First, look at these two graphs:
That’s what the Dow Jones Industrial Averages did under Bush, before Pelosi took over Congress.
That’s what the Dow Jones Industrial Average has done SINCE Pelosi took over Congress.
Now, read this:
OK, let’s follow this logic then. The failed economic policies of Bush according to Pelosi get the blame for the recent downturn. Of course, using that logic, the the failed policies of Bush get the credit for the preceeding six years of economic growth. So, SOMETHING must have changed about a year and a half ago.
Gee, wonder that it was?
It wasn’t John McCain, he was there during the six year growth. And, for that matter, the boom of the late 90′s as well.
So, can you believe Nancy Pelosi telling us that John McCain is lying, or the very obvious numbers her tenure has produced.
You won’t see those charts on MSNBC, CNN, or anyone else for that matter.
My friend over at L’Ombre de l’Olivier wrote a very insightful post that merits MSM recognition. But it won’t happen. Here’s the meat. Look at the salaries the three major candidates pay their staff:
| Senator | Male Employees | Female Employees | Average Male Salary | Avg Female Salary | Salary Difference (F/M %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biden | 15 | 25 | $85,144.80 | $55,922.33 | 65.68% |
| McCain | 17 | 25 | $53,259.36 | $55,958.67 | 105.07% |
| Obama | 27 | 30 | $56,298.75 | $45,070.09 | 80.06% |
Only one number really merits looking at. John McCain is the only candidate that pays women more than men. The most egregious sexist is Joe Biden, where women make 2/3 what the men do. A fairly distant second is Obama. Obama’s 25% behind McCain. Palin’s staff is not readily available. However, she’s the only one of the four that does not have total control over who the staff are or what they are paid. In the case of the Senators, it’s 100% the decision of the Senator. I also found it a bit odd that the freshman senator had substantially more staff than either of the very experienced senators. But, I digress. It’s obvious the Democrat candidates, especially Biden, represent that glass ceiling that feminists have been fighting for fifty years. Women obviously are obtaining lesser positions, less able to move to higher positions, and therefore make less money. If they want to get ahead, they would work for McCain.
So, who do you suppose feminists such as Gloria Steinem are attacking?
Why, Sarah Palin of course. They aren’t even bashful about it. They are calling her everything from a dominitrix to sexually repressed. If you want to go to Salon and check it out, have some fun. I’m not linking that garbage.
Now, what’s really amazing to me is apparently these “feminists” have become the glass ceiling they claim they’re fighting against.
What’s doubly amazing to me is Obama is having problems convincing some blacks he’s black enough, and now Palin can’t convince some women she’s woman enough. Of course, being the exact opposite of Hillary Clinton, who wasn’t woman enough either, I’d sure like to know what their definition of “woman” is. Then of course, John McCain has had the real challenge of proving he’s conservative enough. Joe Biden has the easiest way to go. He just has to prove he’s not Joe Biden.
It just strikes me that national elections are not so much about what we desire in a candidate as it is how much we dislike “the other side”.
Sarah Palin has done it all in regards to being a woman. She shattered the male establishment in Alaska. She shattered the expected all-male club that are presidential elections. This election has not been the same since she showed up. In the meantime, she’s born four kids and convinced her rugged outdoorsman to be a stay-at-home dad. And, she has done that by being a woman, not considering it a hindrance in any way. Now, to put that in perspective of what the Gloria Steinems want is impossible. Gloria Steinem couldn’t get elected dog catcher in Wasilla because her extremist views and sexual discrimination practices would alienate 50% of any election. And, her rigid liberal principals would alienate probably another 25% of what’s left. This election is outing them in the most obvious light possible. You’ve got two candidates that represent what Gloria Steinem and her legions have fought against for her entire adult life. She would rather they succede than support a fellow woman with different political values.
Just drop the feminist charade and admit what they truly are. Liberal lesbians.
It’s really pathetic that in order for a woman to reach the second most powerful position in the United States, she has to fight a bunch of women who claim they represent women’s rights and for some unfathomable reason, get paid to represent values that most women don’t respect. Party affiliation knows no sexual preferences. It is an arena that should, and is quickly becoming, asexual. It won’t acheive that until “feminists” decide that they are truly fighting for. If party affiliation trumps gender, the “feminist” movement will succeed in spite of the “feminists”. It would just happen a whole lot faster if “feminists” didn’t discriminate so much.
That goes for race, religion, age, and ethnicity as well.
Where have I heard that before?
3
Sep
In the past, and sometimes nowadays, I have pretty much tired of political parties. We’re in the 21st century. The tool necessary to get the word out in the 18th century just isn’t necessary anymore. Never has party unity and loyalty been any more muddled than this year.
- Last night, longtime Democrat, and one-tome Democrat VP candidate Joe LIeberman spoke to the Republican National Convention.
- Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin is reported to have been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party a long time ago. There is some debate whether she was or not. However, as Republican Governor, she taped a message for their convention this year.
- Democrat Senator and VP candidate Joe Biden has more Youtube clips of him endorsing the Republican candidate for President, John McCain, than he does supporting his running mate, Democrat Barack Obama. Now, that’ll change very quickly as they campaign together I’m sure.
- Bob Barr, a Republican from Georgia, is running against McCain and Obama as an independent.
- Lastly, and leastly, Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georiga, has found new life as a Green Party member from California.
- And, not to be left out, Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, is running for something. He had a “competing” convention in The Twin Cities as well. I’m not quite sure what it was for.
A rather bizarre event unfolded Friday. Basically, the Republicans tried to force a vote on drilling for more oil. The Democrats stifled it. Then, the Democrats decided that accomplishing nothing to help the United States deal with soaring gas prices was better than debating, or even worse yet, voting to allow more drilling.
It didn’t stop there, a bunch of Republicans, fairly fed up with Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, decided to stage their own mock debate. The broke into the camera system’s security and broadcast their revolt for a while. And, they held a “Congress” unlike any ever seen ( or, actually, for the most part, not seen ) in a long, long time. From reading about it. It sounded like a lot of fun to watch, and probably even more fun to be a part of. Now, if they had done this six years ago, they’d still be in control. That’s another story entirely tho.
Ya gotta wonder what it is that motivates Nancy Pelosi to the point where she’d rather watch the country be completely owned by OPEC than allow one single vote to help her own people. Maybe this it:
Oil and Petroleum Industry Donations:
| Election Cycle | Donations to Democrats | Donations to Republicans | % to Dems | % to Repubs |
| 2008 | $4,796,968 | $13,571,049 | 26% | 74% |
| 2006 | $3,576,445 | $16,570,858 | 18% | 82% |
| 2004 | $5,038,585 | $20,847,570 | 19% | 80% |
| 2002 | $5,018,530 | $19,978,013 | 20% | 80% |
| 2000 | $7,031,606 | $26,661,126 | 21% | 78% |
| 1998 | $5,015,213 | $16,488,442 | 23% | 76% |
| 1996 | $5,942,027 | $19,569,150 | 23% | 75% |
| 1994 | $6,643,277 | $11,048,141 | 38% | 62% |
| 1992 | $6,906,472 | $13,487,397 | 34% | 66% |
| 1990 | $4,161,315 | $6,746,949 | 38% | 62% |
| Total | $54,130,438 | $164,968,695 | 25% | 75% |
Along those lines, maybe this is it:
That’s right, the ONLY industry in the top 20 to donate more to McCain than Obama is Oil and Gas.
So, for her partisan politics, you will keep suffering at the pump.
And, her popularity index will continue to plummet.
And she still won’t care.
And it could cost Obama the election.
And she still won’t care.
Barack Obama announced this week he will not accept public funding. That in itself is no big deal. The big deal is what he had said earlier:
“Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge,” Obama wrote. “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
McCain as to date is agreeing to public funding.
Now, I don’t like public funding of elections. To me, fundraising is an indicator of how well a candidate is doing. Regardless of the total dollar amount, looking at the spectrum and count of donations is a good sign of how well a candidate is doing. So, I’d just as soon dropping public financing entirely.
However, what would have been a totally moot point has become an issue because I don’t think Obama has thought this through too well. As a perceived long-shot underdog, public financing looked good to Obama early on by limiting what his opponent could spend. However, as the presumptive candidate who has learned he can raise a ton of money, public financing apparently isn’t so appealing. This hypocritical approach to what was sold as “change” six months ago is yet another easy strike against Obama that only adds more wieght to the argument he’s a very typical DC insider selling an empty promise of “change”.
And, I think it was a bad decision for the very simple reason both candidates can easily dodge the fundraising issue entirely by doing nothing and relying on 527‘s to inflict untold damage on their opponent. Moveon.org has already pledged to spending $400 million to get Obama elected. They’ll do this the only way 527′s can, they’ll trash McCain for six months. Which is pretty ironic to me, considering McCain has as much to do with creating the 527 legal loophole as anyone. Now, McCain is going to finally appreciate the monster that was created with McCain-Feingold.
Now, the Obama people are already saying the “change’ is Obama not selling out to PAC’s and special interests. That’s complete BS. He doesn’t have to accept that money if Moveon is accepting it for him. But, as with the elections of 2000 and 2004, 527′s need to be discussed in the worst way. Unless Obama refuses to allow 527′s like Moveon to do the dirty work for him, he is absolutely no different than any other Washington insider running for office in the last eight years. His “change” is rhetoric only.
Two quick predictions:
-
I doubt you’ll see THAT angle discussed on major media any time soon.
-
Obama will look the other way as 527′s wage all-out smear campaigns against McCain. ( Where is the “change”? )
A lot has been debated over whether or not John McCain is legally able to run for president. Now, the circumstances are he was not born IN the United states. He was however, born on a United States base in Panama. Now, I think most people pretty much came to the conclusion that since he was born of two United States citizens acting on behalf of their country in a foreign country, he’s just as American as anyone else. Some people, with obvious ulterior motives, tended to disagree citing the Second Constitutional Amendment:
They just hang all over that caveat of “natural born Citizen”. The Consitution however, does not define what “natural” is. Being as this is 1776 we’re talking about, test-tubes and all that don’t apply. So, what would a “natural born Citizen” be? Those with ulterior motives took the stance that it had to mean they HAD to be born WITHIN the United States. Now, the second part of the Article gets very specific, sayimg they had to be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. So, why would they be so specific in regards to the second part, but ambiguous about the first part?
The answer to me is very simple. They had no clue when they wrote the Constitution exactly WHAT the United States would be. The Constitution was a concept they had to sell to a bunch of independent states in order to get them to join as one country. When they were writing the Constitution, some states were not totally committed to the idea of taking on England. It was a hard sell. So, in order to appease some of those states sitting on the fence, they had to toss out some caveats which left some ideological commitments kind of vague. By wording the Second Article the way they did, it limited who the President could be to basically a member of Congress and the Senate at that time. It also left the door open for other states to join. However, they had to join before a resident of that state could have control of Congress. In other words, someone couldn’t sell out their state simply to get control of the United States army or funds. You had to walk the walk before you could talk. Brilliant.
Over two hundred years later, that environment no longer exists. The United States hasn’t expanded, or even tried to, in fifty years. So, the Second Article became pretty much a forgotten passage until an odd quirk in an election year occurred. Someone noticed a presidential candidate was not born within the bounderies of the United States. They basically dismissed the fact that both parents were “natural born citizens” and the fact that military bases are considered sovereign territory to make their point. So, tiring of the “controversy” that most people were ignoring, the US Senate sprung into action:
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain , III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain , III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain , III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
I’m sure plenty of people are already figuring the conspiracy angles to this one. However, the most obvious evidence that no one who seriously thinks at all is taking this seriously is the fact that it was authored by Claire MacCaskill, a Democrat. It was also co-sponsored by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And, it was passed unanimously. Not one single Senator felt there was enough doubt about what the Constitution intended to question this vote.
I’m sure that won’t stop some people from talking about it anyway.
And:
That’s the rhetoric you hear from two of the campaigners, who both happen to be Democrat. The part they don’t want you to consider is what came to me in the form of an anonymous email:
Remember the election in 2006?
�
Thought you might like to read the following:
�
A little over one year ago:
�
1 ) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2 ) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3 ) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
�
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
�
1 ) Consumer confidence plummet;
2 ) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3 ) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase ) ;
4 ) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses ) ;
5 ) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6 ) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
�
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
�
Remember it’s Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what’s handed to him.
A liberal is a person who will give away everything they don’t own.
The letter doesn’t come right out and say it, but the main theme for 2006 was “change”. This is the change we’ve gotten so far. Change for change sake never guarantees change for the better. In this case, it’s been change for the worse, obviously. Now Obama is running his entire campaign on change for change sake. Not sure about you, but I’ve had about all the change I can afford in the last two years. Clinton is running hers pretty much on the “failed Bush economics” without once mentioning the failed economic policies of Nancy Pelosi and her own party. This is a boogeyman argument that very few people seem to want to explore. If Clinton as President has no desire to reign in Nancy Pelosi, we can only expect things to continue to get much worse. Being liberal with social values is one thing, and can work. Being liberal with budgets never works. Nancy Pelosi is simply the latest example of why. Seems to me the last time we had these same circumstances of inflation AND recession at the same time was 1979 when the Democrats controlled the House as well and we had a very liberal Democrat President.
Anyone up for 1979 again?
Think before you vote. Don’t vote for generics and unquestioned claims. Vote for what you know. If you don’t make any effort to know the issues, why bother even voting? Voting for “change” when the “change” keeps making things worse is not terribly smart. But, I’ll bet more people vote for “change” than any other single issue this fall.
Care to challenge my assertion?
If I’m wrong, I’ll be more than happy to “change”.
4
Apr
Man, there is nothing more I’d love to see this fall than a McCain/Rice ticket. Talk about ending this race mucho prompto? Think ahout it.
- Condi would, to say the least, neuter the race issue that so far is exclusive domain of Obama. It’s there, for sure, and will be a factor in November. However, Hillary is completely unable to mention it. That would be true with McCain as well in the fall. Every single time McCain would mention a social issue, I’m sure there will be plenty of Obama minions ready to play the race card. Doubt me? Look how many times Clinton’s peeps, who were part of the 60′s equality fights, have been inferred as racists for simply even mentioning the fact that Obama is not pasty white. Now, if Condi were front and center with McCain, it would make the entire issue moot. Which, in my opinion, is what the issue should be in the first place if we truly believe there is equality. If there truly is not, then all races should be allowed to discuss that fact, not just one.
- Condi I think would completely neuter the gender issue as well. She is a woman. She is an attrative woman. She is a strong woman. She is a woman that women can like ( except Barbara Boxer ), and men can respect as well. The problem with Hillary is not too many people perceive her as being too womanly these days.
- Condi is an icon of conservatism. Now, this is where it gets weird. The most powerful conservative Republican in the country would be a black female. Not exactly the stereotype Hollywood is used to painting either Republicans or conservatives as. Given the options at this time, convervatives are not exactly happy with any of the candidates. IF they do vote, it will be the lesser of evils. With Condi, they could get excited. I know I would.
- Condi has unbelievable foreign policy experience. And, she very quietly gets things done. To say the least, it would put a stop to Hillary’s 3am commercials.
- Lastly, although McCain is an icon of male America, owning his own beer company, shooting big guns in war situations, being held prisoner of war, banging models, and the whole bit, Condi gives other kids something to shoot for. Well versed, well educated, speaks multiple languages, trained in classical music. In other words, a symbol of the United States for kids that want to be something a little more ethereal. We need this in the worst possible way right now.
Now, with Condi, we get the entire package of what America is. We get more minority representation, gender equality, moderate AND conservative values, macho symbolism AND brains. It’s just too perfect.
For that reason, it will never happen. Politics just doesn’t usually work that way. However, I’m willing to push that button here. Help me if you will:
Here’s the ugly headlines making the rounds at this time:
“This is gonna go down as the biggest theft in all of financial history, said William Smith, portfolio manager of Smith Asset Management and a former Bear employee. “The $2 a share stock price is more symbolic than anything because the alternative is nothing.”
“This is one of the unfortunate stories on Wall Street. I’m a former Bear guy. I have friends over there. My friends just watched their fortunes vaporize,” Smith added.
Pretty ugly stuff. Hillary Clinton immediately urged a bailout and tighter regulation of the subprime market. Of course, she almost as immediately took heat for having a subprime board member as one of her chief advisors in Maggie WIlliams. That didn’t fly too well.
However, to me, the proof is in the pudding. Employees are losing pretty much everything. Careers are being ruined. So, how has this impacted the various candidates? Here’s a breakdown of who has taken what from Bear Stearns employees, usually executives:
| Giuliani, Rudolph W | $ 130,091.00 | 24.67% |
| Clinton, Hillary | $ 122,160.00 | 23.17% |
| Dodd, Christopher J | $ 118,050.00 | 22.39% |
| McCain, John | $ 58,650.00 | 11.12% |
| Obama, Barack | $ 40,925.00 | 7.76% |
| Romney, Mitt | $ 31,550.00 | 5.98% |
| Edwards, John | $ 6,850.00 | 1.30% |
| Richardson, Bill | $ 5,700.00 | 1.08% |
| Biden, Joseph R Jr | $ 4,050.00 | 0.77% |
| Paul, Ron | $ 2,700.00 | 0.51% |
| Vilsack, Thomas J | $ 2,300.00 | 0.44% |
| Gilmore, Jim | $ 2,300.00 | 0.44% |
| Brownback, Sam | $ 750.00 | 0.14% |
| Thompson, Fred | $ 500.00 | 0.09% |
| Huckabee, Mike | $ 450.00 | 0.09% |
| Kucinich, Dennis J | $ 210.00 | 0.04% |
Now, granted giving the money back probably won’t fix anything, this Bear Stearns mess has been nrewing for a while. It’s hard for me to take seriously someone who has been profiting from their demise while it’s been happening. Here’s the list since 1/1/08:
| candidate | Total | Count |
|---|---|---|
| Obama, Barack | $19,300.00 | 32 |
| McCain, John | $18,850.00 | 12 |
| Clinton, Hillary | $8,000.00 | 11 |
| Romney, Mitt | $6,900.00 | 4 |
| Giuliani, Rudolph W | $2,000.00 | 2 |
| Huckabee, Mike | $450.00 | 2 |
| Edwards, John | $250.00 | 1 |
When any of these candidates talk about reforming the subprime mess, take it with a grain of salt.
( Disclaimer, this is only as current as opensecrets.org’s records. )
4
Mar
Now, Hollywood has a long history of pretty much hating all things Republican. They usually don’t know why, and they usually get their facts screwed up, or in some cases, just make stuff up. However, they come to their conclusion isn’t important. If in Hollywood, or the media in most cases, you HAVE to hate Republicans. So, what’s the latest incarnation of this bizarre Republican-phobia? Check this out:
I kid you not. They even have a clip. It’s not on youtube that I am aware of, Now, what do you think the chances are that the people at NBC didn’t realize there actually IS a Senator from Arizona who is a Vietnam Vet? I find it almost impossible to believe they didn’t. It’s not like the guy’s running for President of the United States or anything. But, I may be biased because I think NBC is. So, I’ll let you all decide:
That folks, is a flat out unapologetic attack on McCain. It’s really a shame nothing will be done about it. I guess it would mean more if anyone ever watched the show and probably is why they would resort to such slander to boost what ratings they might have. I had never heard of the show before, obviously. But, it’s guaranteed I’ll never watch it now.
