Resume Building for Idiots

Sen Obama is heading overseas this summer on a quest to add foreign affairs experience to his resume.  In July  he will head to Britain, France, Germany, Israel and Jordan to discuss terrorism, nuclear proliferation and climate change.  All of this in an effort to write a speech that includes foreign policy initiatives and look Presidential (hopefully he’ll wear a tie). 

Obama’s supporters will see this as brilliant and groundbreaking policy while blasting McCain for his trips to Mexico, Columbia and (recently) Canada.  What Obama’s supporters won’t talk about is how their candidate will not go to Iraq because he knows that once there he will have to say something good about the progress being made in that country.  They will also not concede the fact that Obama’s trip is purely a show, designed only for foreign policy photo ops, while McCain’s trips have to do with real issues, such as immigration and the economy  and trade. 

Obama knows that as November inches closer he will need something to point to on his resume.  In debates, when faced with foreign policy questions, he will not be able to answer ” When I was in this country….” or “Having met with this leader or that leader….”, whereas McCain will be able to cite 20 years + of foreign affairs meetings.  In discussions about the economy, Obama can’t cite specific things he has supported or introduced into the legislature as a Senator because he has no specific experience on the issue, nor has he talked to the leaders of any foreign nation about how to stop or stem illegal immigration.  McCain, on the other hand, can point to specific decisions he has made in the Senate and cite discussions with foreign leaders about immigration and it’s effect on the US economy.  And while all of McCain’s decisions and legislative attempts have not been popular or passed, at least he put his neck out to try to enact reform,  not just talk about it as if it were the Holy Grail. 

So as Sen Obama prepares to talk about the weather with European heads of state,  let’s hope he packs a tie for those photo ops.  Afterall, those pictures will look good framed when he redecorates his junior Senator’s office come November. 

Advertisements

Mr Obama goes to Iraq,maybe

  Going into November, Sen Obama knows that he has no chance of winning if even a small percentage of independents look closely at his foreign policy experience or ideas.  This is the man who called Iran a minor threat after all and has said publicly that he will meet personally with the most despotic leaders of the world.  He has tried to compare himself to JFK and Reagan, who he believes negotiated peace with the Soviet Union and Cuba.  This historically flawed comparison highlights Sen Obama’s lack of experience and knowledge where foreign affairs are concerned. 

Sen McCain, on the other hand, has rightly pointed out that there is nothing “tiny” about the threat from Iran, Venezuala or Cuba.  Iran wants, and will acquire, nuclear materials and weapons if given enough time.  Venezuala controls most of the oil that comes to the US.  Cuba is still a communist country positioned a stones throw from our shores.   Sen McCain recognizes that sitting down and talking does nothing except prolong the inevitable.  

Successful diplomacy can only come from a position of strength, and that is where Sen Obama is historically flawed.  JFK resolved the Cuban missile crisis  by sending warships to Cuba, while keeping the channels of diplomacy open.  The Soviets blinked first in the military game of chicken JFK played and thus he was in a position to make demands of the USSR.  Similarly, Reagan built a massive military and continued deploying weapons around the world despite Soviet threats.  The Soviets tried to keep up and eventually became so financially strapped that they were forced to negotiate.  It was not until the Soviets blinked again that Reagan met with Gorbachev and bargained from a position of strength.  Neither JFK nor Reagan were looking for a common interest, as Obama has suggested.  Both Presidents were looking how to force the Soviets to blink first and come to a diplomatic arrangement hat in hand. 

When Neville Chamberlain stated that he had avoided war and declared peace in our time, he probably had no idea that Hitler was going to embark on his conquest of Europe.  However, Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement actually turned out to be the Achilles heal Hitler was looking for in Europe.  Iran,Cuba and Venezuala may be small countries but there is nothing tiny about the threat that they pose to America and her allies.  Sitting down with them will expose an Achilles heal Sen Obama is too naive to protect and too inexperienced to defend once it is shown. 

Reclaiming America(for the Dems)

Obama’s new slogan seems to be “Reclaiming America”.  It is posted on his pulpit as he preaches and will no doubt show up in campaign ads soon enough.  With this slogan he is apparently hoping to remind voters about the 2000 election and stir the bitterness that is still simmering below the surface of “disenfranchised” voters from that year. 

What this slogan shows is that Obama still has no plans to discuss issues and feels that resentment and bitterness some Democrats feel should be enough to get him elected.  Obama knows that once he is pressed on the issues voters will see him for the political puppet the leadership has made him since ’04.  His sudden rise in politics is evidence that the string pullers had trouble reigning in the Clintons so they cut their hold and attached Obama long before his time.  The leadership knows he has no record so they hold him up as the face of change despite his voting with the party 96% of the time.  They also know that if one of two things happen before November,  the economy turns or the war is still going well,  they will lose the election without reigniting the bitterness of 2000.  “Reclaiming America” is a subtle reminder by the Democrats that they still have not gotten over the “stolen” election of 2000.  Obama’s handlers could have used “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kerry” or “Gore” as their campaign slogan just as easily.  The problem is that Americans don’t want bitterness and hate to decide their President.  Look at the ’04 campaign for evidence of that where, despite an escalating war and a slower economy, George Bush was reelected by a majority of Americans. 

Slogans tell you something about the candidate using them.  “Reclaiming America” is a far cry from the “Change” of a few months ago.   The slogan smacks of a lust for power that the Democrats feel they are entitled to because of the last two elections.  Compared to McCain’s slogans of “Leadership” and ” Integrity” to name just two,  Obama’s slogan is about power and glory.  Personally, I want a President who wants to lead America, not reclaim the mantle of power for the good of the party. 

 

Published in: on May 14, 2008 at 10:18 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

Race Card

In the wake of Clinton’s win in PA,  pundits have restarted the race issue.  In analyzing why Obama has not won in blue collar cities across America,  ABC ran a report arguing that Obama’s race may be a factor in his electability.  Of course this report and others I have seen  focus solely on whites voting for Obama.  After 15 months of campaigning I see a different reason why Obama can’t close the deal as they say. 

While some polls do suggest that race is a factor, the percentages are very small.  For those voters who feel that race is not a factor the percentages are much higher,  hovering around 77%.  The way these polls are presented also is a huge factor.  Generally these polls are presented as white voters only,  which may or may not be how the poll was taken.  In any case other data suggests that blacks vote overwhelmingly for Obama, 92% in PA for instance.  Yet this “race” data is seen as okay for some reason yet it is no less racist.  No matter what polls and data suggest though after 15 months on the campaign trail race is not the issue for the majority of Americans,  it is policy. 

Even the most out of touch voter has seen an ad on TV or read at least one article in a paper.  In some way that piece of media swayed their decision and not one TV ad that I have seen or heard has come out to say don’t vote for Obama because he is black.  The informed electorate, those voters who read newspapers, watch some TV and utilize the Internet,  have made up their minds based on a policy issue that is important to them after so many months of coverage on the campaign trail.  Obama can’t close the deal because of this flow of information. 

When voters look at his stance on Iraq, which has been widely circulated, they may agree with him that the war was a bad idea but know the reality of the situation is that no one will be able to cut and run.  In addition, when both he a Clinton were asked about Iran getting and using nuclear weapons,  Clinton acted tough on defense while Obama kept saying that talking would end every crisis in the world while calling Clinton’s stance saber rattling (words used against Bush by Clinton and Obama to attack his foreign policy).   American voters do want more money in their  pockets but understand that growing the size of government through more welfare and other assistance programs will only lead to higher taxes for all Americans, especially blue collar, middle class workers.  Open immigration policies will also hurt working Americans and voters know this when they still have to press 1 for English. 

Finally voters realize that experience really does matter.  In PA, Sen Obama ran his campaign not on what he has done on the US Senate but what he did as a state Senator and in his previous career as a civil rights lawyer.  Voters understand that passing policy in Illinois is not like passing policy that will affect the 50 states that make up the United States of America.  Obama can’t make a case for experience because he has none on the national or world stage. 

I have heard the comparisons to JFK in reference to Obama’s lack of experience, speaking quality and other traits.  I will admit that I was not alive for JFK and only know the historical record of JFK as President and citizen.  These references are flawed at their core because of JFK’s service to America before he was President.  Serving as Secretary to his Ambassador father, commanding a PT boat in WW2, and as a Congressman for much longer than Obama,  JFK had more experience and policy making ability than Obama has now as he runs for the same office. 

The reason Obama can’t close the deal has very little to do with race.  Yes, a small percentage of whites will vote along racial lines, just as a small percentage of women will vote only on gender lines.  The reason Obama has failed to win support among blue collar workers,  the average Joe,  are his policies.  While he repeats the chorus of “change we can believe in”, Americans are starting to look at his idea of change and finding it hard to swallow.  Obama himself still, after 15 months, does not get into policy debates unless he is forced to engage an opponent. However,  with just a little digging any  voter can find out that he has proposed higher taxes, believes in free and open borders and is soft on defense.   So while the media outlets continue to play the race card, Americans are moving on to the issues that matter and deciding for themselves who will be the best candidate to serve as President of the United States, no matter what color,age or gender they happen to be on election day.   

 

Slim to None

That’s Obama’s chances in PA on Tuesday.  In under 48 hours, Sen Obama’s campaign will move on to another state glad to be rid of the bitter Americans that reside in PA.  Despite his outspending Sen Clinton 3 to 1 on ads through the last six weeks of the primary,  Sen Obama can’t compete in the Keystone state.  Recent statements Sen Obama made about rural America and also his link to terrorists and Rev Wright,  have shown the people of PA and the nation his true policy objectives. 

So after six weeks of campaigning and a vacation,  I will say a fond farewell to Sen Obama and his campaign  of despair and hopelessness.  After managing to destroy America’s past, present and future in speeches and TV ads in just six weeks,  I can’t think how America will look after 4 years of an Obama Presidency. 

Annie Oakley’s roundup

As scared as I am of the two Democrats running for President succeeding, I can’t help but admire the political prowess of Sen Clinton.  This weekend she went door to door in Scranton,PA asking for votes.  Desperation?  Maybe, but it worked! 

While Sen Obama spent the weekend defending his “bitter” Americans comment,  his supporters were answering their doors to find Sen Clinton standing there with hat in hand.  In at least one publicized story,  a man who had been an Obama supporter, not by name only but with a yard sign to show his support, switched his vote to Sen Clinton after she showed up to ask him for his vote.   It’s hard not to admire the door to door campaigning of a former First Lady even if you disagree with her platform.  Of course she is only swaying bitter gun clinging Pennsylvanians with this tactic but even they know how much their vote counts on April 22. 

Annie Oakley may have stopped just short of bringing a case of beer and a round of bullets with her as she visited homes in Scranton this weekend, but her message was the same–“I’m more like you than Sen Obama!”.  After spending most of her campaign trying to figure out how to get that message across, perhaps she should thank her opponent for giving her the best opportunity she has had to show off her “common man” talents.  And while the path to my house is blocked with McCain signs, at least I know that if she does show up to talk politics, Sen Clinton won’t be offended if I offer her a cold one as we sit and discuss all the bad policy decisions her husband made regarding gun control.   

Monkeys upset when trees removed from zoos

It’s sad I have to say this but…….For all those who might take this as news—THIS IS NOT REAL—-YET!!@!!!!!!!!

The fallout from the Carpentersville woman’s comments about monkeys has reached the nation’s zoos.  As of next year, trees will no longer be allowed in public viewing areas where monkeys are housed.  The move is an effort supported by everyone, everywhere,  not to offend anyone, at any time, for any reason, in any place.  The directors of the nation’s zoos feel it will help heal race relations in this country.  Monkeys feel the move is stupid and began throwing poo at the caretakers who began removing trees. 

This move by the zoos was sparked after a recent statement by a Hispanic woman, Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski.  When children were playing in a tree near her home she feared for their safety.  When she called out to tell the children to stop playing in the tree like monkeys,  a neighbor was offended and called the cops.  The neighbor felt it was racist because the children were African-American.  Linda was fined $75 for “disorderly conduct” for her statement.  Linda also was forced, by the Obama campaign,  to step down as a delegate because her comments were divisive. 

Monkeys everywhere have tried to argue that they have been climbing trees for thousands of years and that climbing is a natural inbred talent, and needed for survival.  When faced with a tough decision, the monkeys commented, they flee into the trees and throw poo, they can’t help it.  They also said that if children imitate them they should be careful as they do not have the inbred ability of a monkey and they could seriously get hurt.  They further went on to urge adults to keep a watchful eye on children in trees.  The zoo officials, after hearing the monkey’s arguments for trees,  said that as long as something can be misconstrued and used in any sort of demeaning, racial or otherwise offensive manner, by anyone, anywhere,  it would now have to be considered divisive.   

As zoos move forward with plans to remove the trees, they are also considering the names of some monkeys.  On the table are pygmy monkeys (considered offensive for small people), squirrel monkeys( considered offensive by squirrels), and even the beloved Curious George is under review ( Zoo officials would like to know what he is so curious about).  Sen Clinton has also identified Titis monkeys as a possible offense to her gender and Sen McCain would like a review of all “Old World Monkeys”  because they may be offensive to baby boomers and older Americans.  In related offenses, the Chinese Zodiac is under fire because someone was told they were born a “pig” while eating dinner at a Chinese restaurant somewhere in America.  More on that later. 

 

THIS IS REAL—————————————————–>

On the one hand I can understand the “divisiveness” of this comment.  I understand how the word was used 50 years ago in common speech. But please!!!

Is Obama above race or not?  Is he black or not?  Have we come a long way in race relations or not? Will we form a “more perfect Union” as his speech said by arguing over this lady’s comments which were nothing more than benign speech spoken everyday to all children of all colors in every language??????  FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP CREATING RACISM WHERE NONE EXISTS.  THIS IS A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WITH REAL ISSUES, START ADDRESSING THEM IN REAL WORDS NOT NICE FEELGOOD BUZZWORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/883120,CST-NWS-trustee08.article#  for the real article about the “racial” incident

Grass roots politics

Bill Clinton, yes the former President, is expected to make an appearance Saturday, 3/28, in the Girardville St Patty’s Day Parade.  Yes, St Patty’s Day was earlier in the month but as a testament to good old fashioned values, Girardville moved their parade so that it would not interfere with Holy Saturday.  

And now you can ask–Where the hell is Girardville, PA?  (http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=275805#Hist2) It’s a small town outside of Ashland in Schuylkill County.  It’s population tops out at about 1,750 and the median income hovers around $23,000, almost $20,000 less than the national average.  The median rent is about $234, and a mortgage around $500.  From experience, it’s a nice little town. 

While Sen Obama continues his cat and mouse game in the state,  the Clintons are taking every opportunity to showcase Hilary’s message.  One of the Clintons has made an appearance somewhere in NEPA every week since the primaries came to PA.  Sen Obama meanwhile has taken a vacation and put out cryptic notices that he’ll be in the area sometime soon, probably Tuesday, and possibly anywhere.   In PA there is only one candidate who wants to win and that is Sen Clinton.  With the former President’s appearance on Saturday, he will add another 1,000 or more votes to the popular vote totals of his wife.  That’s just the population of Girardville.  Last year attendance numbered between 10,000 -15,000.  

I’m no fan of the Clintons but what they are doing in NEPA is smart politics.  They have shown that there is no town too small and no voter too insignificant that they can’t try to reach on a personal level.  Politicians overlook places like Girardville too often and yet it is in these places where campaigns and issues are debated the most fervently.  Ideas are born in these towns that later shape the direction of our nation.  The people living in these towns are the “grass roots” politicians praise on the campaign trail when they weave their way through cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. 

In the end I still can’t support Sen Clinton because of her policies. However,  the very least I can do is raise a green glass of beer in late March for her efforts (through her former President husband) to reach the proverbial “grass roots” voters in Girardville and all of the other “little” towns in NEPA.  (Maybe Bill and I can raise that glass together after the parade and exchange campaign buttons!)

 0316081523.jpg

McCain-Romney?

As often happens when you have kids at home, I saw more Curious George yesterday than news.  So it was quite a surprise when I saw Romney endorse McCain on the nightly news.  The surprise was turned to reason quickly when I remembered the volume of calls to talk radio from Romney supporters saying they would now vote for anyone else besides McCain.  Romney simply made a tactical move to not only unify the party but also set himself up as a party favorite for the VP or other nomination. 

I have said before that Romney reminds me of a boss, he is only interested in results.  When he left the primary, the party became fractured with conservatives looking for an alternative, even asking for a third party.  Now, by endorsing John McCain, Romney sets himself up as a unifying force in the Republican party.  McCain can still unify Independents and Republicans behind the America before the party sentiment but now Romney can unify the party for America.   Results that no McCain supporter can truly ignore. 

As far as the VP nod, Romney may have become a consideration yesterday and set up an alliance of convenience.  McCain and Romney do not see eye to eye and there may be better candidates for VP to sway more conservatives,  but McCain will have to consider how much Romney helps his nomination going forward.  If Huckabee starts getting fewer votes and less delegates as a result of Romney’s intervention,  can a VP consideration be tossed aside by McCain?   Romney may not accept even if he is offered the post, deciding instead to prepare for 2012 or 2016, but his influence will not be forgotten by the party.  If Romney does accept,  McCain gains another point with voters afraid of his age (despite his vitality) because there will be a strong a “youthful” VP at his side. 

 Romney’s business is taking risks and producing results.  The risks are few in supporting McCain but the results are huge for Romney.  McCain is already the front-runner so Romney’s support is just another endorsement toward the inevitable nomination.  The result of the support however, gives Romney an edge in all future political considerations. 

Published in: on February 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , ,

Buying Votes

It was reported today that Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama are “buying” super-delegates or whatever euphemism Hilary prefers today.  Between the two candidates, somewhere in the neighborhood of $900,000 has been spent on theses special voters.  While all perfectly legal, isn’t this a dramatic shift in tone from 2000 when GWB “stole” the election from Al Gore?

After the 2000 election there were articles, pundits and politicians calling for the electoral process to change.  “The Voters” were not being heard, “The Voters” didn’t matter if delegates could decide an election and the popular vote was what truly mattered to”The Voters”.  Fast forward 8 years and the two Democratic Presidential candidates are buying their way to the nomination.  What happened to “the Voters”?  They got in the way and didn’t make the right choice apparently. 

Sen Obama has outspent Clinton in this practice almost 3to 1.  His almost $700,000 has apparently persuaded a few super-delegates to swing away from Hilary and pledge to his side.  They say its not the money but a true belief in change.  The flaw in this argument is that Obama has run his campaign for “The Voters”, he is simply the vessel of change, the embodiment of what “The Voters” want in this election.  His use of “we” and never “I” in his speeches are a testament to this idea.  Every dime either candidate spends, and especially Obama, on super-delegates is money spent for a vote, pure and simple.  It is also a sign that neither candidate truly believes their own various slogans about change in Washington.  “The Voters” will simply not matter if super-delegates decide the nominee. 

Especially hard hit will be “the Voters” in the 18-25 crowd in this instance.  While I still believe they will lose interest by November, what if word gets out that Obama is wooing delegates with money?  What will the youth of America, his core supporters,  think?  They are his mice to his pied piper.  “Believe that we can change America together”,  Obama plays from his stump and the youth line up to follow.  The spell may be broken when Obama is seen to be buying votes,  a practice only the most entrenched (i.e. Republicans)in Washington do! Again “The Voters” in this demographic will feel they don’t matter and sleep in on election day if super-delegates can decide their future.  Then again if their candidate is the beneficiary of hypocritical practices, they may feel the establishment got theirs!

After 2008 there will be no articles, politicians or pundits who call for a change in the electorate.  The Democratic candidates are the ones benefiting this time around and that is precisely why the tone is different.  If the party of GWB was engaging in the same practices at this level,  the party of Gore would be crying foul and bringing up hanging chads, illegal voting practices and stolen elections.  “What about the popular vote?” they would cry. ” You can’t nominate based on super-delegates!” they would yell to the country. 

 We are a long way from November, but if “The Voters” decide to elect Hilary or Obama all of this talk about super-delegates and money will be nothing more than they way the electorate works.  “The Voters” will have made the right choice in the eyes of the Democrats and the electoral college will be praised again for its simplicity and the founding fathers will again be praised for their forethought.