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.

The Cult of Ron Paul

In the lackluster show that is the 2008 presidential election, one candidate has managed to create a cult of followers who attack his critics and blindly believe he is the next president, despite losing every debate and barely cracking the margin of error in most polls. This is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's online cult (we'll call them Paulites) has pounced on every online poll to try to push their candidate. They have, with or without the candidate's knowledge, created an amazing campaign based on fraud.

In 2000, the House of Representatives voted almost unanimously to fine spammers $500 for each piece of unsolicited junk email they send. The almost was Ron Paul who voted against the bill. Now it seems obvious why he voted against it. Thousands of spam messages flooded inboxes with mail supporting Paul. When faced with the breaking news, Paulites accuses Wired magazine of being paid by Rudy Giuliani. Apparently the Paulites believe that when the facts don't match your belief, blame the messenger.

Paulites have created multiple phony websites pretending to support other candidates, apparently in order to attack any unsuspecting people who may think they've stumbled onto a legitimate message board.

Legitimate Ron Paul supporters, if there are any, will point to his recent record breaking fund raising initiative to point that his support is overwhelming, but the previous record went to Howard Dean, who couldn't even beat John Kerry.

The fact that the Paulites engage in such fraud is an indictment of the candidate. He has not repudiated them, and in fact seems to be encouraging the criminal acts such as hijacking computers to spew the Ron Paul spam. If he's so good at inspiring criminals and nutjobs to do his bidding, how can he ever be considered credible.

Much Ado About Nothing

Last night was the much-publicized CNN/You Tube debate. Why is this debate different from all other debates? Because the people get to ask the questions, albeit in prerecorded video. Did it make a difference. Not really.

The problem with political debates has never been with the people asking the questions. The problem is with the lack of answers. Candidates have talking points that they continually fall back on. These talking points are meant to sound impressive while saying nothing.

Want to fix the debate? Let me suggest some changes.

1) Start by making each answer a two-part question, with the first part being yes or no. Go through every candidate, with each one getting to say yes or no and nothing more. Then go back and have them explain why they answered that way.

2) Give the candidates scores that are shown on their podiums, like a game show. They get 3 point for a direct answer, 1 point for a rambling answer that ultimately gets to the point and they lose 5 points for going off-topic or skirting the issue.

3) Alternatively, don't air the debate live. Force the candidates to keep talking until they answer the question, then edit out everything but the one sentence that answers the question for broadcast.

4) Finally, after the election, rerun all of the comments by the winner, alongside video of their campaign promises immediately before the inauguration. Rerun this package every three months while the person is in office and have them explain why they haven't lived up to what they said.

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.

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.