Political JUNGLE

John McCain and Barack Obama have been going back and forth this week on various topics, but none more important at the moment than the economy.  With rising gas prices and the subsequent rise in the price of all products, taxes and the economy have become the issues at the forefront of American minds.  As both candidates claim varying levels of tax relief, normal Americans try to figure out what exactly the candidates are talking about.

Well, there’s no easy way to explain the differences in the positions of  Obama and McCain, as both are based on speculation and economic theory.  With that said, Obama essentially works off the platform that the relief needs to focus on the middle class, as he makes the rich and big corporations look like the enemy.  Its important for average middle class Americans and small business owners to get tax breaks, but Americans need to look past that simple comparison.

Here is a brief layout of the two Candidates view on taxes: (info is from their respective websites, and @ The Candidates.)                           

• Obama would let expire tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000. He acknowledges that additional revenue might be needed to achieve his health care goals, but says a large amount of money can be saved within the existing system.

• McCain says tax cuts work best in conjunction with lower spending.  McCain was one of two Republican senators to oppose the 2001 tax cuts, arguing that too many of the benefits went to the most fortunate at the expense of the middle class. He also opposed the 2003 tax cuts. McCain says he would not raise taxes, but that he would not go as far as to sign a pledge to that effect. He believes a repeal of the estate tax isn’t necessary.   

John McCain wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, which by the way have substantially helped middle class Americans, and corporate America. As you can see, he is concerned about the middle class as well.  But the idea that big corporations and the rich are bad for America is a slogan that is unfounded and just getting out of control.  If corporate America gets tax cuts, they make higher profits, which then allows them to pay all those middle class Americans more money.  Not to mention, all of Obama’s many big government ideas will cost the middle class Americans a pretty penny, as he has to pay for everything somehow.  

The point here is don’t get reeled in by the “rich is bad” slogans, because if you aspire to be successful, why wouldn’t you want to be paid for your hard work.  The people that seem to enjoy this rich bashing are those with a  lack of personal drive and negative outlook on life.  

Many of us would consider Barack Obama rich.

Why is that such a bad thing?  

Why is Wal-Mart such a bad thing?  

It saves all those middle class Americans money, yet its the very business model that many love to hate.  It makes no sense.  Wal-Mart doesn’t take away business from small business owners, it creates competition.  When did competition become such a bad thing? This is obviously my opinion, and if you have differing thoughts, comment.  

Before you blame oil companies for all our economic problems check this:

The U.S. Government takes 15% of each gallon of gasoline.

The oil companies pocket 4%.

Oil companies do all the work to extract, buy, and transport oil from nations all over the world.  The U.S. government does nothing. 

People all over the world use oil, or products directly or indirectly manufactured by oil, or its byproducts. 

In 1995 Bill Clinton vetoed a bill that would have allowed drilling in Anwar, substantially increasing our oil supply, and decreasing our reliance on foreign oil today.

The question is, which of the two Presidential candidates will best solve the issue of sky rocketing gas prices? 

The answer is neither. 

They both disagree with any type of drilling in the U.S., or extracting from the areas in Utah, Colorado, and the newly found areas in North Dakota.  These many areas are protected by the environmental fringe, but you pay for at the pump, and also pay more for all products, as gasoline fuels the trucks and planes that deliver our products.

McCain does have some initiates to increase nuclear power, therefore lowering power and utility costs, but how will he fight gas prices?  He won’t, unless he drastically changes his positions.

I am a strong proponent of the environment and working to protect it as mentioned in previous blogs, but drilling in Anwar for example, would only take up a very small portion of the region in Alaska.

The following is an excerpt from George Will’s Column, The Gas Prices We Deserve:
“ANWAR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware), and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington’s Dulles Airport.”

In addition he adds, “One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today’s senators — including 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain– have voted to keep ANWR’s estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.”

Drilling in Anwar, off the coasts, and where possible is the short-term solution to our rising gas prices.   Hybrid technology, electric vehicle solutions, and other oil free ideas should continue development as well.

Get more info at: www.anwr.org

For a visual breakdown of the Anwar region go to: http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

Also check out George Will’s article directly at: The Gas Prices We Deserve

Gas prices have reached an all time high over the weekend, with the national average surpassing the 4-dollar mark.  Cable news anchors excitingly heaped this on top on the bad news pile to join the recent stock market plummet of 400 points on Friday, making Monday a “great” news day. This all just further cements in many uninformed minds that our country is going down the drain, and the current administration, global warming, and our horrible American ways are to blame. 

Obama’s camp almost seems overjoyed at the weekend’s headlines, as any bad news about the war, the economy, gas prices, or anything for that matter, proves to be politically beneficial for him.  A campaign that can mark success on current problems, or our soldiers not winning a war just doesn’t seem right.  Sure the Bush Administration has made mistakes, as any administration does, but when a campaign can hedge its bets on failures of Americans you should question that campaign. 

We all hate the rise in Gas prices, but before you lambaste our American ethics, and our gas guzzling SUV’s, which by the way are selling like painted rocks, check this.   “Skyrocketing oil prices are largely to blame for the surge. Soaring demand in Asia and elsewhere ensures global supplies remain tight even as Americans cut back; recent figures from the U.S. Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration showed U.S. gasoline demand actually fell 1.4 percent over the last four weeks.”

Admittedly, things are not perfect.  Unemployment has risen, and foreclosures continue to drain the fleeting hope in our economy.  McCain has an uphill battle as he is ruthlessly compared to the Bush administration, therefore supposedly making him NOT an agent of change. McCain, I warn you now…  Before you throw your buddy, President Bush, to the dogs, understand many still support him.  The “many” you will have to win over if you expect to beat Obama. 

Anyone that heard McCain’s flat uninspired speech last Tuesday in New Orleans understands what I mean.  McCain definitely attacked Obama, but as he attempted to distance himself from Bush, the Louisiana crowd was very sparse in their applause, and probably forced at times by McCain’s cronies in the crowd.  It felt like some cheesy daytime talk show with production assistants holing up the “applause” signs. 

Part of the inherent problem with this election, is that American’s have changed the way they think.  As the government is sending most of us checks for no reason, just money to stimulate the economy, we complain.  People complain about not getting the checks soon enough, or because they didn’t get enough money, or that it’s about time because it’s their money anyway. 

This victim mentality has consumed us like a plague. Someone needs to turn that around, instead of feed it. Many Americans are tired of hearing how bad things are.  Don’t mask the problems, but speak about solutions and ideas.  Change is not an idea, it’s a slogan.  I guess that’s what the debates are for.  We’ll see.     

Quote above from: Obama Heads for Republican Turf With Economic Message

For more insight on gas prices, the environment, and American’s changing our ways just click: Senate Debates Global Warming Initiatives

Dennis Miller went on a funny little rant on Bill Oreilly’s The Factor Wednesday night, unleashing his normal littany of big words and innuendos that can easily fly over the head of the uninformed or slow witted.

It does however relate nicely to my previous blog about Hillary as VP and how that whole scenario would work out.

(sorry, some idiot decided to advertise his website on this youtube video.  I dont endorse whatever it is)

The word from Hillary’s camp is that she’s officially going to drop out of the race on Saturday.  Although technically she is reportedly only going to suspend her campaign.  This will simply allow her to continue raising money to pay off her debt, and retain her delegates.  This is not the shock wave it would of been a couple weeks ago, as many in Washington were expecting this announcement as early as Tuesday evening.  

What is the current craze though is the discussion of Obama’s running mate.  Its frightening and downright shocking that the Democrats want Hillary to be VP.  This may round up all the Democrats, but not one single Republican, or independent would pull the lever for that ticket.  As mentioned in earlier blogs, Obama will appear weak the more he plays the victim, but if he chooses Hillary he will look even weaker.  

Any clear minded person would understand that Obama chose her simply because of the pressure applied to him from the party, and the political statement of a woman in the office and the idea that all women would therefore blindly vote for Obama/Clinton.  

As a side note, there was supposedly a 3 minute private conversation on the senate floor between Obama and Lieberman, McCain’s Independent friend, as pointed out at Obama on Clinton: We’ll be talking. That would be an interesting choice for Obama, although very unlikely and something I can’t see him doing.  

This process of choosing a Vice President is silly and tiring.  It all comes down to who they think can round up the voters that they otherwise wouldn’t, and many times that person is’nt the best candidate for the job.  Check out one of my previous blogs on what it would look like with Hillary and Bill Clinton running the White House as VP’s with Obama sitting in the oval office twiddling his thumbs, and therefore why he won’t choose her.   The Clinton Double Ticket.  

Will Obama pick Clinton as his running mate?  

Well, does Obama really want to be co-president?  Not with Hillary, but with Bill.  Doubtful. 

Finally there is some admittance that Bill Clinton may not be the savior and hero that liberals make him out to be, or at least remember him to be.  As Hillary is being discussed as a possible running mate of Obama, creating a sure win for the democrats, some are questioning that idea. 

One simple reason is that when you get Hillary you get Bill. Some of Clinton’s own strategists are skeptical that Obama would bring her on because of the package deal including her husband.    The package includes a former president that had sexual relations with an intern in the oval office, a president impeached for lying, a president that did nothing really of importance internationally.  A president that allowed the economy to ebb and flow as normal, admittedly with no real problems, but also didn’t really accomplish anything great.  And of course Obama would get Hillary.      

It seems Obama may fear that baggage, and also fear it could discredit his whole “Change”, or “Washington Outsider” appeal.  A former president doesn’t really fit in with those slogans.  

He won’t choose Hillary. Although you never know.           

Sen. John McCain is making a point to reach out to young voters.  Last month at Villanova University he declared he would actively pursue these younger Americans. This understandably created some media attention, as McCain is the oldest candidate, and presumed to relate the least to 20 something voters. Although if he’s paying attention to recent polls, like an April 21 MTV survey of 18-29 year olds that showed Obama beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, you can understand this new found youth drive.  

In all fairness it really shouldn’t matter how old the candidate is, but how his or her policies affect the youth, and their future.  The problem is that many young voters don’t look deep enough into the issues to find the truth.  It’s not that young people aren’t educated, or smart, but instead respond to speaking cadence, and appearance, or what’s considered trendy or cool.  

If McCain continues to stay strong on issue, and avoid the “heart string” approach and victim mentality, he’ll win over the younger voters.   Because young people do care about issues that are presented with rational argument in a way they can relate to.  Many young people hinge their vote on the Iraq war and the environment.  McCain is attempting to be strong on the environment, but his Iraqi policies may hurt him, although they shouldn’t, because he is best fit by far to deal with that situation. 

And after finally standing for something when he defended Bush’s remarks regarding the appeasement of terrorist nations, McCain might actually man up, present these ideas, and debate Obama.      

In his ongoing strive to tote the line of moderate republican John McCain again voices his concern for the environment.  A Republican speaking out about “Green” efforts has seemed to hurl many prominent conservatives into a further state of disgust with their presumptive nominee.  At the same time it also has liberals complaining that McCain will not be the environmental president that he claims.  

Up until now McCain has basically laid low, hovering below the radar of criticism.  At least now he’s getting back on the bike and taking the chance he might fall.  And he might, but conservative pundits need to just stop.  Stop complaining that McCain’s concern for the environment is just another reason he’s not in stride with the conservative base.  This is part of problem.  The more conservatives endorse this idea that liberals are the only ones that care about the environment the more it just politicizes the issue.  

There is understandable criticism that McCain’s apparent passion on the topic is merely to maintain independents and corral the post Hillary democratic voters.  Pandering is always a part of politics; you just hope it’s not the case with your candidate.   John McCain also talked about his long record of working with environmentally friendly legislation.  Keep in mind he has a long record with everything.  He’s been in senate for over 20 years.   

“We can have a good economy and a good and beautiful environment in this nation,” McCain said.  

As long as he maintains the economy and conservative ideals, while steering clear of scare tactics, this can only be seen as a positive thing.  Global warming theories and skeptics aside, this is about the environment, our health, our well-being and our future.  Not to mention lowering gas and energy prices.   

“You can dictate a lot of things, but you have to unleash the innovative power and entrepreneurship of America in order to achieve these goals, …and I believe the proposal I have is doable,” McCain said in answering questions.  

Using the free market may be McCain’s biggest difference from his big government, lets just use tax dollars, democratic competitors.         

All the talk about Obama becoming another democratic failure in the flavor of Dukakis is getting spicier by the minute.

The reason Dukakis was labeled weak, or elitist, or wimpy wasn’t because he necessarily was, but because he couldn’t handle the criticism. If you allow people to feel sorry for yourself, eventually they begin to think you actually are weak.

This was highlighted in Friday’s post, but with the continuing discussion on the topic and the Dukakis comparison it needed further elaboration. Some democratic strategists are blaming this on the mean Republicans. How dare they point out deficiencies in their opponents? Maybe this double standard shouldn’t be referred to as the “Obama Standard”, as I did in the previous post, but “The Liberal Standard.”

The Liberal Standard states, “If anyone criticizes you on issue, immediately cry dirty politics, then fire back with some personal attack not based on an actual issue, then blame someone else, then say you were quoted out of context, and then criticize again, and end by literally crying.”

The Liberal Standard didn’t work in the late ‘80s, but I fear it will work now. People are frustrated with the state of the country in 2008, as opposed to the generally positive thinking in 1988. Not to mention this new “wimpy” liberalism has taken over. 

In addition, the Democratic Party has turned further left, and their voters along with them. This, in combination with the Obama love affair, might result in blindly voting for change. I think, or at least hope, that people vote based on the candidate’s policy suggestions, and ideas of where he or she would like to take the country. Not just, we need something different.

Obama will gain respect if he just man’s up and responds to criticism, which by the way is based on things like, Jeremiah Wright, actual recordings of him referring to gun slinging middle Americans, and his extremely liberal votes in the senate.

Susan Estrich, in her column, “Could Obama Be Another Dukakis,” explains that Republicans will do what they did to Dukakis, and paint Democrats as liberal and out of touch with Americans.

I’m sorry, but Liberals paint themselves. Republicans just point it out.

When pointing out that liberals are actually liberal is considered negative campaigning you know something is wrong.      

If Barack Obama isn’t careful he’ll brand himself as the weaker candidate without even trying.  
Anytime criticism is sent his way he calls it dirty politics, name calling, or anything else that allows people feel sorry for him.  The problem with this tactic is that when he actually decides to criticize McCain on issue or character he won’t be able to.  It would be considered a double standard right?  Wait, that’s what just happened.
 
McCain simply says that he thinks it’s a justifiable topic that Hamas is supporting Obama.  Obama comes back at McCain with, “For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.”  Just as he cries dirty politics he slams McCain’s age and mental state in the same sentence. The Obama Standard.

This has been one of the problems all along with the Obama’s campaign.  He has positioned himself as the “weak” candidate.  Weak in that anytime someone criticizes him on issue, policy, or experience, he calls it mudslinging or name-calling.  That to me is weak.  Instead of coming back at McCain with a rational argument he bails out. If he can’t handle what little heat McCain has thrown his way, how are we to believe he can handle terrorists, Iraq, Iranian nuclear threats, or any foreign affair for that matter?

However, it was a good move on Obama’s part to begin the debate with McCain because it strongly suggests his victory over Hillary Clinton.  Not to mention the media are covering it as if he’s already won. 

The more people think Obama is going to win; the less likely they will vote for Hillary.