We need to come up with some special term fora James Woods tweet that nukes the Left in just the perfect way… James-i-fied? Woods-i-dized? Something with VideoDrome? (which incidentally is one of the freakin’ SCARIEST movies ever made)
Anyway, we need to come up with SOMETHING because this tweet (and many others like it) deservesits own category:
#GoofyElizabeth Warren actually stated "that no one, no one in this country is above the law," apparently forgetting to exempt all #Clintons
During the Presidential campaign, the Democrats found this tidbit of information regarding Palin.
We found it amusing because Obama took in well north of 600 million dollars in his campaign. As a percentage of that amount, this was .02%. Read that again. .02%.
Most of the items the Democrats qualified as wardrobe were props for appearances in various parts of the country, worn for the appearance and returned or given to charities to help cancer, orphaned children, etc. We would like to see Obama give back his 600 million to the poor, or John Edwards return his $1250 for his haircut to feed a starving child.
But the Democrats have made it a historic article, even though the election is completely over.
Let’s put this in perspective. If Sarah had earned this much in a year, Obama would have given her a tax cut.
One liberal rag even published this article that poses a lie about Sarah that she wants to be the ambassador to Africa. This after more lies about comments she made about Africa. They then blocked all comments from readers. The man that wrote the article isn’t worth the dirt on the bottom of Sarah’s borrowed shoes.
The same political rag published this nonsense about Africa. The writer looks like she is 12 and writes like it is her IQ. Get something real to say guys. There are important issues. Lying about Sarah and imaginary people doesn’t help your cause.
Get over it dudes, we know you liberals love Sarah, but the election is over.
As with any new President, though, of course there have to be concerns regarding what could go wrong in a new Presidency. So we are presenting the top 10 reasons we are concerned about Obama’s election. We intend to follow up each segment with an article that summarizes these concerns just like we will follow up on Part 1.
Thanks for reading.
Here are our 10 major concerns about Obama’s promises and election.
A scary health plan policy that will indirectly tax the healthy to pay for the sick, poor and elderly, shifting entitlement expenses such as Medicare to healthy Americans and small business.
Despite the incredible success of the Surge, the desire to end the Iraq war will likely not work. This could result in Iran invading Iraq, Civil War, genocide or worse. At the very least, Americans are likely to be disappointed as we find it cannot be done and the costs continue to spiral out of control.
Increased welfare and education costs for the not-so-needy. Problems in the welfare system are what started the Republican Presidential run. Abuse of government programs is just way too easy.
Higher cap gains and dividend tax could result in a major adjustment further downward in the stock market. The current tax system for stock investments is already incredibly unfair to anyone that loses money, and sharply overtaxes those that earn it even short term. Dividends are a central source of retirement income, taxing them unfairly targets the elderly.
Increased terrorism could occur if the expectations internationally of Obama are too high, and they get disappointed when nothing changes or if we get aggressive against Al Qaeda.
Assassination risk of Obama is high within the US. This is something we truly worry about. It would be a disaster to see our first multi-cultural President physically harmed in any way.
Social Security problems will be deferred for 10 years under Obama’s plan, and higher taxes will only address the problem short term. The plan for raising Social Security taxes 10 years from now is unrealistic and defers the problem to Obama’s successor.
Obama has made way too many campaign promises. Disappointment could be high as his policies fall apart.
The balance of power has shifted dramatically liberal. The loss of current checks and balances in the system between Democrats and Republicans could allow too many liberal programs to propagate. This could result in a massive deficit well in excess of we are are today.
We would like to throw in something we fear a bit that is not really a concern regarding Obama, but something we are sick of hearing and hope as we move forward stops. We have constantly heard the blather about everything in God’s creation being Bush’s fault. In many cases, the issues being discussed as Bush’s fault had little or nothing to do with him or his policies.
We sincerely hope that if Obama’s plans start to fail, we don’t just continually see what we refer to as “excuse politics”. We don’t want to hear…this failed because of Bush and we couldn’t do that because of Bush. We are hoping the Democrats mean it when they speak of non-partisan politics, but their recent attacks on Lieberman seem to indicate they are as partisan as ever.
During the past two weeks, Obama made a wish, he said McCain should “say it to his face”.
The format of this third debate gave Obama his wish, and it was clearly a case where Obama will remember the adage, “Be careful what you wish for”, because he got exactly that. This format allowed more of the type of interaction between the candidates we favor. McCain was able to attack Obama face to face. And instead of Obama’s usual calm smile, he wore a nervous smirk through much of the debate.
McCain was able to unnerve Obama by attacking him on the issues. He hit Obama on the spending that he constantly promises without defining clearly how to pay for it. He confronted Obama about his associations with ACORN and Ayers, the terrorist in Obama’s past. And he clearly had Obama retreating on issues about his tax increases, CAFTA and energy independence. He even got Obama to say he was considering off shore drilling.
Obama was not the calm, “promise the world” candidate he had been prior to this debate. He could not attack the issues the same way, which had been to just promise more than his opponent. In this debate, on each promise he made, McCain called him on the issues. One clear example is the promise to only tax those that make more than $250,000 while promising health care for everyone even with pre-existing conditions. Something we know does not work from real life experience in Massachusetts.
McCain nailed Obama on a quote he made about “spreading the wealth around”. Obama tried to defend it, but came across as an errant Robin Hood. He once again threw out his intentionally misleading statistic that 98% (It was 98% this week, it was 95% last) of all businesses make less than $250,000. That statistic includes self-employed individuals, so it is a complete lie.
Most businesses that have more than two employees would be in the category that sees their taxes increase under Obama’s plan. And McCain was able to call Obama on this, using a plumber wishing to purchase a small business as an example of a man that would lose in Obama’s plan. Obama tried to say that the business would not be taxed because he only would tax the “rich”. And McCain’s response was to congratulate the plumber on being “rich”. It was a subtle and superb comeback and it cut Obama to the quick. Obama’s qualification of “rich” includes many that no one would consider “rich”
Liberals will try to find the bright moments for Obama to attempt to declare him the winner, but in this debate, there weren’t many. His promises didn’t add up and McCain was nailing him on it. Obama did have one bright spot on health care, but it was once again using his usual tactic of promising the world to everyone. McCain was quick to point out that tax increases on small businesses while forcing them to add health care benefits they cannot afford isn’t going to add up on a calculator.
Both candidates have cuts they promise, but Obama’s plans just have no compromise. They are all based on welfare programs and investing in our future. It is a great concept to invest in your future, but you “invest” when you have the money to invest. “Invest”ing money you do not have is gambling, on margin. The US here needs to stabilize its costs before it can “invest”. And there is not a fast solution in government that will reduce those costs that adds the types of expensive programs Obama endorses. It was plain in this debate, McCain was not going to roll over, and just let Obama go unanswered and unquestioned.
This time “That One” had to stand up and answer some hard questions, and he was nowhere near as effective or believable in the process.
Obama and McCain were very close in the first debate. Obama clearly won the second. McCain clearly won the finale. It is our opinion, however, from what we have seen discussing the issues with people, the debates do not shape the election much. The candidates can confirm your opinion, but sway few. If Obama had won this debate, it may have swung more neutral voters his way, but he did not. So, we don’t believe he gains anything.
We believe McCain will gain 2 points or so in the polls, but it won’t be enough to swing the final vote Republican. This debate did, however, finally show the kink in the Obama armor. When hit point blank with the questions about how he will pay for his programs without hurting small business, he crumbled. That proves he is not the guardian of the middle class he claims to be. He is the defender of the public programs like welfare that have proven so very costly for America in the past.
We will be back to cover the issues in more detail after we get a chance to fully review the transcript of the debate.
Rainbows have been a sign of hope in fable from the Bible to legends of magic and leprechauns. There is always a hope that the person we elect will make a difference, and that the achievements of these great men will touch and benefit us all as a nation.
What was clearly evident in this debate was that McCain is not good at projecting that rainbow. Obama painted one with dozens of colors, and McCain painted reality in a somber brown. McCain has the inherent trait that he does not want to promise what he cannot deliver. Obama has the inherent trait that he will promise anything whether he can deliver it or not. There are many more colors in Obama’s palette, but that is because he makes you imagine the paint instead of actually having to apply any of it.
The latter technique wins debates, because it paints that colored arch of promise. It leads Americans, especially those less educated, to believe that there is a pot of gold to be found at the end of the election.
Here is the reality. At the end of Obama’s rainbow, there is no pot of gold. All there is at the end of Obama’s rainbow is an inexperienced man that would be President.
When Obama speaks of health care, he speaks of covering people with pre-existing conditions, but he does not say how he will pay for it. He challenges McCain on his tax cuts. But anyone with third grade math skills can easily understand that 300 billion in tax cuts is only 1/3 of the government spending that Obama incorporates into his plan. The questions that had to be asked by McCain weren’t. McCain just plain was not aggressive enough. It may have to do with the platform, which did not allow enough challenge of the other’s positions, but these are the questions that McCain missed.
1. If Obama is going to cover pre-existing conditions for health care, where does that money come from? Does it come from those that are healthy in America? You bet. Will people with health problems just be able to jump on the train now at everyone else’s expense? How could that possibly be paid for? Get some numbers and pin the man down.
2. Senator Obama, you say Republican tax cuts will total 300 billion dollars, but you are also offering tax cuts. How much will those cost and how could you possibly believe that will be made up by only taxing people that earn over $250,000 without destroying small enterprises. Someone has to pin this man down on the costs of his programs. Where does the money come from?
3. On every topic Obama speaks to, he talks of spending. We will need money for education, health care, Social Security, Medicare, foreign aid, energy independence, blah blah blah. But he has no way to pay for any of it other than some absurd idea that taxing people making more than $250,000 will make any difference at all. He sounds like he has his wallet open to help America, but what he has open is America’s wallet, and it is empty.
On the McCain Front:
McCain is easy to debate. He is just too much of a straight shooter. He doesn’t want to tell you there is a rainbow if there isn’t one. He doesn’t speak of spending for everything in creation while promising a pot of gold.
Problem is, if you don’t promise the pot of gold, and your opponent is, you have to challenge the other man’s pot by calling his bluff. McCain was challenged on how he would fund his tax cut, but didn’t take the opportunity to drill Obama on his tax cut or his spending programs. A simple response, “You promise a tax cut plus all 900 billion dollars in new spending. Specifically how much will your tax cut cost, then add on your 900 billion dollars in spending and tell America how you will pay for that? Here is a piece of graph paper and a pencil, show us.”
It is sad to see McCain being weak in the debates because we have no faith in Obama. We believe he is the same hollow promise campaigner we have seen many, many times in our past. And we also believe that if he wins this election, all we will hear for years as his policies fail, is that the Republicans made it worse than he thought. He has built up the perfect excuse and continues to make promises he knows he can never hope to meet.
We believe that America wants that pot of gold. They will follow the candidate that calmly promises it to them. And for that reason, we believe Obama won this debate. He won it with false promises and false hopes that Americans want to hear. And McCain failed to challenge him appropriately to bust the concept of the Obama Fantasy Island.
While McCain is a poor debater, we also believe the formats being chosen for these debates, especially this debate, clearly favor Obama. He overstays his welcome, overruns his time frequently, and leaves little time for the other side. He also gets to answer questions from people that have no chance to challenge him on his response. They ask a question, he answers and it is done.
We would prefer a face to face debate. One in which each man confronts the other, one in which the promises of one can be clearly challenged by the other. This debate clearly did not cater to that and we do not think that an accident.
Obama comes across as confident and cool. McCain comes across as uncomfortable and stressed. As long as that is true, it is like listening to a story at bedtime. As you doze off to sleep, there is just the story. It takes you over as you gradually doze off to your slumber. It wishes you happy dreams as you hear of the characters of the story (in this case us) living happily ever after. Obama tells that story well, but we believe that under Obama’s leadership, our cradle will rock, the bow will break, and down will come America, cradle and all.
Have a question for the two candidates? Publish it here by leaving a comment!
It is getting down to the wire here and McCain is behind in the Polls. It is time to take those polls seriously and take off the kid gloves if you are the Republicans.
We are going to summarize the questions we would ask Obama if we were confronting him in a debate. We will follow with a similar segment asking McCain the questions we would ask if we were confronting him. Everything goes here. It is time to get nasty.
Our opinion of Obama, and it would be the central part of our attack in any debate, is that he is great at stating what he will do with absolutely no specifics. We would primarily be asking “how”. With Obama, the key tactic has to be to pin the sucka down.
1. You say you pay for every penny of your hundreds of billions in dollars worth of programs. Tell us exactly how. If it is by closing “loopholes” and “rolling back tax cuts”, give us the specifics. What loopholes will you specifically close. What “tax cuts” are you taking away? Are you dependent on funds from your planned withdrawal from Iraq?
2. If you are rolling back tax cuts, how is that different from increasing taxes?
3. If you are focused on raising the capital gains tax and taxes on dividends, aren’t you concerned about the negative fall out on the stock markets which have already been pummeled over the mortgage fiasco? Would you also be concerned with fixed income seniors dependent on these dividends as income?
4. You claim deregulation led to the mortgage fiasco, but we fail to see the exact deregulation of which you speak. Could you elaborate?
5. Wasn’t it Barney Frank that resisted legislation sought by the Bush administration in 2003 to better regulate mortgages, and, specifically, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Didn’t he repeatedly say there were no problems there while the Bush administration warned of “systemic risk”?
6. On Social Security, you say you will pay for it partially by raising taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year 10 years from now. Isn’t that a cop-out on America? Aren’t we going to have to start paying back Social Security with interest in less time than that? And how does deferring the problem to your successor solve the problem now?
7. You say you want to send more troops into Afghanistan? Isn’t that just your own version of the Surge?
8. You imply you want to violate Pakistan’s borders or threaten Pakistan if we are not allowed to go after the Taliban and Al Qaeda within Pakistani borders. Of what specific threats do you speak? And if you would attack without government knowledge and cooperation, wouldn’t that be an act of war?
9. You have a plan to get us out of Iraq in 16 months. Have you asked General Petraus what he thinks of such a plan?
10. In the last debate you claim that Iraq has a huge surplus. We would like to know, if that is true, why haven’t you suggested to ask them to contribute financially to the war effort rather than using it as justification for bailing on them.
11. You claim your energy plan includes increased production. If you don’t support drilling, where would that increased production come from?
12. In an interview, you referred to your Muslim Faith, and had to be corrected. Since the beginning of the campaign, you distanced yourself from the pastor of your church for stating to “God Damn America”. What faith are you Senator? What church do you attend?
13. If you are Christian, Senator, how does abortion conflict with your Christian belief?
14. Your healthcare plan says it will include those with pre-existing conditions. How would that work Senator? Wouldn’t people just wait until something catastrophic went wrong and THEN join the plan?
15. You imply that giving tax breaks to oil companies is a bad idea, but then you say that providing a tax break to companies that invest in America is a good idea. Many oil companies invest in America, so how will you resolve that?
16. You say you may delay programs because of the financial crisis. Being absolutely specific, what programs would you delay? Do not include what we need to do. We only want the answer to the question.
17. You preach energy independence. Can you please give us your exact plan for reaching energy independence along with the time frame?
18. You speak of hard negotiations with Iran. Senator, when is the last time you were involved in any form of international negotiation?
Nancy got to eat crow today when Democrats were forced to offer tax cuts to get a bill passed that was already earmarked for success, all because she couldn’t keep her mouth shut. Read on folks, this is exactly the opposite of how adults act.
After Democrats and Republicans had spent days working together on a bipartisan bill to avert a national financial disaster, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi took the low road in Congress in order to promote her Democratic agenda. Rather than congratulating the Congress for their bipartisan effort, she took the opportunity to instead bash George Bush for what she claimed were “reckless economic policies, fiscal irresponsibility and an anything goes policy”. After we heard the shrew’s comments, we could never vote for Obama. It demonstrates the Democrats have no concept of bipartisan cooperation.
After the bill failed to pass, Nancy then ironically stood with the founder of all our current problems, Barney Frank, Representative from Massachusetts. Barney (Rubble) Frank claimed the Republicans voted against the plan because Nancy had hurt their feelings.
We ask you Barney, how would you have reacted if the Republicans referred to you as a child abuser that used your influence to prevent regulation in 2003 that could have prevented this crisis. Awww, did we hurt your feelings Barney?
Nancy showed she is an amateur and was not interested in America or the plan. She was only interested in getting her chance to take a cheap shot. Her objective was to provoke a negative response, and if she thinks we cannot see right through her motivation, she is more stupid than she looks and more childish than she acts.
Nancy and Barney demonstrate that the liberals and Democrats are still bitter children that haven’t recovered from getting beaten in the last elections. They prove in their actions they could never cooperate with Republicans to reach any positive results for America. We are glad to see it, because the more they demonstrate their childish behavior, the less likely they will get America’s votes in November.
If we were running McCain’s campaign, we would get out a commercial immediately. We would show Nancy making a fool of herself and Barney lecturing people in 2003 to defeat regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have averted this crisis.
As you probably know, if exposed to any news at all in the past week, the Federal Government is bailing out the financial industry to the tune of $700 billion. Their plan is to buy up bad mortgage debt with the hope of resolving the financial crisis and perhaps some day recovering that money. No government estimate has ever come in on time and on budget, so don’t bet your life on that $700 billion being enough.
To put that $700 billion in perspective, with that same amount of money, we could have followed Boone Pickens plan and erected enough wind power facilities to generate 20% of the US energy needs with wind power!!! Instead, we are buying BAD MORTGAGES!! Think about that. Instead of burning coal and oil, we could use wind for 20% of our energy, but we are buying bad mortgage debt instead!
As it turns out, the funniest aspect of the debates last week, and the saddest, was an accusation made by Senator Obama. Obama stated that regulations had been hurled out the window by the Republican administration, and that disregard for government regulation resulted in our current financial malaise.
But it wasn’t deregulation at all, it was the weakening of mortgage requirements. Mortgage requirements, specifically for the poor and minorities, were severely weakened over a much longer period than the tenure of the Bush Administration, going back as far as the Carter Administration. Regulations as a whole were not reduced on Wall Street. In fact, regulations on public companies are more stringent today than they ever have been.