Side by Side Comparison of all the Candidates Positions

This website has an easy to read, side by side comparison of all the Presidential candidates with links to sources.

Someone did a GREAT job of laying it all out. A MUST visit for everyone voting in the Presidential primaries. Click on the Title to be taken to the comparision.

Technorati Tags:hillary, "ron paul", barack obama, edwards, rudy giuliani, republican, mike huckabee, john mccain, mitt romney, democrat
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
del.icio.us Tags:hillary, "ron paul", barack obama, edwards, rudy giuliani, republican, mike huckabee, john mccain, mitt romney, democrat
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Staving off Recession? Only in an Election Year.

Years ago, when other countries were going through the same housing bubble burst/low industrial spending/low consumer confidence and about to enter a recession, the United States was very free in its advice: Bite the bullet; live though it; it's a necessary adjustment which needs to occur.

But that line of economic thought apparently doesn't apply to us. In a rare show (read Presidential election year) of bipartisan support, the White House and the Congress compromised endless times on both sides to come up with a $140-$150BB Economic Stimulus Package. Both are already chastising the Senate for wanting to fiddle with the bill a little: they want it approved as-is and sent to the President for signature. Rebate checks would be sent out as early as May and finish up in July.......3-4 months before the election.

About $50 billion would go to business to jump-start the supply side of the equation. The remaining $100BB or so would go to taxpayers (and folks that didn't pay tax) in 2007.

The theory is if all these taxpayers (and non-taxpayers) suddenly get a check for $600 or $1200 (more if you have children), they're going to rush out and by iPods and computers and Rolex watches....used Rolex watches at that price.

The plan starts reductions at $75,000 a year in income but actually stretches up to $250,000. The theory behind giving cash to $100,000+ families is that they are more likely to go out and blow it shiny new toys while those below might actually use the rebate to pay bills.

I've got a few problems with the White House/Congress Plan. I'm not going to quibble with the business portion of the plan: they will invest the money in their companies which is good, and besides, since Big Business controls this country, you knew they were going to get something anyway. Here are my concerns:

1. Where are we getting the $150BB to pay for this? There are no offsetting cuts in spending so I guess we're just cranking up the old Treasury printing press again. How long until it takes a shopping cart full of money to buy a loaf of bread?

2. The second is where they are targeted. Before my current bout with unemployment, I used to make 6 figures. Couples making over $150,000/yr ARE just going to spend it on shiny toys or vacations. By and large, unless they completely financially irresponsible, they don't need the money to survive.

3. The flip-side of the coin are those making less than $75,0000; especially if they have children. They're more likely to use the money to pay down debt. The White House and Congress are against this: they want the money spent now. But they're sending the checks during the summer. A lot of people will use them for vacations. A lot of people will use them for vacations outside of the United States. Where's the benefit?

Every day we read of banks writing down billions of dollars in sub-prime mortgages and credit card defaults. THIS is the news that is weakening consumer confidence and bringing the recession. Let the people that NEED the money pay their mortgage or credit card payments on time for a couple of months and the bad news disappears. Consumer confidence goes up. Banks are more willing to lend at the insanely low interest rates available today. The dollar will stop sliding so much against foreign currencies.

Then we have the Presidential Elections. Regardless of who wins, it's like airing out a stale room. We know something is going to change and hopefully for the good. Retail sales rise in the 4th quarter. Business confidence rises.

Then comes January 21st 2009 and we get a new President. Even if its someone as venal and vile as Hillary, she'll get the traditional "honeymoon" with Congress that all new Presidents get (unless they blow it). The economy moves forward.

On the other hand, if the $100BB all goes to one-time frivolous purchases, they money will be spent by August. Then forget all the good stuff I said above.

4. If you lower the threshold for rebates, you have more money to spend. You can either up the rebates to the $1800 mark President Bush wanted or (God help me, I'm about to agree with Ted Kennedy) you can extend unemployment benefits for those whose have run out. The extension won't motivate the unemployed to buy a new car, but it will keep them shopping at Walmart instead of a Food Bank to put food on the table. For some it may make the difference between keeping a house or defaulting on a mortgage. President Bush is against this, Congress "compromised", and the Senate may sink the whole plan by trying to add it. President Bush "compromised" on making his tax cuts permanent.

President Bush is wrong. President Bush was also wrong when he pushed through the change Big Business wanted in the bankruptcy laws, forcing most people to file Chapter 13 instead of Chapter 7. Bankruptcy is a degrading last resort that used to give people a clean start on life. No more. I've come to the sad conclusion (since I voted for him twice) that President Bush is the advocate of Big Business and Big Money. He either doesn't care about or understand the plight of the "average" American. In Dallas, most families don't make over $65K a year. Maybe in California or the NY Metro area where the cost of living is much higher they make $200K/yr, but not here or in most of America.

Ironically, it's the chronically stifled and ignored Ron Paul who has the best answer: end our overseas empire and use the savings to pay off the deficit AND eliminate the income tax. And then get government out of the economy and let the free market work.

But Ron Paul is a man before his time. People would still rather put their fingers in their ears and go "Na,na,na" before admitting Americans and America are financially broke. They still, despite the failures and trillions of dollars spent since WWII, believe we can have Pax Americana AND all live like millionaires. Until other countries start paying US taxes, it's a fantasy. Unfortunately, it's going to take America's financial collapse until action is taken....and by then it will need to be far more drastic and draconian than what Dr. Paul is proposing now.

The country is financially falling apart and Washington is sending out gift checks printed on IOU's. I hope Big Business, Big Media, Big Government, and the Military/Industrial Complex will at least have the courtesy to acknowledge Ron Paul was right "way back then". They won't have any money for a plaque or statue.

Technorati Tags:recession, hillary, "ron paul", "george w. bush", "ted kennedy"
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:recession, hillary, "ron paul", "george w. bush", "ted kennedy"
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Seriously: Why Isn't Ron Paul the Front-Runner?

I know there are many who sincerely believe in a United States where the government takes care of you from cradle to grave. I disagree with you, but I understand why you feel the way you do and this article is not designed as an assault against your world-view.

I'm speaking to every voter who has a personal or family budget to manage. The more debates I watch, the more I research the candidate's positions, the more papers I read that completely and purposefully delete any mention of Ron Paul, the more frustrated with my fellow so-called conservatives I become.

I didn't start out liking Ron Paul. In fact, the first article I wrote on him was "Now is NOT the Time for Ron Paul". I saw him, at best as a potential spoiler in the general election if he went 3rd party, and at best, a humorous diversion in an otherwise lack-luster field of candidates.

But the more you really compare him to the other candidates and to the news of the day, he is really the only one who it makes sense to elect President.

Before thousands of mice start clicking the DIGG "Bury" button in abject horror, hear me out.

Lets look at the overall health of America today. Not the polarizing factors like Illegal Immigration, Social Security, Healthcare....just the overall FINANCIAL health of America as a nation.

We've got to be honest: we're broke. We're worse than broke, we've got the largest deficit we ever had and it's growing. The dollar is worth less and less against the Euro, the Yen, and every other major foreign currency. We are spending more than we can tax.

Congressional Earmarks had the lime-light shined on them this campaign. Money....OUR money..intentionally thrown into a big pile where individual congressmen and senators can divert them to what I'm sure they believe are worthy causes in their district or state.

Personally, I'm out of work right now, my Unemployment Insurance has run out, and we can barely afford the health insurance premiums let alone the $1000 deductible if we have to use it.

I'm in debt like I've never been and my prospects are still not good. I live in Texas, can't afford to move if I wanted to, and my skills are just not in demand here.

It would be great if the government paid my health insurance, gave me a reasonable stipend to live on, sent me back to college, and fixed my cracked foundation so I could sell my house. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY or the responsibility! This is not Dubai where every citizen gets $75K a year just for being a citizen AND a free college education. WE ARE BROKE AS A NATION.

There are a lot of nice things the government could do if we let it. We could even supply cradle to grave support for everyone, legal and illegal too......except we can't afford it.

We're a nation living like me: on credit cards. Families every day make decisions like whether or not to purchase a new car or take a vacation, or buy food. Some live responsibly within their means and deny themselves that new BMW in favor of a lesser car. Others buy the BMW because they make enough to pay for it, while a lot of Americans buy the BMW hoping they can juggle the bills to make the payments.

It's time to face the fact that America can not afford to do a lot of things anymore. And a lot of them are good things. In Texas, where we seem to vote yes as a state for every bond issue that comes along, we recently approved $3 Billion for cancer research. My two grandfathers died of cancer. No one likes cancer. But paying out $3BB for something that is really up to the evil drug companies we accuse of overcharging us....it's a luxury we can't afford. Better they had spent nothing OR put it towards a nuclear power plant which would benefit all Texans.

America is the family that's home is worth less than what they owe on it, have maxed out their existing credit cards, and instead of cutting the cable tv, the dinners out, the newest gadgets and the most fashionable clothes, they just apply for more credit cards. The interest rate is higher because their credit rating is lower, but who cares: got to have that new cell phone.

And then one day we reach the tipping point where we can't afford all the payments anymore and start defaulting and paying late. The credit card companies see this and not only cut you off from new cards, but double the rates on all your existing cards and your payments go even higher.......and you can't afford them and now you're getting scared. America starts wars in places we have no business being and we spend even more. Then the cap comes off the mortgage and we have to start selling our country to the Chinese, the Europeans, and anyone else who wants in on the biggest estate sale in the history of the planet. In the end, it's unsustainable, and like the British and the French and the Spanish before us, our empire crumbles and we sink back into 2nd world status. Is that what we want for our future? Our children's and grandchildren's future?

Ron Paul is the only candidate from either party saying we can't afford a world-spanning empire anymore. As much as our hearts may go out to people, we can't afford to police the world. With the Baby Boomers (I am one) hitting retirement, we have a social security systems that can't afford to pay the bills. On my last letter from social security showing what I would make if I retired at different ages, they noted that after 2011, those payments could be reduced 35% due to lack of funds.

The conventional political solution? Keep pushing back the retirement date, tell the seniors to keep working, and hope they die before Social Security has to pay out any benefits. I guess they forgot to clue Big Business in on that, because despite the laws, age discrimination is a fact of life in the real world. Even in government: The FDIC, which is quasi-government, is the subject of a class action suit because the Board allegedly decided to push out anyone over 50 so they wouldn't have to pay pensions.

I've been a hawk all my life. I served in the military because I thought it was the right thing to do. But in 2008, do we REALLY need military bases in Europe? I don't think the Nazi Party is making a come-back and the hated (by me) French have their own nukes to defend themselves with. Do we need a massive "embassy" the size of Vatican City in Iraq? And one, apparently with defective sprinkler and fire suppressant equipment?

We spend more on "Defense" than the rest of the world combined. They laugh at us, the UN directs us, and the rest of the world spends their money on their own countries and token military forces. Why not? The USA will ride to the rescue and not even send them a bill.

How much free oil did the Kuwaitis send us after Gulf War 1? How much free oil are we getting from Iraq to repay the hundreds of billions we've spent on "freeing them"? How much does the South Korean government pay for the 50,000 troops we have separating them from North Korea.....for the last 50 years? Nothing, Nothing, Nothing.

And meanwhile at home, the collection agencies are calling America non-stop; we're one step away from being foreclosed on......and every candidate BUT Ron Paul talks about spending more and more money. "We must cut spending....and I'm in favor of Universal Healthcare" or "I'm in favor of increasing our 'investment' in Education". It's as though they're wearing blinders or are so afraid of facing reality, that they're running on denial through spending. Not one of them can see that we are running like lemmings off a cliff, and if it doesn't happen in my lifetime, it definitely will in our children's lifetime. Enough is enough. America is broke and broken. And no one will acknowledge it except Ron Paul.

The Dallas Morning News drives me crazy down here. They do political article after political article mentioning EVERY candidate who got more than 12 votes......except Ron Paul. They did an article today on the internet revolution in politics and used Barack Obama as its example! Ron Paul was not mentioned once. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that the political internet revolution revolved around HIM! Yet not one mention from the Dallas Morning News or I'll bet in many of your hometown newspapers.

Why? Because he makes us look at America the way we ARE, not the way we PERCEIVE ourself to be. We as a nation are headed to bankruptcy and no one wants to face that....except Ron Paul.

I don't agree with all Dr. Paul's policies, but I also remember (I hope they still teach it in schools today) that there are THREE CO-EQUAL branches of government. There are intentional checks and balances. Dr. Paul will be able to accomplish a lot with Presidential powers, but there is Congress and the Supreme Court to reign him in.

One thing he can do as Commander in Chief is not to involve us in ANY wars or conflicts not specifically declared by Congress. As he is fond of saying, our last declared war was WWII and we haven't won a single non-declared one since. Personally, I think we did win Gulf War I but that's just me.

He can re-deploy our forces from overseas to the continental US. Doesn't your heart go out to all the families of National Guard troops who thought they were signing up as the military of last resort and now are on 12-18 month tours? Bring them home.

Israel? They have enough nuclear weapons to turn most of the Middle East into a sheet of radioactive glass, and make no mistake, if they are attacked and backed into a corner with no exit, they will do just that. And the Arab States know it.

Japan? Can't they defend themselves yet? How much have they paid us for being their military for the last 50 years? Nothing.

Taiwan? Is it really any of our business how they and the Chinese solve their issue? The British, once a great military power, gave back Hong Kong. Life goes on.

We ignored the Sudan and Danfur yet we couldn't ignore Yugoslavia?

Americans are a compassionate people but sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees. The forest in this case is the financial survival of the United States of America. And no one but Ron Paul seems to get that.

This nation was founded on the principle of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". What kind of life can we have as a second-rate nation? How much more liberty will we give away in the name of security? The pursuit of happiness was never intended as a guarantee everyone would BE happy.....just that they would have the freedom to pursue it. Me, I'm miserable right now but I don't blame America or expect America to bail me out. How many others will be in my boat if the country goes under financially? We're already seeing the word "Recession" in the media. They're not reporting: they're trying to prepare us for what is yet to come. Notice they waited until after Christmas so as not to be blamed in dampening 4th quarter consumer confidence.

The arrogance of the media in only telling us what they think we can handle, or to steer us in a direction THEY want us to go. But that's for another article. They obviously don't want to "upset the ship" by giving Ron Paul the attention he DESERVES based on the votes he's gotten and the money he's raised.

History demonstrates over and over (do they still teach REAL history in schools?) that at certain crucial junctions, a person will rise to the occasion and do great good. I am convinced finally that Ron Paul is that individual, that America's survival hangs on this election, and NONE of the other cardboard cut-outs running for President can save this nation. Dr. Paul is 71. We need him NOW, not in 8 years.

Look at America's Financial State the same way you should look at your family's. Then go to the website of the candidate you are currently supporting. Does THEIR policy make the problem better or worse? Does it start SOLVING the problem, or just push it off to the NEXT President. America, we are in a Financial CRISIS. For that reason alone, you MUST vote for Ron Paul to be the next President of the United States. Wake up and face our reality. Christmas is over and it's time to pay the bills.

Technorati Tags:2008 election, barack obama, dallas morning news, democrat, mr. unloadingzone, nuclear, presidential election, ron paul, universal healthcare, broke, money, bankruptcy
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us:2008 election, barack obama, dallas morning news, democrat, mr. unloadingzone, nuclear, presidential election, ron paul, universal healthcare, broke, money, bankruptcy
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

So Who Really Won New Hampshire?

So let me see if I've got this straight: Diebold (now called something else) touchscreen voting machines are easily hacked. Instructions were posted right on the internet and since my town uses the formerly called Diebold voting machines, the hacking method makes perfect sense, having used a Don't-Call-Us-Diebold touchscreen voting machine, with credit card login.

But apparently New Hampshire doesn't use the touch-screen voting machines, but uses optical scanners; there's a paper trail you can follow...but at the same time, how do you hack an optical scanner? It's just reading what's on the ballot. The touch-screen voting machines have a credit card type reader. It makes sense you could code all kinds of mischief onto a blank credit card and stick it into the Diebold (but don't call them that anymore) touch-screen voting machine. Kind of like what the Cylons did on Battlestar Gallactica.

So if Hillary suddenly won big in New Hampshire areas that use the not-called-Diebold optical readers, how do you hack an optical reader? Or did they use touch-screens and it was misreported?

And in a state so fiscally conservative they don't have a State Income Tax OR a Sales Tax (Kudo's New Hampshire!), how does John McCain, the man who said he'd stay (at an enormous cost) in Iraq for a HUNDRED YEARS if that's what it takes, suddenly win in an amazing come-from-behind victory? More importantly, since he could only be President for a maximum of 8 theoretical years and would have died of old age well before the new Hundred Year War had run it's course, can he make such an inane statement?

Likewise, Hillary "Universal Healthcare, Big Government, Big Education" Clinton suddenly appeals to New Hampshire voters? Because she cried? The Live Free or Die state wants a cry-baby as President? Do we really need a President who is ready to cry from Day 1 of her Presidency? If she thinks campaigning is so hard (and it's the very beginning of the primary season), does she have the emotional stability to be President? What will she do when another 9/11 happens.......hide under her desk and sob?

Actually, if you consider the image New Hampshire has, why didn't Ron Paul win in a landslide?

And what really makes me angry is that not only can anyone see how easy it is to hack a not-called-Diebold-anymore touch-screen voting machine, but I LIKE USING the touch-screen voting machines. They make voting easy and fun!

So the moral of the story is computers can't be trusted, New Hampshire is doing a recount at the behest of Dennis Kusinich and other losers which means we should see more video of Elizabeth Kusinich (a virtue in it's own right), paper ballots were somehow generated so I lean towards optical scanners being used, although they may have been made by the-company-formerly-known-as-Diebold Election Systems Inc, now known as Premier Election Solutions Inc., and that if you're bored, you can come up with a lot of ways to not to say Diebold.

But of this I am certain: We need to trust our election process, so as much as I'd like to see Hillary lose in New Hampshire, if that happens because of a paper recount, voter confidence in ANY non-paper solution will be zero. Remember the mad rush to put in the non-paper voting machines? Do we have enough time to blow the dust off the old paper ballot boxes before Super Tuesday? And how will we know someone won't tamper with those: that's why we went to the computerized ballots in the first place!

In the end, whomever wins the primaries and then the general election, there will be a vast amount of Americans who will be convinced they stole the election. We need to come up with an easy, secure, English-only, everyone will be satisfied, stand-alone, not networked together, voting solution that everyone will have faith in, whether their candidate wins or loses.

Otherwise, in a very close election, we're going to look like some South American, banana republic with riots and violence and looting..even more so than we do now with the 18 million or so illegal aliens entrenched here......and the military having to "temporarily" step in as our current insane Commander in Chief declares a State of Emergency and voids the results of the 2008 election until we can come up with a solution. As a favor to us, he'll declare himself "President until the problem is solved". The left and right coasts (and Washington DC) gave away their Second Amendment rights which were specifically designed for situations like this, and the rest of America is too wrapped up in their own lives to get involved (except for Texas of course, but we'd have to fight off the illegal aliens too).

Maybe the Ron Paul Revolution will turn out to be just that. The possibilities are endless. So living in Texas and possessing a Concealed Handgun License, I'm going to the Big Town Gun Show tomorrow to stock up on ammo and maybe pick up another AK-47 and some more pistol magazines. Or maybe I'll just watch the Cowboys versus the Giants football game. The military-industrial complex may be big, but it can't screw with the NFL.

Technorati Tags:john mccain, hillary clinton, diebold, voting machines, new hampshire primary, dennis kusinich, elizabeth kusinich, ron paul
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:john mccain, hillary clinton, diebold, voting machines, new hampshire primary, dennis kusinich, elizabeth kusinich, ron paul
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Hillary Wins New Hampshire: Reactions

Technorati Tags:public reaction, pictures, hillary, anyone but hillary, anyone but hillary in 2008, new hampshire primary, 2008 election,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:public reaction, pictures, hillary, anyone but hillary, anyone but hillary in 2008, new hampshire primary, 2008 election,
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Why Kusinich MUST WIN!

Look at the glint in his eyes: it says it all. "My wife is HOT. She married ME, a little dwarf. Either I'm fantastic in bed or I'm the smartest man on the planet.....or BOTH!

Either way, both make me the most qualified person to be running for President."

Elizabeth will restore instant respect for the Presidency worldwide. And come on, we've had some real barkers as first lady. Walk through the White House and look at the portraits of the former First Ladies. Lady Bird Johnson? Elenore Roosevelt?? Barbara Bush???????? Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton would make being Gay a viable option.

With the exception of Jackie Kennedy, who I guess was considered hot for her time, our First Ladies have not done a good job of highlighting the beauty of the American Woman.

Dennis Kusinich deserves the Presidency because he landed Elizabeth, period. If he knows anything about governing, that's a plus.

Or maybe we should elect Elizabeth Kusinich President! She could charm the terrorists into turning in their arms. She could bring about world peace. Who could say no to that face? If we're going to have a woman President someday, THIS is the woman I want history to remember: not some evil looking, sexual turnoff like Hillary Clinton.

So when you vote Kusinich; and you MUST vote Kusinich; think Elizabeth, not Dennis. SHE'S HOT, HOT, HOT!!!!!!!!.....I mean, qualified.

Technorati Tags:elizabeth kusinich, dennis kusinich, 2008 election,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:elizabeth kusinich, dennis kusinich, 2008 election,
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Iowa: A Victory for "Anybody but Hillary" !

Anyone reading the title of this blog can pretty quickly pick up the fact I don't like (and in-fact am terrified of) a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

So it was not without some trepidation I picked up my morning paper. First relief: Omaba had won (don't like his policies, but he's the best chance of beating Hillary on the Democrat side). And then came the icing on the cake: Hillary didn't win, she didn't even come in second. SHE CAME IN THIRD!

Of course the Clinton camp is doing everything they can, which isn't much, to downplay the loss. And they're back on message, if not a little harsher: “We can’t have false hopes,” Hillary told Reuters. “We’ve got to have a person who can walk into that Oval office on day one and start doing the hard work that it takes to deliver change.”

So now Obama is a "false hope". Gee Hillary, that's not a very nice thing to say. I thought we were running a positive campaign?

And notice how she dropped the words "deliver change" into her message. Now she's the policy wonk who knows the White House like the back of her hand, but can "deliver change". She's talking out of both sides of her mouth again....somethings never change.

And I'm still waiting to hear why exactly she thinks she can walk into the Oval Office on Day 1 and start work. Granted, she won't need a tour or have to ask where the bathrooms are. She also knows exactly where in the White House bedroom the congressionally "requested" papers which had been missing for years mysteriously just "showed up" one day?

Other than being a figure-head first lady with visions of Universal Health Care dancing through her head, how is she the only one ready for Day 1? John Edwards is a Senator too and has more experience in Congress than Hillary. Why can't he take a 5 minute tour and get down to work?

And what if the Bush people vandalized the White House the way the Clinton's did when they left...taking keys off of keyboards, disconnecting phones, etc. That would put a crimp in Day 1.

On the Republican side, a huge loss for Romney considering the time and money he spent in Iowa, a big win for Huckabee, who for some reason, seems capable to me of doing a Republican version of Howard Dean on himself and goodbye Rudy.

But to me, the big (and predictably way under-reported) story was that Ron Paul got 10% of the votes. In contrast, Rudy only got 3%. Thompson and McCain only received 13% or 3% more than Ron Paul. And aside from what he paid for, Paul received little if any media attention at all. Not a bad showing at all, considering. And while Fox is still banning Paul from their Presidential Debate, ABC news has just announced Paul will be included in theirs. Interesting.

New Hampshire is next and that will be a lot more telling than Iowa. They're an independent bunch up there (did you know New Hampshire has no State or Sales taxes?). And while Iowa was a caucus, New Hampshire will be the first true primary of 2008.

Will the Iowa results hold? Will Romney make a comeback? Will Hillary be able to come across as the policy wonk of change? We'll know in less than a week.

As to my preference, it is, as always, Anyone But Hillary in 2008!

Sincerely, Mr. Unloadingzone

Technorati Tags:2008 election, iowa caucus, new hampshire primary, anyone but hillary, anti-hillary, barack obama, democrat, rudy, hillary clinton, mike huckabee, missing documents, mitt romney, ron paul, republican
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:2008 election, iowa caucus, new hampshire primary, anyone but hillary, anti-hillary, barack obama, democrat, rudy, hillary clinton, mike huckabee, missing documents, mitt romney, ron paul, republican
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

DMN: Democrats want Change; Republicans want Bill Clinton?

On December 23rd 2007, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee for President in 2008. Their justification was "both took a fresh approach".

That's the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard for justifying an endorsement. A fresh approach to the same old way of doing business? That's not what the American people want. They want CHANGE and that is very different than a "fresh approach".

All the candidates, both Democrat and Republican, bring a "fresh approach" to the table. Unfortunately, that "fresh approach" is just a different way of handling business as usual in Washington.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to end the war and bring the troops home. That is a different approach than George W. Bush has taken, but both also want to bring the troops home "over time" in a phased pull-out taking, in Obama's case, 16 months. A real fresh approach would be to pull them all out as quickly as we put them in. Make the Iraqis rise to the challenge or let them splinter into Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd fiefdoms: it doesn't matter.

Thanks to Mr. Bush's ill-advised invasion and incredibly poor handling of the "peace", we've lost any leverage we ever had over the Iraqi region. Our continued presence just inflames anti-American sentiment. Not to mention the billions and billions of dollars we're pouring down the drain over there.

Other than that, Obama has his own version of Universal Health Care, his own reworded version of "soak the rich-help the middle class". In fact, reading through his own list of positions on his own website, Obama offers little but rhetoric, rewarmed Big Government initiatives, and standard feel-good, 2 chickens in every pot (with the Government paying for the chickens while the rich pay for the pot).

Making Work Pay tax credit: that sounds positive. Real-world value to a taxpayer? Virtually nothing.

Saving 2 Billion dollars in tax preparer fees: that sounds good until you realize that accountants and middle class tax preparers for H&R Block and the like don't have jobs anymore. And we have to pay their unemployment insurance.

Taxes? Only more class warfare: "The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans". Of course Obama neglects to mention that the top 5% of taxpayers in this country pay 90% of the income tax. 40% of Americans pay no income tax. The remaining 55% pay 10% of the taxes.

The only fresh approach Barack Obama takes is in how he sells the snake oil. Status quo; business as usual.

Now, according to the Dallas Morning News, the Republicans long for the day when a Governor/Musician of the back-water state of Arkansas sits in the White House again.

This time he's is a conservative Christian, which the DMN made considerable apologies for in their endorsement article, and I guess the DMN feels that the only way for a Republican to be elected is for him to be a conservative Christian......definitely not from a Christian Cult like say, the Mormons.

At least Huckabee claims to be anti-illegal immigration and lists a long series of actions he would take to tackle illegal immigration. Obama, for no good reason, is completely pro-illegal immigrants, pro-amnesty program, and apparently against Black Americans who are hurt the most by the influx of illegals.

Huckabee is certainly not offering a fresh approach on Iraq. Reading his published position, you may as well be reading a brief offered by George W. Bush. Iraq and terrorism are inextricably entwined and we must WIN (again?) in Iraq.

Huckabee's position on Healthcare is just political doublespeak: focus on preventative healthcare. At least he doesn't support Universal Healthcare like Obama.

He talks a lot about religion and makes the accurate constitutional argument that while the state can not SUPPORT religion, neither can it REPRESS it.

But in the end, both Obama and Huckabee are traditional politicians. There will be no "fresh approach", just different paths and different judicial appointments. There will be no fundamental difference in the general path America is walking and the declining of America will continue.

Personally, I'd like to see a shot at REAL CHANGE. Policies so 180 degree different from the status quo which has led to America's continuing decline. that the entire world would sit up and says Wow ! I'd like to see America wake up to a REAL New Day.
Only one candidate from either party offers that chance and that's Ron Paul. Come on, America, the Executive Branch is one of three. There are checks and balances. It's not like a Paul Presidency could destroy the country in four years.

On the other hand, consider the possibilities of turning the clock back to the America the Founders actually envisioned. Consider smaller government, no more foreign police actions, no more deficit. no more IRS......

Ron Paul raised over $20 million dollars in the 4th quarter to Mike Huckabee's $5 million: doesn't that show Paul's electability? $20 million dollars while the mainstream press does everything it can to show Ron Paul in a bad light.....or not at all.

You are right, Dallas Morning News, America does want change, but they want SIGNIFICANT, REAL, YOU CAN'T MISS IT change. They don't want a "fresh approach": they want a NEW approach.

You blew a perfect opportunity to express that in your endorsement but you're so out of touch with real America that someone just phoned in the cynical endorsements and went back to bed.

You should have endorsed Ron Paul. If your media friends made fun of you, you could have fallen back on the fact that Dr. Paul is a Texan and you felt obligated to support him. You'd still get invited to the media dinners and such.

Instead you copped out, took the easy approach, abandoned your usual favorite, Hillary Clinton, and without saying it directly, supported Obama because he's black, but doesn't flaunt it. How Hip of you.

And on the other side, you supported a white evangelical Christian because you think all Republicans would vote for any evangelical Christian, and since Bill Clinton was from Arkansas, a Governor from that state, the last of whom enjoyed the boom times of the 1990's as President, would bring back warm capitalist memories in these troubled economic times.

In other words, Dallas Morning News, you played it safe, endorsed the status quo, and called it a "Fresh Approach". It's about as fresh as day-old flowers from a funeral.

Dr. Paul is not a "fringe candidate". He has a lot more support then the press reports. He stands for REAL change. I don't agree with all his positions, but like millions of Americans, I'm sick and tired of the Status Quo. I'm sick of the choreographed campaigns, the phony emotional up's and down's, the so-called suspense, and the inevitable conclusion. Let's shake it up this time with some REAL change. Let's put Ron Paul in the White House and see what happens. It won't be boring and it won't be Status Quo.

Technorati Tags:barack obama, black, christian, dallas morning news, endorsement, mike huckabee, ron paul, status quo
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:barack obama, black, christian, dallas morning news, endorsement, mike huckabee, ron paul, status quo
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

The Selling Out of America: John, Hillary and Barack; Atrocious Illegal Immigration VOTING Records of ALL TOP 3 Democratic Presidential Candidates:

Marc Chamot wrote an incredible piece on the Illegal Immigration voting records of the three top Democrat candidates. We all know about Hillary's views although reading all the quotes was chilling. John Edwards bores me and it's no surprise he's pro-illegal.

But Barack Obama? Yes, he would make the occasional one sentence comment indicating he leans pro-illegals, but read the quotes by Obama in Marc's story and your hair will stand on end!

How can Black America, the group most hurt by the illegal alien invasion, even THINK of supporting Obama, let alone the other Democrat voters who are anti-illegals?

Click on the title of this story to be taken to Marc's article. It's well worth the trip!

Technorati Tags:marc chamot, 2008 election, democrat, edwards, election 2008, hillary clinton, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, obama, barack obama
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:2008 election, democrat, edwards, election 2008, marc chamot, hillary clinton, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, obama, barack obama
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it