Our National Debt

Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of Sen. McCain and/or his tax plan.
Both of these candidates don't care about our national debt. The idea that cutting every earmark (except a $300 Mill reward for a new car battery) will matter/make a difference in our national budget is ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous to claim as Mr. Obama has, that he's layed out exactly how he'd pay for all of his new spending. Hogwash the both of them. Nothing they want to spend money on is going to happen unless they ignore our debt.
It is dishonorable to this country to not talk about our national debt and want to fix it. Fixing our national debt will take a great deal of things.
1) Shrinking our government. Specifically actually get rid of all the fraud in our programs. Anywhere from 50-90% of our government programs are twice as big as they need to be.
2) Do everything it takes, short of spending more government money, to get the economy back on track. We need to take even more advantage of free trade. Part of this would include lowering business taxes. It is nice for Mr. Obama to frame Mr. McCain's tax plan as "more tax breaks for big oil" but in reality it is tax breaks for all companies. Small, medium, and big.
The facts are the facts and the fact is our corporate tax rate is too high, we're the second highest in the world. Now Sen. Obama is right that because of loopholes our companies in fact do pay much less than the current 35% but if he truly wants to cut tax loopholes then he must lower the tax rate at the same time to spur growth. If he closes the tax loopholes and leaves the corporate tax rate the same or even increases it then we'll see a lot more jobs leave this country.
It isn't simply the loopholes/tax breaks that make U.S. companies go over sea's, it is also the corporate gains tax and corporate tax rate being higher than most of the world. The more our companies grow the more jobs get created and the more revenue for the country.
This article although a bit slanted anti-Obama makes a couple key points:

While governors are forced to acknowledge harsh fiscal reality, the presidential candidates continue to dodge it. During their first debate, Obama and McCain evaded repeated questions from moderator Jim Lehrer, who pressed both candidates on what they would give up, in terms of priorities, in light of the current fiscal crisis.
"There are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed," Obama said, without specifying. He said he still hopes to "invest in alternative energy, fix our healthcare system. . . make sure that college is affordable. . . and rebuild infrastructure." Meanwhile, Obama is also promising to roll back the Bush tax cuts.
McCain said he would cut spending and lower taxes. McCain also tossed out the general notion of a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs, and entitlement programs.
Both presidential candidates seem blissfully out of sync with the overall message of doom and gloom emanating from financial analysts.
From Massachusetts to the presidential campaign trail, citizens need less hope and hype and more honesty about what it takes to live within their means.

Read more...

First Debate: Part 1

I made sure to record all of the post-debate analysis shows that I enjoy but still have yet to watch them. I haven't read a single article about the debate yet either. I have ignored all polls thus far as well. I've now given myself more than 24 hours but less than 48 hours to allow the debate to sink in. I isolate myself to allow myself to truly form my own opinion on this, even if it ends up sounding like many pundits out there. I'll talk a bit about the economic part of the debate but this was supposed to be about foreign policy and that's really my main focus about this debate. I'll be making a few different posts on the debate. Now, let me get to it...

I'm torn between a draw or a minor loss for Mr. Obama which actually helps the Obama campaign. Sen. McCain needed a game changer and with the absence of any gaffe by either man Mr. McCain didn't get one. Foreign policy is what Sen.McCain has essentially staked his campaign on and he didn't improve his standing on that but he may have at best (for the McCain campaign) put a ceiling on the level of readiness to be Commander-in-Chief for Sen. Obama. If in fact he accomplished this then he kept the race tight. Obama, outside of needing to look presidential, his biggest goal I thought was to make his case and explain that his plan for Iraq is not in fact defeat (it isn't). He attempted to directly do that once. It was nice to hear that both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama didn't even know who they were talking about:

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT BAGHDAD: And Tehran will be surprised to learn that there are late forces of the Republican Guards as opposed to the Revolutionary Guard. ...Know thy enemy obviously doesn't apply in the presidential debate.

If you just listen to the debate on the radio and/or read the transcript, on substance this was a draw. We, excuse me, political junkies learned nothing new last night but the stark differences were certainly emphasized. If you're a voter that just started around the conventions, you probably learned a great deal. If that is the case, here is a live fact check done by the Washington Post during the debate. Here is the fact checking from factcheck.org And here is the fact checking done by politifact.com

That Mr. McCain could never look at Mr. Obama was very odd as was McCain's lack of not looking into the camera. On style Mr. Obama won by a landslide -and his biggest goal was to look presidential, look safe. Mr. McCain certainly tried for humor but very little of it seemed to land. I do chuckle everytime he does the Bear DNA joke. Mr. Obama however looked directly into the camera a few times and was willing to look right at Mr. McCain who seemed like the only one he wanted to talk to was the moderator.

Shocker alert:   They both stuck to there talking points.

Read more...

If you care about health care...

...then here are a few things you must watch and/or read. All of these things should help greatly clarify each canidates plans.
Thanks to the New England Journal of Medicine you can watch McCain's chief health policy adviser Gail Wilensky and David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan debate and explain each canidates policies. The video is remarkable for their clarity on this complex issue and for their civility. I would urge anyone who cares about this vitally important issue to watch and/or read.
Here is the video and transcript
 This break down of the two candidtes plans.
 Critique of Obama's plan by Joseph Antos of American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
 Critique of McCain's plan by David Blumenthal of a liberal Health Policy Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital

Read more...

Interesting health care tidbit...

...from an LA Times blog:

On Sept. 16, the journal Health Affairs offered a web exclusive with a critique
of the Obama healthcare plan, saying its costs are unsustainable, and one of the McCain plan, saying the number of uninsured could grow from 45 million to 60 million in the next five years. Another article in the journal suggests that America's healthcare system could benefit from a mixing and matching from each of the plans.

So both candidates have bad healthcare plans?

They said employers would be less likely to offer coverage if they knew their workers could get it elsewhere. In all, the authors projected that 20 million people would lose their employer-sponsored insurance under McCain's plan, while 21 million people would gain coverage through the individual market — little more than a wash...And as monthly insurance premiums rise and the tax break stays the same, even that gain would erode...Another concern is that insurers would gravitate to states with less onerous coverage requirements. For example, 29 states insist insurers in the individual and small group market cover cervical cancer screenings. They could locate in states without such requirements.

The Democrat would set up a kind of government-run shopping mall that would negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers. One choice would be a government-run plan. No participating company could turn someone away because of pre-existing cancer, heart disease or diabetes. Nor would someone have to pay a higher monthly premium based on those conditions...The government would subsidize the cost for many who buy coverage through this exchange. But analysts say using third parties to subsidize the cost of a product exacerbates health inflation. Consumers and providers act as if any service that might yield some value should be covered...Obama would also require all but small businesses to make a "meaningful" payment for health coverage of their workers or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the public plan offered through the exchange.

Read more...

Economic stump speech's

Not to take a phrase from CNN but here are the candidates "in there own words" regarding the current economic crisis (without sound bites that the TV media and articles live off of):
McCain in Tampa
McCain in Michigan

Obama in Nevada
Labeled "Confronting An Economic Crisis"

Read more...

The Candidates Tax Plans: Made relatively simple

http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/compare/

Just wanted to give readers what the media wont...the facts on the candidates tax plans.

Read more...

The Palin Affect

There has been some seriously obsessive talking about the affect Palin has had. To be sure, she has energized the base unlike any other candidate would have, could have. To be sure, to the Republican base she is a breath of fresh air. The biggest thing though was that this is arguably the shrewdest political move the McCain campaign could've possibly made. The fact is that because she is so new the news channels have to vet her, and every day that they air something new, in order to vet her publicly, is another day that McCain-Palin gets talked about and less time for Obama to get coverage. Palin has become an absolute media hog (in terms of amount of discussion and coverage) without even trying. She's certainly given essentially the same exact speech at every campaign stop but every day she is covered is a win for the McCain-Palin campaign. Talking about "when does she finally answer questions?" is a win for them. Palin's coverage could last another two weeks as she gets around to doing more interviews and finally hits the Sunday talk shows. That shrinks the election to basically 40 days. That's essentially a sprint coming off of not only a convention but consistent coverage of a very engaging VP candidate.

Part of this was also an absolute over reaction by the Obama campaign and the media. A couple things come to mind in this regard:

1) Where are the surrogates to help attack the McCain-Palin ticket without focusing on just Palin?
2) Where is Joe Biden and why has he not been the attack dog VP like he's supposed to be?
3) Why hasn't Obama gotten back on message already? The Republican convention was over four days ago.

Obama is getting caught having to fight by himself for himself. Where are the Democrat surrogates? This can't simply be that Congress is out of session so they aren't in Washington to be easily accessed. How does the Obama campaign get caught attacking Palin while Palin attacks Obama? The surrogates should be doing this and helping to get the fight back to McCain. This is a very bad moment for the Obama campaign and to McCain's credit a brilliant moment for him.

Read more...

Thinking voters are stupid...?

This is a very dangerous thing for any candidate to get into. Recently a cable news network showed some clips of Mr. Obama on the campaign stump talking to voters and hammering some (truthful) facts about Gov. Palin's earmark/pork barrel spending history. He mentions, about the bride to no where, "first she was for it, then against it -pause- remember that?" Certainly he was referring to the attacks against Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

Bringing this up at all in turn leads to his shift on oil drilling. His shift on public financing. His shift/pragmatism on Iraq. His tax plan has never changed but his most recent rhetoric is now, and this is paraphrasing: "first priority is getting the tax cuts done....then see where we're at, if we're in a recession....could hold back/wait to raise taxes on those I've said I'll raise taxes on". Obama has certainly shifted and/or changed rhetoric over the election.

The simple truth is every one called him out for shifting to the center as soon as he won the primary after running to his base. He actually shifted on maybe half of his issues but that's beside the point. The point is not long ago he was said to of shifted (as every single Democrat has done) toward the center. In fact, from a policy standpoint, Mr. McCain has shifted his stances more than Mr. Obama but the media covered that fact less. Most likely because Sen. McCain was shifting to help get him votes from his base while Sen. Obama was shifting in a way that could have cost him votes with his base. The bigger reason was probably that Mr. Obama is still, by comparison, the new kid on the block without a track record to judge where he'll stay or eventually land as to which side of an issue.

Read more...

A forgotten post...

This is a post I had written back on 7/26/08 and somehow forgot to post it...

Senator Barack Obama intelligently chose to go to Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Israel and Palestine. Now some can argue that he simply caved into Senator John McCain's campaign constant talking point that it'd been "over 900 days and counting" since he had last been. Since this blog isn't to get childish, let us move on. This is where Obama should have stopped and come home. He had a fantastic couple of days while in the middle-east, especially with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki talking about Obama's plan sounding "about right" to him. (Keep in mind that Maliki in no way explicitly endorsed Obama's plan and made a point to state, through his spokesman, that conditions would have to be part of it. He also used the term "with slight changes". These absolutely important distinctions were somehow missed by a large part of reporters and especially Obama support "talking point pundits" on TV.)

Obama may have made the mistake of being a tad too specific in what tribal leaders and Gen. Petreus said to him in private talks but he wasn't overly specific where it could be obvious which way the tribal leaders saw his plan. People seem to not have noticed that his plan did, or more accurately his talking points of his Iraq plan did change even while over there. While Sen. McCain and others get swept up in Sen. Obama still using the words "16 months", he is more and more talking about conditions and leaving enough troops to help the Iraqi forces. One of his aides has even said those forces would ideally be between 60-80,000 troops, hardly an insignificant level at the rate the Iraqi forces are gaining in strength and experience.

You never want to be overly specific as to your foreign policy plans, specifically in regards to a war and so far he hasn't been. This has however, allowed McCain and his supporters to claim Obama is somehow still stuck on having all US troops home within 16 months of him becoming president, if elected. As this really was once his plan, it isn't any longer and hasn’t been for at least a year now. (It is important to mention that Obama himself didn’t view his plan as a way to lose in Iraq; obviously some would argue his original plan would’ve guaranteed failure in Iraq but he didn’t see it that way. Take that as you the reader wish.)

He gave up saying all US troops would be home within 16 months early in his primary race and when the evidence the surge was working/had worked became overwhelming; even if he failed to acknowledge it soon enough. It is one thing to make the fair & accurate point that one can never know how history would've turned out if another path had been chosen. To say you wouldn't have changed your opinion of the surge if you could go back in time because you still believe your plan may very well have done the same thing the surge did is even okay. To not outright admit one was wrong about what the surge would do is pure stubbornness. Or is it? Or is their enough facts, or nuance, that makes him technicaly correct? Or isn’t this really just politics by Obama? It should be hard to imagine a man of such education and such a diverse upbringing could not see that he was in fact wrong about the surge, let alone anything with such evidence to the contrary. This isn’t Obama being stubborn, this is Obama playing politics. This is pure politics. Typically only two kinds of politicians exist: those that admit when an opponent was right and he/she was wrong and those that never do. Depending on whom his opponent is Sen. Obama is in the middle. When debating with Sen. Hillary Clinton he said he agreed with her and she was right a couple of times, not even doing the typical politician thing of adding to her point. Now Obama and Hillary were 90% the same candidate so that isn’t surprising. That also doesn’t make it surprising that when his opponent is Sen. McCain, he’s only willing to agree with him about global warming.

Now it is equally fair of him, even extremely accurate of him, to point out that more US troops wasn't the sole reason violence went back down. Other key parts to it were the Sen. Obama was even talked about highly by Palestinians as well as Israeli's for whatever opinions Obama seemed to share with them. That was important because he is having trouble with the Jewish vote in America unlike many Democratic candidates before him. Polls over time will show whether it helped him or not with Jewish voters but his campaign I'm sure is hoping it did.

Read more...

Obama's Speech

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_american_promise.html

I try not to knee jerk to such historical moments. That isn't saying I agree or disagree with Mr. Obama's policies but we have to recognize that this country, after far too many years, finally nominated its first bi-racial candidate. (Stop, he isn't solely African-American.)

I have to say that I thought it was a great speech in the big picture, in its entirety. This speech will stand the test of time and go down in a very short list of our nations history. Even most old time Republicans are saying this. Their were parts I laughed at, parts I cried during, and parts I was wondering where he was going. I don't feel something like this should be or needs to be over analyzed and nit picked.

He had some very strong lines. He wasn't strong enough on the economy; President Clinton made a better attack speech. A few that stood out to me (and again, not saying whether I agreed or disagreed but what stood out):

I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.
It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.
In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.
Well it's time for them to own their failure.
I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election...
I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.
And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength."
But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.
John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.
You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq.
We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe.
But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.
The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.
So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.
You make a big election about small things.
And you know what - it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.
I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

Read more...

Finally!

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080901/OPINION03/809010368/1271/OPINION01

So I finally found an article that acknowledges if one criticizes Sen. Obama for having a lack of experience then one must admit the same about Gov. Palin. I don't agree with everything this man has to say but the overall premise, that they're both rookies who haven't paid enough dues, if the case is to be made about either, then it is to be made about both. My personal problem is that if something happens to Mr. McCain then Mrs. Palin is left to herself. Mr. Obama it is the opposite, something were to happen to him the country is left in experienced hands.

This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with either parties policies, this is strictly about the experience argument and that it goes both ways. Now, this isn't something the Obama campaign should be delving into, that should be done by surrogates and talking pundits only; although the subject of experience, since it is a top issue in the polls for Obama, should be ignored at all costs.

Again, this isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with either candidates policies or judgement, simply the experience argument.

Read more...

Hillary Supporters

Hillary supporters are getting FAR too much coverage during this convention. They really are. Lets put them under the main categories that they really fall into and in no particular order (their issues): Experience, conservative women who voted for Hillary simply because she was the first female presidential candidate, and race.

The fourth category which may prove to be the most damaging as far as the voters that want a Democrat and don't like Republicans is the media coverage that lied to her supporters by portraying the Democratic primary as a close race where either candiate could win. The race was over and impossible for Sen. Clinton after Super Tuesday (the real one) back in Febuarary. No one, who knows how elections work, could've possibly believed that super delegates were going to go against the candidate who got the most "regular" delegates and risk HUGE issues all over this country.

This isn't about whether the coverage itself was more bias towards Sen. Obama or not. It is about the portrayol of how close the race was when it wasn't.

If you look at those four premises, in hindsight, Senator Joe Biden was the only choice Mr. Obama had. He can't change the fact he's male and a Democrat, he can't change that he's half-black (he's no Michael Jackson...), and he can't change how the media portrayed the primary race as far as how close it was in delegtes (and supposed bias). The only voting issue he could help quell is the idea that he doesn't have enough experience and he wouldn't know how to get things done in the White House. This isn't about whether or not that is true or not, but the polls show experience is an issue holding Mr. Obama back.

We could debate all day whether a VP pick helps or not, specifically when one is picked not based on helping or "guaranteeing" a state (Biden vs. Kaine/Bayh), but in the end some voters did take JFK more seriously because of LBJ and some voters did take President Bush more seriously because of Vice Preisdent Dick Cheney.

Their are a fair amount of undecided's that are waiting to see the VP picks before making their decision. That's despite the fact no matter who the VP's are the policies are almost as opposite as you can get. It isn't likely Mr. Biden is a net negative (as long as Obama's campaign fires back on the attack ads already out) but he could prove to be a net positive in the VP debates. When you look at who is on Mr. McCain's short list, not many if any look like they could handle Mr. Biden in a debate. The x-factor is whether Sen. Biden puts his foot in his mouth.

Read more...

Obama's Vice President...

...will be Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia. That's this bloggers gut feeling and wanted to post it before Obama actually announces it tomorrow (Saturday, 8/23). Or no one talked about endlessly by obsessive pundits. Not Biden, not Bayh, nor Hillary; someone out of right field.

Read more...

On vacation

For those wondering where I've been...on vacation during the entire duration of the Olympics. Congats to Phelps.

Did see the Civil Forum and here's the quick run down:

Tons of substance to this Q & A format although nothing all that new.
You could tell Sen. Obama was fresh off a vacation but he maintained his ground in nuance personality that came across measured and well thought out, plus very sincere. As far as the key voters in the swing states he is hoping to win, he may have come across a bit elite; or rather too intellectual. He said nothing that will alienate his current supporters. He seemed more comfortable talking about faith, even quoting Mathew once. He dodged the abortion question, specifically in regards to when a fetus gets rights. This will be a non-issue voting wise. Everyone knows he is pro-choice and Sen. McCain is pro-life. Him handling the question in that manner doesn't change anything.

McCain used the forum for talking points, but he did it in his at times lost fashion of being frank, blunt, and direct. This only helps him maintain the image of him being the "straight talk" politician which keeps those who have a favorable view of him and allows voters to write off his pandering to the Republican base. It helped him maintain that "comfort" he holds with a great deal of North Americans.

Not sold either candidate won over voters. Sen. Obama may have made some religious voters more comfortable with him; specifically and solely the conservative voters that aren't strict pro-life people. Sen. McCain may have ignited his base a bit more with the pro-life part of the forum but that shouldn't be seen as winning over voters that would've voted for Sen. Obama.

This forum simply reaffirmed the images and opinions of each candidate as long as one has been paying attention, not much, if anything, was new information.

Read more...

McCain: Still getting caught lying about Obama's tax plan

Factcheck.org yet again points out that McCain's ads of Obama's tax policy are continually wrong.
A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year...But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150...is not part of his current tax plan anyway.
...ad claims...Obama supported...raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false...single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected...family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.
The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would "raise taxes on middle class." In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.
...Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes
..."Obama has a history of raising taxes" on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.

Read more...

McCain claims small business...

...will have raised taxes under Sen. Barack Obama's tax policy. He says 23 million small businesses. Factcheck.org checks in and says: Wrong. We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000.
...But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down.
The actual number of business owners who would be affected turns out to be well under a million, and the number of employers would be even less.

McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners.

The article: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

Read more...

McCain's attack ads: Food for Thought

When Paris Hilton attacks back, your own mother (McCain's) calls them pathetic, and the general consensus is that they're a bit juvenile and silly....they're working. What does that say about the voting public? That they're seeing the debatable substance (meaning only about half of the content said as fact has been found to be actual facts) that takes place at the end of the ad's or that as much as North American's love the tabloids they don't enjoy their presidential candidates being almost at that level of celebrity? Or is it they've forgotten that Sen. McCain is the one who has appeared in multiple movies, on SNL multiple times, and had to scrap his reference to him being a celebrity on his own campaign web site before he ran the ads? Most likely it has to do with Sen. McCain being substance and being frank with the country even while being a celebrity. The Obama campaign could try to do a counter ad showing Sen. McCain in all of his cameos but they simply wouldn't have the same effect. Obama's people are in a bind on this one because he just doesn't have the connection with the country that McCain does, he isn't allowed the same free passes that Mr. McCain is allowed.

Take the time Sen. McCain had to be corrected by Sen. Lieberman or the Pakistan border misstep. When both mistakes were made even Democrats admitted the reason those weren't turn into political attacks is because everyone knows Mr. McCain understands what is going on in the Middle East and one misstatement doesn't mean he has forgotten everything he knew about our situation over there.

In no way is this a fair double standard but it is reality and 20 years from now, whether Mr. Obama wins or not in November, he'll be afforded the same "courtesy". The McCain brand has a long standing foot hold in this country’s eyes, his "favorable view" ratings have probably never dipped below 50% and that is hard to accomplish.

Read more...

Free Trade: Obama

Now that I’ve posted where both candidates stand on free trade, let’s dissect.
Sen. Barack Obama is saying that he’d “amend” NAFTA and if you go by his debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton in Ohio he’d use the leverage of opting out entirely to get it renegotiated. NAFTA needs tweaking but having NAFTA as is, is still better than having no NAFTA at all. NAFTA wasn’t “oversold” to the American people, it was badly legislated. Saying he’d work with Mexico and Canada to make sure it benefitted “American workers” would probably have to be done in such a way that it would hurt Canadian and Mexican workers so it isn’t likely that either country would be looking forward to renegotiating it. Whether he says he wants to amend or end NAFTA, it isn't likely either happens. His stance on this is most likely far more campaign rhetoric than not. Not even many Democrats in Congress are talking one way or the other about NAFTA. He must continue to say it hasn’t been ideal for North American workers however because people in Michigan and a lot of states in heartland of this country blame NAFTA for most if not all of their economic problems. It may very well be a reason why Sen. Obama has made strides in some Mid-West states.

Mr. Obama says that he’d want to create “flexible education accounts”. This concept sounds intriguing and hopefully he’ll be asked to elaborate on it. One could be reaching but it is possible he is talking about something similar to private health care accounts where a worker can put pre-tax money into it that acts like a savings account which can be used only to pay hospital bills. He may be thinking it should be funded by our federal government. He may think the companies should fund such accounts. He could think the government and the companies should fork out the cash, maybe even the worker as well. The companies in the long run would still save money by having to pay for some or even all of it if the job(s) are being lost due to outsourcing.

“…providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs” The key thing here is that he recognizes it must happen before the job is lost. If you act before someone looses their job they are far more likely to not end up on unemployment or if they do, not be on it as long as someone that waits to retrain after he/she looses the job. Obviously this is needed but which sectors of our economy does he see as vulnerable? A huge chunk of the United States manufacturing jobs are already gone, the “big three” car companies are still losing money, and most tech support (phone, e-mail, instant chat support) jobs are overseas. There are plenty of sectors left that could stand to outsource.

“He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world…” This is what agreements like NAFTA and others are already doing. Now one could fairly and accurately argue that such standards aren’t being met quickly enough, specifically in regards to China. Although it is a slow process, in the end, free trade agreements will achieve this goal as long as governments don't try to retract them. India is actually a prime example as to how much free trade helps raise the quality of living around the world. They've recently reached a point where they feel capable of nuclear power plants; with our help of course. That wasn’t imaginable 15-20 years ago.

Obama is right to point out that better enforcement of trade agreements is needed and that some governments are subsidizing foreign exporters. The United States has removed too many tariffs as some countries we trade with still have tariffs against us. We should be having no tariffs solely with those that don’t impose them on us but work to get tariffs out of the way with every country.

Sadly, or rather typically, Obama hasn't been all that specific about free trade. Some very important questions as to his opinions of free trade and how he'd do things differently need to be answered. This blogger plans on e-mailing his campaign with some questions regarding his stance on free trade, obviously I'll pass on any information given if they actually respond.

Read more...

Pelosi: Doing her best to keep her job

Pelosi wont allow a vote on off-shore oil drilling. She has guaranteed herself reelection. She has at the same time guaranteed the dislike of North Americans all over the country. Pelosi and her key supporters in the Conress can try to make the case that lifting the federal moratorium is non-sensical and that it wont help for 10 years. Democrats even have some very specific facts that support their claim that the federal moratorium doesn't need to be lifted.

In a year when everyone, pundits and surrogates from both parties, admit that the Republicans should be taking a bath this year and losing many seats in both the House and the Senate this allows Republicans to have a very important issue that could single handedly win them various elections. Sen. Obama has seen the writing on the wall and agreed to allow more drilling; with the premise that only if it is part of a broad energy policy. Certainly North Americans are going to be more happy that Mr. Obama will allow or support it regardless of his reasons or reservations.

Pelosi is playing dangerous politics that could seriously hurt her party but at least her voters will continue to love her and she has now locked up her job.

This is a big opportunity for Sen. Obama. He has to go from saying he'd be okay with oil drilling as long as it is part of a broad energy policy to telling Pelosi she has to listen and get something done. Our government is elected to carry out the will of the general public. Mr. Obama could show he'll actually lead his party and that he wont simply cave in to them; wont allow them to govern him like this country saw with the Democrats during Jimmy Carter's only term, the first two years of President Bill Clinton's first term, and the Republicans during the curent President Bush's two terms. It helps very few when a president allows his own party to do everything they want. Their must always be limits and a checks and balance between the Congress and the executive branch.

Read more...

So Obama made the switch with a nuanced spin.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/148986

You've been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you'd need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?

I do think that's entirely conditions-based. It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now.

Now how long until this makes headlines and people call it for what it is? Obama has come a long way on his plan for Iraq; from 100% US troop withdrawal by March of 2007 to "most" troops out of Iraq within 16 months of him becoming president and now finally to the amount of "most troops" being entirely conditions based. USA Today did an editorial a couple days ago talking about the fact that in reality, Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama's Iraq plans really aren't much different, it should be noted that with that quote, they officially have no difference. Of course, the more that quote gets out the more his campaign will back track from it or claim he’s always said that, which would be only partially true.

The other Iraq related question:
In Iraq, it's not new that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has wanted to take control of his own country. But there's always been this gap between his assessment of his abilities and American commanders' saying he's not up to it. As president, faced with that difference between what he says he can do and what the commanders say he can do, how would you choose between them?

Iraq is a sovereign country. Not just according to me, but according to George Bush and John McCain. So ultimately our presence there is at their invitation, and their policy decisions have to be taken into account. I also think that Maliki recognizes that they're going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted. We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective.

Read more...