Does Obama Know Who He Is Running Against?

Listen to Obama's speeches. You will be amazed at the number of times he mentions George W. Bush. Does he think he's running against Bush? Does he think voters are stupid enough to think he's running against Bush? Actually there's a good reason for him to keep bringing up Bush. Bush is easier to beat than McCain.

The truth of the matter, if you check the Congressional Record, is that McCain's voting record is closer to Hillary Clinton's than it is to Bush. In fact, McCain's voting record is closer to Clinton's than Obama's is. That's the fact Obama wants voters to miss. That Hillary supporters have more in common with McCain than they do him.

McCain and Clinton both actively try to work across party lines, where Obama prefers to stay rigidly to the left. He is, after all, rated as the most liberal senator. But he's going to have to work harder now. Everyone who drank the kool aid came out in the primaries, and it still took him all 50 states to win the nomination. If he expects to appeal to the mainstream voter, Obama will have to get his act together and remember he's no longer preaching to the choir.

Why To Trust McCain On Iraq

In the Sunday New York Times, there appeared an article which, more than any other, showed why John McCain is the candidate to trust on the issue of Iraq. Much has been made about McCain's military credentials and his experience, but the article answered a questioned that anti-war activists have been throwing around since the start of the war. In fact Michael Moore asked the question of almost every pundit he argued with during the 2004 presidential campaign. Would you want your child to serve in Iraq?

In John McCain's case, the question is irrelevant. His son is already there. (Read the article) So John McCain can honestly look at the issue from several points of view. Not only can he look at it from the point of view of commander-in-chief, who must figure out what is best for the country; not only can he look at from the point of view of a former prisoner-of-war who has seen the horrors of war first hand; but he can look at it as the father of a soldier who would be affected by any decision he would make.

While Obama and Clinton attempt to make the argument that a vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of George W. Bush, McCain's own record proves that wrong. McCain has fought against the use of torture that the Bush administration has advocated. He was among the first to call for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, for mishandling the war effort. The fact that both McCain and Bush backed the surge also serves to highlight the differences. McCain proposed such action well in advance of Bush eventually agreeing to it.

Clearly, the war has turned around since McCain's recommendations were acted on. While Iraq is still not where we like it to be, it is on the right track. Even the Democratic National Committee must recognize this, as evidenced by his outright manipulation of McCain's "100 years" remark. (See Factcheck.org's analysis of the distortion)

There is no simple solution to the war. We would all like our soldiers to come home has soon as possible. The candidate best able to do that safely would seem to be John McCain.

Hillary: "Health Care Or Else"

Hillary Clinton has just come out with her grand health care plan. The woman who is best known for her completely useless health plan during her husband's presidency does seem to have learned from her past blunders. In her favor, her plan isn't all bad this time, just mostly bad. But the one part that is a deal breaker is her mandate. All Americans must have health care.

In the interest of fairness, she isn't the only one with this mandate. John Edwards has it in his plan and Mitt Romney had it in the plan he pushed in Massachusetts. This mandate that everyone must buy health care is to say the least astonishing and irresponsible. Clinton puts the cart before the horse in this plan, forcing people to buy health insurance before she does anything about lowering its cost. That's a great way to bankrupt the poor and lower middle classes.

Her solution is a tax rebate. Great, you get a cut in your taxes in April, but suffer to make your payments the rest of the year. I've lived under the poverty level. I've lived without health care. In the situation I was in, and the situation many Americans are still in, you look at your money and you say do I eat or do I pay another bill. Hillary has taken the choice out of your hands and eating lost.

On top of the cost, why does the government think its their decision what we spend our money on. You must have health care, you must not eat trans fats, you must eat what we tell you is healthy. We don't want a nanny state. Get out of my diet, get out of my kitchen, and get out of my health decisions. You want to make health care affordable? Here's how:

1) Tort reform: A major reason that health costs are high is because the legal system is out of control, which raises malpractice rates. Cap what the greedy bastards can ask for in damages. I was on jury duty for a case where a patient sued his doctor for malpractice. The doctor cured his prostate cancer, but he was left with an impotency problem. Guess what, the doctor did his job. He saved the guys life. Was the side effect unanticipated and uncomfortable> Yes, but that doesn't mean the guy is entitled to money. Stop these out of control claims and insurance rates will drop.

2) Prescription drug reform: The drug companies claim they have to charge exorbitant amounts to cover their R&D costs. They are right, to a point. I've worked with some of these companies, and many of them are the worst run companies I've ever seen. They squander their money because they're counting on being able to charge an arm and a leg to make up for it. Cap the prices. This will force the companies to be more efficient. The patient wins with lower prices and the shareholders win because a more efficient company will see greater returns by eliminating waste.

3) Companies over 1000 employees must provide health insurance for all employees, no matter how many hours they work. I'm calling this the Wal-Mart clause. If you can employ over 1000 people, you can afford to offer them health insurance. Besides, who is making it possible for these companies to succeed? The employees.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, but you get the point. The poor don't get poorer, the rich aren't penalized, and the three items I mentioned don't cost the government one cent.

On The Anniversary Of 9/11

September 11, 2001 was the New York primary elections, or it would have been had events not unfolded as they did. As a political consultant, I was working with several political campaigns in Brooklyn, NY that day. As with most election days, my day had started at 3:30 a.m. with a last minute push to make sure our signs had not been vandalized, and an inspection of the voting sites. I was shepherding a young candidate on his first campaign for City Council.

He watched as I worked on another campaign in addition to his. A smaller, yet much nastier campaign for State Committee. The incumbent, who I was working against, had been arrested for beating his wife. Political organizations not affiliated with the campaign had posted his mug shot all over the district. We were accused of mudslinging, despite having nothing to do with the postings. All in all, it was the ugliest campaign I had been involved in.

When this young candidate saw this campaign, and heard the things being said against us, he asked why we keep putting ourselves through this. I told him two quotes that I have always remembered. The first was from Thomas Jefferson, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." The second was "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." This conversation was around 8:30 a.m.

Having been working for 5 hours already, we decided it would be a good time to grab something to eat. We piled into a car and headed for a local McDonald's when the candidate asked if he could stop at his home for a minute. He was having a problem with his contact lenses and wanted to replace them. He ran in while we waited in the car. He came out in a panic. The television had been on in his house and they were announcing the first plane hitting the World Trade Center.

By the time we reached McDonald's, the second tower and the Pentagon had been hit. We tried to call for information but it was impossible to get through to anyone. We sat over breakfast, debating whether we should concede the election and send everyone home. The primaries had not been officially canceled at that point, but we decided that too many of our workers had friends and family in the towers. We pulled everyone out and got them home.

By the time I returned home the second tower had fallen. My wife, who was unable to get a hold of me was in a panic. We desperately manned the phones until every friend and family member was accounted for.

Now, six years later I am appalled at what I see. Conspiracy theorists with no knowledge spout that we blew up the towers ourselves. As the bells tolled at the moment the second tower was hit, The Today Show couldn't be bothered to break away from their story on how women can find husbands to show the ceremony. The Clinton administration made mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen. They can't admit it. The Bush administration made mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen. They can't admit it.

For too brief a moment after the attacks, this country was united. We need to unite again.

Clinton Supports Censorship

"The Road To 9/11" is a dramatization of events that lead to the attacks on September 11, 2001. The movie aired on ABC, despite a massive campaign by members of the Clinton administration to keep it off the air. Even so, edits were made to satisfy Clinton's followers.

Now, the movie has been scheduled and unscheduled for release on DVD several times. Why hasn't it been released? Because the movie is critical of the Clinton administration.

Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer and one of the miniseries' many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that "if Hillary weren't running for president, this wouldn't be a problem."

Has the United States sunk so low that we are now allowing politicians to decide what we can watch? This is not a security matter. There is no justification for not allowing the movie to be released. Michael Moore has caused controversy, but every one of his films has been released, to be judged on their own merits.

We have the freedom of speech in this country. We have the right to express our views. No one has the right to stand in the way of that, especially someone running for the highest office in this country.

Enjoy the Irony

Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a presidential debate on Fox. However, the blind trust that she's been investing in since Bill was in the White House has been investing in the company.

Hillary had no idea what companies the trust invested in, so there isn't any overt hypocrisy, just an enjoyable irony.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Presidential Politics

Hillary Clinton is trying to ride her husband's coattails. She is campaigning to bring us a return to "when Bill was President." She claims the Bush administration policies have reversed the federal surplus that existed when Clinton was in office.

Stop!

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. There NEVER was a surplus. There was an anticipated surplus, based on what the U.S. would receive in Capitol Gains taxes assuming the Internet bubble of the late 90s would NEVER end. Guess what. Bubbles burst, and with it any imaginary surplus. So let's see what the Clinton administration would return us to.

Most people lost a fortune in the stock market thanks to easy availability of stocks and no oversight of analysts. The recession that hit earlier in the decade had its seeds planted on Clinton's watch. These things don't just happen overnight. So maybe she's talking about a safer time. Like when the U.S.S. Cole gets blown up and the Clinton administration let Osama bin Laden go after finding out where he was. After all, he wasn't ever going to do anything like that again. Oh wait, he did.

Let's not look at presidential policies through nostalgia. The good old days weren't all that good.

Votes vs. Soundbites

Congress has passed an increase to the minimum wage. Workers who now make $5.15 an hour will see their paychecks go up by 70 cents per hour before the end of the summer. Another 70 cents will be added next year, and by summer 2009, all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25 an hour.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, called the increase one of Òthe proudest achievements of this new Congress.Ó

Kennedy said. ÒDemocrats stood together, and stood firm, to say that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty.Ó

So what's the problem with this? What Kennedy isn't saying is that he voted against the bill. So did Senators Clinton, Obama, and Dodd. Why? The minimum wage was raised as part of the bill that funded our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to a CBS/New York Times poll, 87% of Americans said we should finance the war and 69% said we should have benchmarks. So we have a bill that 87% of Americans support, that provides funds for our troops AND raises the minimum wage, and four of the most vocal Senators, three of whom are running for President, voted against it.

They voted against "the proudest moment of this new Congress." We should not forget this.

To vote or not to vote?

Democratic presidential hopefuls are wavering in their support for our troops. They know that not passing a funding bill will put our troops in graver danger than they are already in, but they are more concerned about how their vote will affect their election chances.

Democrats have to weigh doing what is right with doing what is popular. The main problem is that they're not sure they want to vote for funding that doesn't tell the enemy when we're leaving. If this is confusing for them, I don't want them in the White House.

Bush Bashing Becomes National Sport

It seems that bashing George W. Bush has become the national pastime. Over the past few days, Jimmy Carter took potshots at him, Al Gore has published a book taking aim at the president, and Hillary Clinton couldn't help but get her own few words in.

Jimmy Carter, who the White House has called "irrelevant" in response to his comments, started this round in interviews with the BBC and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. He stated, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." He later backtracked when the story was picked up, saying he was only referring to foreign policy, not the administration in general. Even that boggles the imagination. How does the man who allowed Iran to run roughshod over this country for 444 days believe himself to be a credible critic of someone else's foreign policy? He showed his ignorance more recently by publishing a book attempting to revise the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to make the Palestinians out to be victims, this as the headlines show them trying to kill themselves because they can't even resolve internal differences peacefully.

When asked about Carter's comments, Hillary Clinton stated, "I've had a lot of criticism of the Bush administration as well, and have used some strong descriptions," Clinton said. "I am going to continue to criticize the President. I think it is the duty of every American to speak out when you feel strongly that your president is heading in the wrong direction. I think we need a debate in this country, and I think that's what is going on ... I welcome everyone for that."

It is the inalienable right of everybody in this country to speak up if they feel something is wrong. Having Hillary Clinton say this, however, as she refuses to take phone calls from reporters who have criticized her husband is simply hypocrisy. It's all or nothing. Either every president can be criticized or none of them can.

Meanwhile, Al Gore has published his new book, "The Assault on Reason: How the Politics of Fear, Secrecy, and Blind Faith Subvert Wise Decision Making, Degrade Our Democracy, and Put Our Country and Our World in Peril. It's his latest salvo in his campaign to not run for president. This is a man who backed Howard Dean for president and has scientists that worked with him on "An Inconvenient Truth" pointing out that the movie was an exaggeration. He criticizes the way Bush has responded to crises, although his track record isn't any better. As part of the Clinton administration, he has to take some responsibility for letting Osama bin Laden walk away after the bombing of the USS Cole. It is well documented that the Clinton administration knew where he was, and chose not to get him.

The problem with all of this isn't the criticism. It's the fact that none of it is constructive criticism. You don't like the way a situation has been handled? Fine. Come up with a better solution. Don't just complain that you don't like what was done. If you don't offer a feasible solution, then it's just another rant.

Damn The Security, There's An Election To Win

Yesterday, three Democratic senators who are running for President showed us just what they are made of. Unlike the majority of the Senate (Democrats and Republicans alike), Senators Clinton, Dodd, and Obama voted to abandon our troops in Iraq and cut off their funds completely. Never mind that it would put our troops in more danger than they are in. Never mind the fact that it would abandon the Iraqi people again. (Is it any wonder that people don't believe we can see things through with cut and run policies like this?) Never mind the fact that it would give Al-Qaeda a new home from which to plan the next 9/11. They voted to suck up to organizations like Moveon.org, who represent their own agenda, not that of the American people.

As President, your job is to represent the country. If Clinton, Dodd, and Obama seriously want the job, they should start by not voting to throw our soldiers under a bus.

The Hypocrisy of Green

Green has become a buzzword lately and like any fad, it has its johnny-come-latelies jumping on the bandwagon. Former president Bill Clinton is one of these. His foundation has spearheaded a program which will allow skyscrapers to go green and cut their energy use by 20%-50%. This is an excellent idea, but one can't help wonder where he's been for the last 14 years?

During the Clinton presidency, he did nothing of consequence for the environment. Since living office, he's done nothing at all. Suddenly, now that Hillary is running for president, he comes out of hibernation to grab headlines by going green. Is this nothing more than a campaign publicity stunt? Probably.

Aside from publicity grabs, the environment is being degraded by environmentalists who refuse to look at the whole problem. There is a huge movement to ban incandescent light bulbs. Why? Compact florescent bulbs use less energy and convert energy to light more efficiently. However, these bulbs contain mercury. Mercury is toxic. If one of these bulbs break in your home, it's not a simple clean-up. You must have hazardous materials removed from your home. On top of that, these bulbs will eventually find their way into landfills, with all the mercury. Banning incandescent bulbs is just another way of people jumping on the bandwagon and not paying attention to the consequences.

Of course, there are other groups that impact the environment and pay no attention to what they're doing. Why do Americans drive big cars? In many cases, we're forced to by a group I refer to as "safety-nazis." These safety-nazis have convinced politicians that children need to be in car seats much longer than they have to be. They always back-up their position by saying "studies show," but after considerable research the only studies I could find were put out by car-seat manufacturers. Of course, they're going to show that their products are necessary. How does this translate to bigger cars? Thanks to the new draconian laws requiring older children to be in car-seats, many families with two children have to have them both in car-seats, even if the kids are as much as eight years apart. Have you tried fitting two of these things into a small, fuel-efficient car. You can't do it unless they're installed in such a way that they are completely useless. The fact is you can keep your kids safe by being a good driver and following the rules of the road. The car-seat manufacturers don't want you know that. They'd rather you buy their products and get a gas guzzler to fit.