Bailouts Are Bad

I could be wrong, but I think these latest bailouts (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG) are a bad thing. We're told that it would be super bad for the economy if we didn't bail them out, but it seems to me that the economy is suffering pretty badly by bailing them out and that the only people that seem to gain out of this is the people running those failed companies.

Obama is buying votes, by suggesting that we should also bail out those 5 million home owners that are being foreclosed on, and suggesting that its the fault of corporate greed. I agree that it's greed, but not just that of big business, but also of the jerks that took out loans for homes they knew they couldn't afford in the first place.

Why should we bail them out? We aren't doing anything for the poor guys still living in apartments; the ones that were responsible and knew they couldn't afford to buy homes. What are we doing for them? We're going to hurt the economy that they struggle in already, to bail out people that don't deserve to be bailed out.

I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that we shouldn't be bailing out the big guys or the little guys. Not only that, but I have trouble with the notion that executives at these failed companies are walking away with multi-million dollar compensation packages; while the company fails. This is wrong. If they have the money to pay these guys that, then they don't need my bailout.

I repeat; we're told that it would be catastrophic if we let those companies fail. It seems to me that it's pretty catastrophic by bailing them out. We just further devalue the dollar, running up the cost of oil (because we buy that on the international market that now wants more dollars for the same oil). That seems pretty catastrophic to me.

Are the Voters Really That Uninformed?

Like many Americans, I am seeing the recent announcements of failures in the financial markets of this country, and the subsequent bailouts; and having a general disgust about it.

Furthermore, I'm frustrated that the CEOs of these failing organizations have been allowed to keep their multi-million dollar retirement packages and compensation in the millions of dollars, while the American public suffer the consequences.

Government plays a part too.  Chris Dodd and others in the Senate have been taking money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as well as other failed institutions; and have been taking this money for years.  Dodd has been taking money from the organizations he's supposed to be overseeing.  In fact, Dodd has received more money from them than anyone else in the Senate.

The second place goes to Barak Obama, who has barely been in the Senate his first term.

There goes the mudslinging.  Obama has the nerve to point at McCain and associate him with Bush, and suggest to the American people that voting for McCain would be voting to further the "same old failed policies".  The reality is that voting for Obama would be voting for the same old policies.

Obama's resume is inflated.  People are finding this out, but what gets me is that they seem to be ignoring it and falling for what he says.  Dodd, you'd think, would have people after him with a noose and a long rope, but instead, they're listening to him as he blames Bush for everything (even though he's been the head of that same committee in the Senate for nearly two decades), while Bush has only been in office for 8 years.

Don't get me wrong.  Bush deserves a heavy slap on this one too.  He appointed that guy that oversees the SEC.  That guy knew that AIG was buying up bad loans.  Did he tell the American people or sound any alarms?  No.  And millions of Americans, who have 401(k) plans invested in AIG, were affected by it's failure.  And Bush's appointee knew it was happening and did nothing to stop it.

Consider with all the fingerpointing, that in 2006, there was a bill proposed to pull in the reins a little bit on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The alarm was being sounded that a failure could occur.  The measure was voted down though.

Who proposed this measure?  It was Senator John McCain.

There are a host of people to blame about this.  Greenspan got it wrong.  Dodd should resign.  Barney Frank should resign.  Obama should resign.  Others should as well.  Bush is rightfully to blame as well.  McCain had it right over 2 years ago; I just wish he'd been more persistent in letting the American people know.

The truth is, the American people didn't want to know.  That might've required people to not take ridiculous home loans that they knew they couldn't afford.  It might've required people to deal with an economy that was drastically inflated in its true value.  No one wanted to do that, and to be fair, politicians can't be elected, or re-elected, trying to get the notice out.

Are the voters really that uninformed?  Possibly.  Probably.

Mudslinging and the Political High Ground

Barak Obama has been virtually given a pass from the news media since he began running for president.  Hillary Clinton found this out when they turned against her during the election.  Pro-Obama folks (not directly linked with his campaign) would sling dirt about Hillary and this allowed Obama to maintain the high ground.

In some cases, Obama even stooped to telling people what his opponents would say, even before they said it.  And then when Hillary (and later McCain) would engage in the debate on the topic, they were immediately attacked for racist remarks or otherwise not being sensitive to Obama's heritage.  Even Bill Clinton was accused of "going too far" when he tried to challenge a ridiculous claim that Obama had made against Hillary.

Now that it's between Obama and McCain, the pro-Obama forces, those in the media as well as ultra-left bloggers, have slung mud on McCain and now Palin daily.  Any time that McCain or Palin try to defend themselves or fight back, they are accused of mudslinging, while Obama gets to sit on political high ground, not having done any of the dirty work himself.

Consider that during the democratic primaries, Obama, as well as other democratic candidates, met with the leftwing bloggers' group (on the left coast).  Even Hillary Clinton had reservations about this meeting, as it would legitimize these people.  Obama had no qualms about meeting with them.

And they were the first to attack Palin's family, and although Obama came out the next day with a statement that family is "off limits", the fact is that he never denounced these supporters who have continued on their mudslinging campaign against Palin and McCain.  And Obama continues to maintain the political high ground.

The New York Times are printing half truths, lies and intentionally misleading the public, actually quoting bloggers are "sources", knowing that these bloggers have no journalistic integrity and that you can write anything on the web; and it only has to be copied a few times elsewhere on the web to be picked up on google and it becomes defacto truth, when it isn't at all.

I am frustrated to see that truth isn't being allowed to prevail, and that they have been working hard to dig up any dirt they can on Palin, while they didn't spend a day looking into the past of Barak Obama.  They still haven't made him face issues of lying to get votes when he said he'd renegotiate NAFTA and didn't even try.  They haven't faced him with his own links to lobbyists, but they allow him to make accusations about Republicans and lobbyists.
And they've given a complete pass to Joe Biden who has strong links to the biggest credit card company in the United States, and has voted this way to prove it.

They've given a pass to Obama and to Biden when it comes to lobbyists and their recent votes to let telecommunication companies be immune from prosecution if they cooperated with the government in wiretapping (illegal or otherwise).
At first, Obama was against immunity for them, but someone must've pointed out that AT&T were contributing heavily to the DNC, because the next thing you know he had no problem voting for it.  He didn't vote against it like he said.  He didn't vote "Present".  He voted for it.

Several websites have sprung up supposedly for the purpose of setting the records straight and getting at the truth; but what they really are is just another means of distorting the truth and continuing just enough of the half truths against McCain and/or Palin, to essentially promote the illusion of truth coming from Obama.  It's intellectually dishonest.

I saw 7 or 8 instances of this today and it gets to the point where you just can't set the record straight on every one of them.  There are more of them out there, spreading more and more lies or half-truths, to get to all of it.
And plus, in some instances, McCain and/or Palin actually have distorted the truth to suit their own needs.  For instance, there was a lot of discussion for a couple of days over something so trivial as to whether or not Sarah Palin actually sold the Alaskan governor's jet on ebay.  Well, the point of it is that she sold it and helped get rid of some of the waste, unneeded perks and ridiculous spending and abuse going on in the governor's office.

The truth is, as she stated this, is that it was "put up for sale on ebay the next day".  This is true.  The fact that after a period of time, they weren't getting the bids they had hoped for and so they regretfully allowed a broker to handle the final sale of the plane.  The plane did get sold.  The money to the taxpaper was saved.  The abuse was cleaned up.

But the left went on and on about it not being sold on ebay, failing to mention that it was "put on sale on ebay", but was ultimately sold by a broker.  They only mention that it wasn't sold on ebay, giving the reader the feeling that Palin lied.

This is just one example, but it is a ridiculous example.  The whole point isn't whether or not she sold the thing on ebay or craigslist or anywhere else.  The point is that she sold the plane, she got rid of the governor's personal chef, as well as getting rid of the limo and driver that the governor had.

And the news media seems eager to do a 'fact check' when it's a statement by McCain and/or Palin, but they are frequently giving a pass to anything Barak Obama or one of his supporters writes or says.  The coverage of this election is clearly meant to influence.  There is little journalistic integrity.  And MSNBC has given up on journalism entirely, and have gone for propaganda and comic relief (same with Comedy Central).  They don't even hide it.

Charlie Gibson interviewed Sarah Palin.  During his interview, he was trying to trip her up; something he never did with Barak Obama.  He asked about the Bush Doctrine.  The fact is, the Bush Doctrine hasn't been defined.  It'll be defined either by Bush or by the historians.  It wasn't a legitimate question, but it was enough to trip her up.

Gibson also made a big deal about earmarks.  On the surface, it sounds like an inconsistency, but then again, you have to go back to the definition of earmarks.  Her, being a governor, would have no control over how money is appropriated in Congress.  It is her responsiblity to ask for federal dollars and to seek them for her state.  There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's not wasteful spending.  And the fact is the bridge to nowhere was ultimately rejected by Palin, a fact that her detractors easily ignore.

The definition of an earmark is funds that are snuck into an unrelated bill by a legislator.  Someone in Congress would put an earmark, funding for something in their home state, in a bill that probably has nothing to do with that spending.  It's a way to sneak pork by and get it passed along with something legitimate.  It's something that Palin fought within legislation in her state, and that McCain has fought in the Senate, and in fact, in all of his years in the Senate, never pursued any earmarks.

So if Palin asked for federal dollars for infrastructure within her state, she had no way of knowing how the Senator or Congressman in DC would come up with those dollars.  Believe it or not, but governors seek federal dollars from time to time and get it through legitimate avenues.  It happens.

This is a fact this is carefully overlooked in all of the discussion by the media; because they have an agenda to make her and McCain look badly, while giving a free pass to Obama and Biden; who have both pursued earmarks.

And the whole earmark discussion is with regards to the fact that the money is being appropriated in secret, hidden from the public so that no one in Congress is voting for it directly.  If these sorts of practices were out in the open, it would be different, but to secret these "earmarks" within other bills, it is essentially commiting fraud against the American people.  That is the discussion, not whether or not a state or municipality asks for federal dollars.

I don't have a problem allowing the truth to be known and let the chips fall where they may, but it seems to me that this is not what is being allowed to happen.

Taxes and How To Fix Things

The politicians are talking, but either they really don't understand, or they really don't care.  I'm not sure which, but I heard Sen. Dodd say that he was frustrated and wanted to "know more" about the Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae bailouts, and yet he's the head of the banking committee and helped write the law that allowed those bailouts.  He's the one that wrote things up so they were allowed to make those irresponsible banking practices and the CEOs get to keep their millions.

On taxes, almost half of the people you see on the street every day, actually don't even pay taxes (they are refunded everything they pay in); and they don't care that the system is screwed up.  Obama wants to actually give these people a tax refund, which is actually taking money out of hard-working Americans' pockets to give to these folks; essentially buying votes for himself with our money.

Now if they really want to solve the tax problem, they don't need to increase capital gains taxes.  If anything, they need to reduce them.

I'll explain.

Literally, a million jobs (over that) have been off-shored.  Can we not bring these jobs back?

Literally billions of dollars have been off-shored to avoid taxes.  Can we not bring these back by lowering the taxes that motivate this off-shoring, as well as removing the loopholes that allow it?

There are  over 66,000 pages in the tax code.  Why is this?  It's too much for the IRS, itself, to keep track of, but I guarantee you that the big money guys have accountants and tax attorneys that can keep track of it; and they're using it in their favor.

If you want to fix the economy and if you want to fix taxes, don't raise taxes the 50% that are paying taxes already, but close the loopholes (and maybe ease taxes for some of us)  and they'll get more tax revenues in the process.

Worked on utility trenches. Worn out now.

I took the day off to work on the utility trenches. I rented a jackhammer to make the job easier, but I'm worn out more than I have been in a very long time.

The jackhammer made the work go faster, but I worked hard having to pick the machine up and move it around. The boulders had to be cut through though, and this area of the property probably has the biggest boulders we have. They were thick and wide.

At the end of the day, Rachel asked me if this was the right tool for the job. I said that "for this job" it was, because of having to be careful and not damage existing utility lines and the well. However, if it hadn't been for those, the right tool for the job was a backhoe.

Click here for more ...

Proposed Taxing of Capital Gains

Recently, Barak Obama has proposed taxing of capital gains the same as income.  I have to wonder if he really doesn't understand how capital works, or if this irresponsible stance is a means to get votes from poor people who don't understand how capital works, and that it's somehow some class war thing against the rich.

I had my fears concerning this, so I sent an e-mail to a friend of mine who knows much more about the economy, how it needs and uses capital; much more than most people.  This guy has made me a lot of money in the past, and so I trust him.

Here's what he said:

The economy would be dead in its tracks. The fastest growing economy in the world at the time (Japan) at our urging added a massive capital gains tax in place of none. The Jap economy has never recovered from this. As in debt as our country is we might never recover. This could speed us along on our journey to becoming a third world economy. Got to balance the budget and work on our massive debt before it is too late.

So as bad as the economy has become under George W. Bush, if Obama were allowed to carry out this irresponsible act, it would be devastating to this economy.  In essence, the poor people voting for this would be cutting their own throats.

As bad as things were for Japan, they weren't in nearly as much debt as we are (and the average Joe has caused his own debt as much as George W. Bush and Congress have to the government debt), Japan had the US to help them out economically.  Who will we get help from?

My experience with capital gains was an education.  Less than 10 years ago, I barely knew what the words meant.  In practice, I didn't really know at all, as financial matters bored me and since I wasn't rich, didn't figure any of this stuff would ever mean enough to me for it to matter.  So I didn't care to know.  I think this is how most people are, and that's why there isn't an outcry from people (even Democrats) about the proposed taxes on capital gains.

I once did work for a small startup company.  They filed and became incorporated and I owned stock.  I got stock in place of payment in a lots of cases, and for the final two years that I worked there, didn't get paid at all.  And the company struggled to survive.

Years went by, and that stock was worth very, very little.

If I could've sold some of it immediately after the company went public, I would've made a lot of money, and of course, since I had the stock less than a year, it would've been considered income.  I would've paid income taxes on it just like any other income.

However, I was considered "an insider" and couldn't sell stock at that time.  I ended up not even being able to sell stock for a year, and when I was able to sell, the stock wasn't worth much.

Years went by and for a brief moment a couple of years ago, it was actually work a couple of bucks a share (it aint now).  I was able to sell and get some money that I needed.  However, since years had gone by from my original investment (one of many investments that helps this economy run by providiing capital), it was considered capital gain, not income.

I finally understood what made capital gain and income different.  I also saw how unfair it would be to have expected me to put money into this economy, with no guarantee of any return at all, and then years later, be hit with the same tax as a guy that didn't invest anything into the economy and was able to get his paycheck that Friday after he'd put in his work.

I also think it is unfair to ask someone to put up risk money to run this economy, tax them just like income for this risk (that no one else puts up), and then tell them they can only write off $3000 of capital loss.  Essentially, we're saying that the guy puts up the risk to help the economy, but that he doesn't get any rewards for years, or maybe never, and we'll punish him for this, and that he gets very little credit for any losses.

How do you suppose this will help the economy?

Will there be any incentive to invest if this occurs?

Where will the jobs come from?  Where will the growth come from?

Where do all those college students that vote for this, think their jobs will come  from when they graudate?

Later, in asking my friend why Obama might propose this, trying to see if there were any logic in debating this issue.  There is no debate and Obama even admits this.  He admits that it will hurt the economy, but he thinks it will be "fair".

Hmm.  He forgot to add "stupid".

I only hope that someone comes to their senses on this matter.

Political Views Have Gotten Nasty and Divisive.

Politics has gotten nasty.  It has turned family against family and friend against friend.  It is turning neighbor against neighbor.  Citizens have a certain dividing line and they have staked out their claim.  They feel they are not only righteous, but that the "other side" is not only wrong but that they are either evil or they are feable and a product of too much "kool aid".

I have a reasonably high IQ (155).  I'm not an elitist and often learn from people I read about or that I talk with that I know have an IQ lower than mine.  Having a high IQ doesn't make a person better than anyone else.  It does allow a person to make evaluations and judgements that are clearer (although a person with a lower IQ has no way to know when they're wrong) and of course, the guy that has the higher IQ isn't always right.  Sometimes the other guy is right.

Now that's out of the way, I have noticed that lately I am having to almost laugh in silence, for being told by people that have a lower IQ than me, that I am feable, stupid, uninformed, etc, etc, etc.  I'm told this because I don't agree with them.

I have been told twice this week that I was a "kool aid" drinker and that I didn't have my facts straight.

Consider that I read all the time (not just in election years) and that I read from different sources (not just those that I agree with all the time)(and I don't even have Fox News on my satellite television line-up).  So I get my news from various sources, and the another guy gets his from NPR; and somehow he's right and I'm wrong.

And although I read all the time and am keeping in touch with what's going on even when it's not an election year; whereas another guy has only started reading about these issues in the last six months, he's somehow more informed than me and that I'm a product of the right-wing conspiracy propaganda machine.

Wow!

And for the record, once again, although this guy doesn't know it (yet), he was wrong and I was right.  I looked up our disputed facts from a number of sources.  So it seems that he's been drinking the "kool aid" and didn't even realize it.  He'll never admit it though, and that's my concern.

No matter how this election plays out, citizens are increasingly choosing sides for more than just who they'll vote for or what they're voting for.  Now people are choosing sides; and the other side is the enemy.

When I was growing up, I often heard the phrase, "I might not believe what you believe, but I will fight for your right to say what you believe".  Well, I haven't heard that phrase since the late 1980s.  No one seems to care about freedom of speech and thought, unless of course, it agrees with their own.

My personal opinion is that no matter which party gets in office, the country will survive.  We've survived over 200 years and I think we can survive 4 years of Obama or of McCain.  What I think dooms us more than 4 (or even 8) years of either of these choices, is that political thought has become so divisive and the hatred grows.  It is an uncomfortable feeling to be in a room with people that you like, but that you disagree with politically.

I do have to laugh about being told that I'm a kool aid drinker.  The truth is, I've known I was smart most of my life, but since I wasn't a part of the "in-crowd" or otherwise popular kids, I was told that I wasn't as good as the others.  It has been this way most of my life so I don't really let that bother me.  I was shocked, however, to be attacked personally by someone that is supposed to be a friend of mine.

Since when did a personal view on whether or not we pay this tax rate or that tax rate, suddenly make a friend turn against a friend?  (I'm paying 40% in tax now and don't really want to pay any more; if anything, I should be the one getting angry, not the other guy).

What has made people so divided that they hate their friends and hate their own family?

I know the answer.  I'm just venting out of frustration, because I have no one to talk to about this.  The truth is, people are frustrated (on the left and on the right).  They feel that their government (who is supposed to be working for them) has abandoned them instead; and that when questioned about it, lies to them.  So people are frustrated and they have an emotional attachment to their own political views.  At this point, facts don't mean anything.  A fact that doesn't line up with a person's thinking is going to just anger them and make them hate the other side even more.  And there are loads of opinions published on the internet (in the form of blogs) that will line up exactly with their political viewpoints, and feed them whatever facts they want to hear, even if it's a lie.

So I look at this and feel that this is what is going to be the downfall of the nation.  It wont be which party is in charge or which person is elected President of the United States.  It will be that people are just so frustrated and at the same time, are letting emotion lead them into a hateful stance against anyone that disagrees with them; and of course, the politicians love this because it leaves them with no accountability.  This is better than having a war (an enemy) to fight.  Even if the war ends, there's always going to be a war at home to fight; and that will keep people's eyes off the people they're paying to fix our economy, our government, our roads, our bridges, our schools, etc, etc, etc.

McCain's Nomination Speech

I watched McCain's nomination speech lastnight; all of it.  It was long and mostly boring.  There were a few moments during the speech, but it was mainly preaching to the audience he had there.   He could've easily cut the speech in half and been just as affective.

The first half of the speech seemed mostly the kind of rhetoric that all politicians say.  Vote for me and I'll do these things.  It's what conservatives wanted to hear.  They cheered.  However, they didn't cheer when he pointed the fingers at corruption, and sometimes regarding those in the Republican party.  They didn't really cheer for that.

The audience didn't cheer when he said that they need to put party politics aside and not worry about who gets the credit for fixing something; and just work together and share the credit.

McCain put country above party.  That was good.  There was a clear distinction and a record to support that notion.  There's nothing like that from Obama, and so in that respect, I have more confidence that he will do what he thinks is right for the country, versus trying to do things as a strict conservative Republican would expect them to be done.  He said several times that he wouldn't play party politics and I believe him.

I thought it was good that he said that he'd have democrats and independents in his cabinet.  There weren't many cheers from the audience on that one; and this morning, conservative talk radio were blasting the man for that portion of the speech.

They have a point on one side; Obama would never have a republican on his cabinet.  They aren't likely to reach across the aisle for anything.  Every time I've seen a democrat talk about putting party aside, they always expect the republican to vote with the democrats.

So I see their point.  However, this position of President of the United States isn't about party.  It's about getting things done and about working for the people of the country, not for the party and not for special interests.  So what McCain is saying makes more sense to achieve those goals than in making talk radio conservatives happy.

McCain's speech wasn't nearly as inspiring as Obama's, but McCain isn't as eloquent a speaker.  He admits that.  Palin was much more interesting to listen to.  However, the guts of what McCain was saying, was inspiring, and it's what Americans want to hear.  And he has the history to prove that he's not just saying it; but that he lives it.

I'll be interested to see how the debates go.

Playing the Fear Card

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country...Herman Goering

The left points to this quote from an infamous nazi, to suggest that this is all we're seeing now.  They have no answer to the fact that McCain is obviously more qualified to be in command in chief.

The left can discount McCain with this quote if they want, but they're running from reality.  Just because you can manipulate people with fear, doesn't mean that there isn't anything out there to be afraid of.  And it's not like the left aren't playing the fear card.  They are telling the elderly that they're going to be thrown out into the street if McCain is elected.  They're telling mothers that McCain is going to send their sons off to war.  They are telling the poor that they will starve to death of McCain is elected.

It seems to me that Goering was right, but I think that the wrong people need to be quoting Goering.  It's the level-headed Americans that need to be reminding people who is playing the fear card.  The terrorists are real.  They want to kill us.  They have killed people in other countries since 9/11/2001.  Those people would be killing Americans on US soil if they could.  Reminding people of this is not playing the fear card any more than what Obama is doing with his issues.

If you honestly do not believe that there are enemies out there, then might I suggest that you have no need of locks on the doors of your house; and that we have no need of a police force to protect our homes.  Do you really believe that?  Would you really want a mayor that told you it was all a myth and that your homes are only in danger because of the previous mayor?  Would you really want a mayor that wanted to cut the police force?  Would you really feel safer?

Impressions of Palin

Sarah Palin was announced as the republican candidate for vice president a few days ago.  I had read about her a few times over the past few months, not knowing that she'd ever be on the radar for consideration as vice president.  When I heard who the pick was, however, I was delighted.  From what I know of her record, she's an excellent choice.  However, I have a few concerns, and so far, only a few have been put at ease.

I listened to the rhetoric from the left, as far as her not being qualified.  And of course, she's more experienced than Barak Obama, but that doesn't enter their logic.  Comparisons have been made with the governor of Virginia who Obama had on the short list for vp.  At the time, Republicans suggested that he wasn't experienced enough, and so they (the left) make this same comparison with Palin.  However, they aren't comparing apples to apples.  The fact is that Palin has accomplished a lot more during her time as governor of Alaska.  In addition, she was governor of an energy producing state, and a state with quite a bit more natural resources to manage.

Palin took on the big money interests and beat them, even with them vastly out spending her.  She took on corruption in her own party, even with a sitting governor of her own party.  She stood up to big oil a number of times as governor.

All this said, the governor of Viriginia is hardly as qualified for an executive position as Palin.  The left don't see this because they don't want to see this.  However, if she were a democrat, it would be different.

I liked her speech on Wednesday night of the RNC.  It had a bit of "red meat" in it, but so did Joe Biden's when he gave his a week earlier.  And to be fair, that is what these speeches are supposed to be.  The VP is supposed to go on the offensive against the opposition.   This allows a more diplomatic, more inclusive speech from the nominee for president the following night.  I haven't heard McCain's speech yet, obviously, and so I can't comment on that.

One thing that I'll say is that I am impressed that Palin can think on her feet, rather than relying on a teleprompter to do her thinking for her.  In fact, during her speech, the teleprompted had a malfunction and so she did the bulk of her speech without its aid.  That speech was given from the heart.

I feel that Palin did a reasonably good job of introducing herself to the public, especially those that haven't read as much about her as my wife and I have over the past few months.  However, one thing that I didn't get out of the speech, was a clear view of how well she would stand up to a sinister leader such as Vladimir Putin.  This man is a former KGB leader, and for all practical purposes, has kept that organization alive, although in a different name now.

If John McCain is elected, and he were to keel over during his presidency, then Sarah Palin would become President of the United States.  Our enemies will test her, as they will test McCain or anyone else who becomes President.  They will test to see what they can get away with.  The terrorists will do it.  Putin will do it.  Chavez will do it.  The list goes on.

Judging from her history with dealing with the big money interests (with billions at stake), I have a feeling that Palin would do fine standing up against our enemies.  However, nothing in her speech said that to me.  I will be watching the upcoming debates to see how well she goes up against a "bitter old man".

Many people describe Joe Biden as a bitter old man, and in some respects, he is.  He certainly can be.  He can be very diplomatic and presidential in discussions, but I have noticed over the years that he becomes easily frustrated if the facts catch him in an inconsistency or a lie.  At this point, he can become agitated and nasty.  He tends to start making things up, or making personal attacks in order to "change the subject".  I had a lot or respect for Biden a decade ago, but less in more recent years.  I do respect him as far as being a tough opponent in a debate,  and in my opinion, he is probably the toughest person in debate that I have seen of the four current players.

So these debates are going to be very crucial for me level of comfort regarding whether or not Sarah Palin could step in as President if something were to happen to John McCain.

The Media Are Campaigning For Obama

I've said for a long time that the media have become active participants in the Obama campaign.  Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann definitely have a man-crush on Obama.  Even Hillary Clinton, who had always gotten a pass from the media before, was suddenly upset because now they were backing Obama, and she wasn't able to combat it.  They were against her, rather than just reporting the news.

In the past, John McCain has had friendly press.  This is mainly because he wasn't the typical Republican.  While others would surround the wagons and tow the party line, McCain would break with party and try to get things done.  He would join forces across the aisle and passed much legislation in favor of the American people, but not always with the approval of the party.

During this presidential campaign, there was a shift as soon as McCain got the nomination.  Suddenly, they turned on McCain.  They published unfounded rumors with no journalistic integrity, whereas they refused to publish unfounded rumors of any kind regarding Obama.

Even early in the primaries, the media refused to publish any unfounded rumors regarding marital infidelity on the part of John Edwards; and that turned out to be true.  There were facts.  It's not like it was unsubstantiated.  It's pretty bad when the National Inquirer can beat the New York Times to a substantiated story.

On the other hand, unsubstantiated stories were released regarding the Republicans.  First, there were accusations of infidelity on the part of John McCain, which turned out to be nothing.  They have remained unsubstantiated.  How does a legitimate news organization publish stories they can't substantiate?  Unless of course, they're a part of the political process on one side or the other?

And as soon as it was announced that Sarah Palin would  be the vice presidential candidate for the  Republicans, there were vicious unsubstantiated stories published about her.  They suggested that she wasn't the mother of her youngest baby, and that it was really her teenage daughter that was the mother.  How could a story like this be published with nothing more than suggestion?  No journalistic standards were observed in reporting this.

And when it turned out to be bogus, due to the fact that the teenage daughter was pregnant, the news media, instead of just shutting up about it, published this story.  They brought the family into the public even though the Obama camp had supposedly said that "family is off limits and not a part of the political process".

Essentially, Obama can afford to take the high road, because he knows the media are going to take the low road.  He even met with elements of the leftist fringe media when warned not to.  They have started a lot of these rumors against Palin, and yet Obama hasn't distanced himself from these groups.  He just plays like he's not a part of it and remains to take the high road.  This is much the same as how George W. Bush allowed Karl Rove to do his dirty work, and claimed no knowledge of it.

Is this Obama's meaning for "change" and a "new kind of politician"?

It aint new.

If Sarah Palin's daughter had an abortion, I'm assuming that the media would've not published her name or the story, because they have a sympathetic view of abortion rights and the right to privacy.  However, evidently, this right to privacy isn't afforded to a young teenage woman if she chooses to let the child live.  When have we seen the news media publish stories about teenage daughters of candidates, or about any teenage girls having children out of wedlock?

Again, Obama took the high road (after the fact), but he could afford to do this.  The story had already been made public; and of course, the news media is doing his dirty work for him.

And during the Democratic National Convention, we saw all kinds of divisive speeches.  Biden's was one of the worst.  That's a part of the process and to be expected.  However, during the Republican National Convention, the news commentators have gone on and on about how divisive the speeches have been during the convention; but they made no mention of this when it was the Democrats.  And they have even gone so far as to interview Joe Biden and allow him to rebutt some of the speeches.  And he actually had the gall to suggest that the speeches were "divisive".

Let's tell the truth here.  John McCain is one of the least divisive people in either house of Congress.  He is the one that has consistently reached across the aisle on behalf of the American people.  Obama never has.  Biden rarely, if ever, has.

And now the Republicans have a vice presidential candidate that is much like McCain.  She has reached across the aisle on behalf of the citizens.  She fought corruption in her own party.  She fought big oil.  She did it all when under funded in relation to her opposition.

On the other hand, Biden and Obama both have been a part of the political machine in Washington, that protects their own; rather than working on behalf of the American people.

Do I think that Sarah Palin walks on water?  No.  Of course not.  It's too early to tell much about her, although I've read a reasonable amount about her over this past year or so.  I do like the idea of someone that comes from an energy state, and knows energy and environmental issues.  These are things that Biden and Obama only know how to talk about from the party line; not from real experience.

I'm hoping that Palin turns out to be genuine.  What I've seen during the convention is consistent with what I've read about her for several months.  I think that McCain did a good job in picking her.  It was quite a surprise; especially for the media, who are definitely working on behalf of the Obama campaign to neutralize her affect to the McCain campaign.

I noticed that before Guiliani spoke at the convention, a CNN reporter asked him about negative statements he'd made about McCain during the primary race.  I have noticed that Biden, nor any of the other speakers during the DNC were ever asked the same thing.  And the fact is that Biden made some very harsh remarks about Obama during the primary race.

This is nothing really new.  I remember that when Bush (sr) was running against Bill Clinton, Dan Rather ran a story on "economy in jeopardy" at the end of every broadcast.  As soon as the election was over, he never ran it again.  You can't tell me this wasn't an attempt to influence the election results.

The news media are working hard to affect the election.  I've seen so many cases of this.  It is certainly different from how these same people covered the DNC.