Contrasting the Presidential Candidates

I find it difficult to write about things political lately. The Presidential election is dominating the landscape in spite of the "financial crisis" that the world is facing. The charges flying back-and-forth between the competing candidates are full of distortions if not outright lies in some cases. It is difficult if not impossible for the average voter to truly understand the positions of each of the candidates.

I have solved that problem for you. I will tell you what I see as the differences.

McCain is pro-American. Obama is "savior" of the world. (By-the-way -- I think God already addressed this issue a little over 2000 years ago.)

McCain primarily believes that we ought to work for a living and be able to enjoy what we earn (although the bailout seems to fly in the face of that). Obama believes that we should take from the wealthy and redistribute it to those who don't work or have no ambition beyond a paycheck followed by beer and t.v.

McCain believes that American sovereignty is inviolate and we should defend our borders vigorously. Obama believes we must be careful of others feelings and let them run over us if they feel like it. After all, we're just a big bully and it's better to cave in to the tantrums of the brats. (If you give a child everything that he wants he will be useless as an adult.)

McCain has a lot of experience. Obama isn't even doing his job in the Senate where he was elected to serve.

McCain believes we have the right to defend our property. Obama wants to take away personal protection and make it easier for criminals to redistribute the wealth (you can see this as a reference to firearms or to taxes -- whichever fits.)

McCain believes marriage should be between one man and one woman. Obama seems to prefer same gender marriages.

McCain believes that babies deserve a chance at life. Obama would prefer that no babies be born except to his liberal elite cohorts. He wants abortion on every corner.

McCain is not the best at delivering his message. He gets angry occasionally and is not brilliantly articulate. So what. It's values that count. Substance -- not fluff. Obama on the other hand is a wonderfully articulate speaker. It's too bad that it's all smoke and mirrors. He seems to be a most artful liar.

McCain fought to defend our country. Obama has aligned himself with anarchists that would tear our country apart.

I cannot understand how anyone could vote for Obama unless they hate this country.

Jerri Thompson; Future in Politics?

Here's a thought for you -- Jerri Thompson (wife of Senator Fred Thompson) for President in 2016. She's a sharp lady. I just saw her on Hannity and uh, whatever that other guy's name is....

The "A" Team

OK. I know The Sun isn't known as a mainstream political authority, but after seeing this article linked on The Drudge Report, I had to post a link to it. The GOP's rock star VP candidate will reach across a lot more lines than people (especially the Dem's) anticipate. I think the futbol crowd wafting a draft in an English/Irish/Scottish/German, etc. pub will appreciate her as much as some of the folks in rural America. Senator McCain also should score well with the baseball crowd on this pick, it was certainly a home run.

There is even talk about a "coattail" effect from the McCain/Palin ticket on a number of House and Senate races. The only thing that surprises me is that no one has started calling them the "A" team. After all, one hails from Arizona and the other from Alaska. Hmm...sounds like a good title for this post.

Lipstick on a Pig

Was the Obama comment intentionally aimed at VP nominee Sarah Palin? That is the hot question of the day. I've given it some thought and come up with what I believe to be a likely scenario of how it came about.

Picture Obama on the plane with his advisors somewhere over the U.S. The candidate is somewhat downbeat because the latest polls show him losing ground. Why? they ask. The answer on everyone's lips -- Sarah Palin. Senator McCain's choice of runningmate totally blew away the Obama "play-it-safe-with-Joe Biden" strategy. What to do....

Advisor A: We've got to attack. We've got to discredit Palin.

Advisor B: We've got to be careful. If we're too harsh, we will alienate the women voters. Besides, you can't go after Palin, it would look bad. You have to focus on McCain -- he's the nominee, she's just his running mate. We can't even bring up her name or it will hurt you. Leave that to Joe.

Obama: We need to use humor -- be subtle -- that's how she attacked me! I don't like it. I want to go after her, she's the real threat.

Advisor A: What about that "lipstick on a pig" thing you've done before?

(Obama chuckles.)

Advisor B: It's too risky -- that thing could backfire on you if it isn't delivered just right -- I don't think you should go there. Use the fish thing we wrote on McCain but stay away from Palin.

Obama: I think I can do it. Hey, the people love me. They'll just laugh. Humor is a good thing -- look what it did for her speech. It wasn't even scripted.

Advisor B: I really don't think you need to use it. If it comes off wrong they'll crucify you.

Advisor A: I agree. You could probably do it if anybody could, but there's a lot of risk.

Obama: OK. I think you're wrong but that's why I hired you.

In the heat of the speech, with the crowd hanging on his every word, the "thinks-he's-great" communicator becomes overconfident. He thinks, "she went off the script -- I can do it too -- they love me!"

He hesitates, he grins, he says, "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig...."

You know the rest of the story.

Presidential qualities? I don't think so.

It's the Spending, Dummy!

Have you ever noticed that when something gets "out of whack," the more you tinker with it to get it back right, the further "out of whack" it becomes? That's what happens when the economy gets in the shape that we are seeing now.

The lawmakers and political candidates all have "fixes" for the economy. One says that we need to raise taxes for the rich while the other says that we need to extend tax cuts to stimulate investment. Proponents of increasing taxes for the wealthy think that the average person will support such increases because they see the high-earners as deserving to be taxed more. That is a very elitist attitude in itself and totally discredits the intelligence of most of the American public.

I think most folks just want our tax system to be fair -- to treat us all equally -- without special breaks for particular groups.

Those who believe the tax cuts implemented by the Bush Administration are contributing to the budget deficit are also confused. Revenue is not the issue. Spending is the issue. When you cut taxes and then increase spending substantially you are going to increase the deficit. Tax cuts stimulate market activity which in turn will generate more revenue at a lower tax rate. Those cuts must be followed however, by either holding the line or decreasing spending. Budget deficits are caused when you spend more than you bring in. It's the spending, dummy -- not the revenue side of the equation!