, in spades, how they want to transform our country into Western Europe. This is of course, allowing government to have more affect on our lives, and the private sector have even less.

1. Cap and trade: Obama argues this is part of his plan to change our energy policy. However, all this does is put more money out of the hands of the private sector (small businesses, consumers), and into the hands of the government. This will allow Obama to spend the planned profits on more energy efficient automobiles. And all the while, saving Mother Earth. Pardon me, but all of the global warming conspiracies have been put to bed in my mind. This is basically a religion, not a science. When just as many (probably more) experts in this field have debunked how man has made Earth significantly warmer, this hardly reasons as science. Instead, Al Gore and his Hollywood buddies are just raising millions of dollars for a cause they want to promote.

The fact is, they predicted in 1998 that Earth would become much warmer in the next decade. Well, in fact the Earth has cooled over the past decade. All data points to the ebbs and flows in our climate. This hasn't changed.

2. Education: Reasonable minded people can disagree on how education should be spent. However, isn't it the liberals who say that "choice" is the answer? Well, not so much when it comes to education. The words "school choice" is a potty word in liberal circles. The fact of the matter in politics is you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. And the education unions are a mighty force in liberal circles. Therefore, giving the opportunity for a parent to send their child to a private school, home school, or take advantage of a school voucher is nothing short of a sin to these liberal thinkers.

Imagine- You live in Washington DC, and you want to send your child to a better school, knowing the public schools are bad. W. Bush upped the ante with school vouchers, so these parents who are making around the levels of the poverty line, can send there kids to a better school. And now that a liberal is in the White House? These vouchers in DC are being taken away in high numbers.

3. Healthcare: I don't care what you do with it, put lipstick on it, perfume on it, whatever.. It will still look and smell like a pig. This is government run healthcare. Why on Earth in a time of financial crisis would a government spring one of the biggest social engineering programs on a country? Especially one that the public has chewed and spit out before (Clinton's failed universal healthcare reform circa 1993)? The fact is, if this was something that was so great and had no real issues with it, wouldn't most of Europe and Russia have a consistently thriving economy? The fact is, when you are forced to pay upwards of 50% in taxes for such programs, it will always lead to a depressed economy.

Of course everybody wants people to be covered in healthcare. But to think to trust a government bureacracy to handle this successfully is insane. Look what's happened to Medicare, to Medicaid, to Social Security?? Are these government programs going honky-dory? Nope. They are all on the verge of going under. The fact is, the less control government has on things, the better. Their job is to oversee the private sector in a free market. Instead, they are wanting control over it.

Wouldn't a better alternative be adding health vouchers, as McCain proposed? This would allow a family of 4 to take the proposed 5K, and shop for their own insurance. This would not only allow the free markets to battle for your business with lower costs, it would also keep the decisions where they should be in healthcare, to the family.

One thing is ironic about the healthcare issue: Isn't it interesting how liberals want the government to have full intrusion and control over healthcare, except for when a woman is pregnant? And social conservatives want families to be able to make their healthcare choices..... except for wanting government to protect the life of the unborn? Sorry liberals, but I choose the side of the unborn over abortion!

Stem Cell Ethics

Here is another great article, showing Obama's lack of depth on this issue. This is coming from a real pro in this arena, who happens to believe that more stem cell lines should be produced. However, he points out Obama's very, shall we say morally-questionable defense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202764.html

This is not stimulating

The stimulus plan that was approved by the House and Senate this week are far from stimulating. When you look at the word "stimulate", its definition is NOT spending on anything. In my mind, it's incentive for the consumer to be spending; it's for giving tax breaks to small businesses; it's for giving more to potential car and home-buyers.

Yes, there is some of what I mentioned above, but is there enough? The Republican version had $15,000 incentive for first time home-buyers. Democrats reduced that to $8,000. Republicans wanted more tax breaks for the middle class, small businesses, temporary reduction of Capital gains tax. Democrats worked like crazy to make sure these ideas were snuffed out of the water. Instead, 2/3 of the "stimulus" is spending, only 1/3 is geared for tax relief.

Some of these programs may be worthy (many not), but it's not stimulus. It's social spending when you give the states billions of dollars, when you provide money to the poor, when you provide billions to the health industry. The fact is, these spending programs should be brought up and debated in appropriations bills, not for a stimulus package. It flat out is dishonest at worst, and conniving at best.

President's Cabinet nominees

I am writing this post in response to all of the animal liberals who verbally castrated W for some of his nominees... Now, I would agree that some of his nominees left much to be desired in all fairness. First I will mention a few that, as a conservative, I disagreed with:

• Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General- He was chosen because he was close to Bush, plain and simple. Yet, there were several other appointees that would have done better in defending decisions the administration made. But the most glaring mistake in my view, is how he handled the firing of many judges around the nation. The fact is, Presidents fire judges at their pleasure. Clinton fired more than any in history. It was his right. But the Bush firings were made political (which again is fine), but Bush and Gonzales kept digging themselves in a deeper hole by overexplaining everything. Instead, the answer should have been, "because I chose to do so as the President."
• Scott McClellen, Press Secretary- Of course, he is conservatives favorite punching bag since he came out with his book. But the fact remains, he was an AWFUL communicator. He did President Bush no service by his explanations on the war. Worse off, his presence was at a time when the Iraq war was going south. Having the first press secretary, Ari Flescher, or Tony Snow in there at that time would have helped with public opinion tremendously.
• Harriet Myers, Supreme Court- She later withdrew her name because of public pressure, but another choice of cronyism only. She didn't have the qualifications that a John Roberts, or a Sam Alito have. Thank God Bush received a mulligan on these supreme court picks.
• Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense- At first, even the NY Times said he was a defense heavyweight, although they differed on opinions. I say Rumsfeld wasn't a bad pick at the time, he just strategized the Iraq war in an incorrect manner. He believed that a stealth mission (less troops) would do the job in Iraq. Even after 2 years of trouble, course wasn't shifted quickly enough. It wasn't until Bush brought in General David Petreaus, and later Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense, that strategy was completely turned around into success. Bush needed to pull the trigger on Rumsfeld's firing when things weren't working, not after the defeats of the 2006 elections.
  
• Paul O'Neill, Secretatary of the Treasury- Bush's first Treasury Secretary was a Republican, with good qualifications. However, when someone is not fully on board with your biggest economic agenda (sweeping tax cuts), there's a problem. O'Neill became an outspoken critic of some of Bush's economic policy. How can this happen? Did they not get his opinion on Bush's agenda beforehand?

Now, some of BHO's nominees may turn out to be better than expected, there are problems when you nominate people who have such huge issues beforehand:

• Tom Daschle, nominee for HHS- Didn't report 3 years worth of taxes on having a driver and a Cadillac at his disposal. This averaged more than 75K per year. I can except honest mistakes, even by a Democrat. :) But in addition, Daschle didn't pay taxes on a 83K consulting fee in 2006 or 07. And back to the first issue, if he noticed this possible issue in June of last year, why did it take him 8 months to rectify this with the IRS? Especially for a guy whose made over 5MM per year since he was unseated as a Senator in 2004? The answer is, he paid them because he was nominated for Secratary of Health and Human Services. This is a known savvy political man. Does he not have a good accountant? Doubt it. Seems hardly like an honest mistake..... Obama got it right at the end, when he said it was his own mistake. But the fact is, Obama defended Daschle over this issue until he realized this was a ticking time bomb. At only this point did Obama come out and say that we can't have a double standard with nominees and everyday citizens in paying taxes... Oops, too late, damage done.
• Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary- As I mentioned in a previous blog post, he didn't pay self employment taxes for 4 years. When he corrected this, he only fixed the first 2 years. Only after he was starting to get heat of this did he pay the additional 2 years. And he says this was an honest, stupid mistake. In addition, he sent his children to youth camp and used this a writeoff illegally. Also, he's had an issue with hiring an immigrant without proper papers. For someone who wants to head up the IRS, these issues shouldn't be looked at as "honest mistakes". Instead, these should be disqualifiers. But Obama dug his heels in and defended his embattled nominee. Geithner was approved, mostly by Democrats.
• Eric Holder, Attorney General- He was confirmed this week. However, he has NO excuse for the assistance for helping Clinton pardon Marc Rich, a ten most wanted fugitive, back in 2000. Even Holder admits this mistake..... Now just imagine if Alberto Gonzales had made this mistake. He would have been grilled beyond belief.. and beyond repair.
• Nancy Killefer, nominee for Chief Performance Officer- She had to withdraw her name because of........... you guessed it, not paying taxes. Do you see a theme here?
• Hilda Solis, Labor Secretary nominee- Her husband's business had a $6,400 tax lien against it for the past 16 years. On Wednesday of this week, he finally paid it. Wonder why? Does this dis-qualify his wife? Probably not. However, why does the tax issue keep coming up with Democrat appointments?
• Bill Richardson, Commerce Secretary nominee- Richardson withdrew his name in December because he is under a Federal investigation for a pay for play issue. A huge donor of his in CA won a New Mexico contract from Richardson. Wonder why?

Obama's hypocrisy

Am I the only one who thinks BH Obama's whining about Rush Limbaugh to be a tad embarrassing? Seriously, this is a president who is trying to lecture people to stop listening to Rush. The hypocrisy is astounding from Obama. He wants to lecture an UNELECTED citizen on what he says, yet won't take on anyone on his side for being polarizing?

That's fine and dandy that Obama wants bi-partisanship..... But, if he wants this, he should be going after BOTH sides. Such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who are about as hyper-partisan as there is in this country. Liberals think of Rush's partisanship just as conservatives think of these two as partisan. But the difference is......... Pelosi and Reid are elected officials. And still, Obama chooses to lecture the Republican congress not to listen to a partisan as Rush.

The fact is, Obama wants to silence his distractors. Isn't it a bit hypocritical? Especially when liberals demonized Republicans and Bush that had never been seen before, all in the good name of free speech?

No Lobbyists allowed, oh really?

Barack Obama’s new lobbying rules are fueling the concerns of senators from both parties regarding the nomination of William Lynn to become deputy defense secretary.

Obama signed an executive order Wednesday strengthening the restrictions on lobbyists and former lobbyists entering his administration.

“If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied, during the previous two years,” Obama said in a press conference.

Lynn lobbied on behalf of defense contractor Raytheon Co. until last year and now stands to be in a position to make decisions on a plethora of the defense giant’s programs as the new manager of the Pentagon.

A bit hypocritical??

The Bush Legacy

The game of politics is a rough and tumble one. It is a place for not the faint of heart. It can be described as a thankless positions many times. It must feel like the one in this position has the weight of the world on its shoulders. And many times, the last statement may actually be true.

What got me to write this blog entry was after reading this article regarding George W. Bush. It can be find here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/bush_and_the_bushhaters.html. Everybody who knows me well knows exactly where I stand in my political beliefs. It's not by chance that I come to these conclusions. I arrive at these through thorough thought, reflection, and how each issue pertains to my everyday way of life, core beliefs, faith, etc.

Putting all political issues aside, I think the author did a great job of describing Bush. Whether you like him or hate him, one has to fully admire his deep convictions. When was the last time any man ever been so unfairly lambasted, ridiculed, beaten down, cursed, treated like garbage? And with that, has any one heard Bush giving it back to those who have treated him this way? (FYI- Clinton publicly became irrate, cursed his adversaries. In my opinion this shows a wide gap in maturity between the two.) I haven't. Instead, all you hear from his staff and from reporters is how upbeat he always is, how his faith sustains him. Once again putting personal politics aside, if one can't admire that, maybe they have the problem.

I fully believe history will vindicate George W. Bush in his prosecution on the war on terror, just the way it did for Harry Truman. History will appreciate the fact that Bush kept us safe from attack. History will show the programs and agencies put in place, like Homeland Security, was the right thing to do. History has already shown the Surveillance Act has already thwarted numerous attacks on us and our allies. History will show that Military Tribunals was the right thing to do with caught terrorists.

Finally, I still believe that most liberals believe there isn't an enemy. Or that they are misunderstood. I'm sick and tired of liberals wanting to give terrorists the benefit of the doubt, and not our 43rd President.

Imagine

Let's just take a moment to imagine the unbelievable outcry that would be taking place if a Republican President elect would have made some of these choices for his cabinet:

Take Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary nominee. He did not pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for four straight years. He said it was an honest mistake. Ok, whatever. To seriously say that someone with his background "forgot" to pay taxes for FOUR straight years, you'd need to be quite gullible.

In addition, he counted kids camps as childcare write-offs, which they actually are not. Also, he hired an immigrant that worked for him without legal papers.

The point is, why are the Mainstream Liberal Media so very understanding of this mistake, when they had absolutely no forgiveness to any of President Bush's cabinet appointees? I think we all know the answer. The double standard and hypocrisy is quite astounding.

Now there is Eric Holder, the nominee for Attorney General. He has the baggage of being counsel for Rod Blagojevich a few years ago. Oops!! In addition, he was a part of pardoning one of the FBI's 10 most wanted back in 2000, Marc Rich. What a disgrace!

Now close your eyes and think: If these were Republicans, would they be approved without going through hell??? Didn't think so!

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!!

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).

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.....

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."