Chayah Masters's Blog

CBS Poll - Decisions on Iraq

Chayah Masters — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:27:50 EDT

According to a CBS Poll related to the debate last night, people thought Mc Cain would make the right decisions about Iraq, more so than Obama. Those same peole thought Obama would make better decisions on the economy than Mc Cain.

If the polled people's instincts are correct, doesn't it make sense to elect Obama president and keep Mc Cain in the Senate? Mc Cain relishes the role of gatekeeper/watchdog as he so often announced last night. The perfect place for him is the Senate. WIth his military experience, he'll be a great help to President Obama in determining wha't's really needed when we move ALL of our attention and resources to Afghanistan once we've withdrawn from Iraq under President Obama's guidance.

I think the CBS Poll is great information to point to in our effort to elect Obama president. He is a strategic thinker who doesn't have an issue with keeping himself focused and disciplined. Mc Cain (as was demonstrated this week) has a fight or flight tendency (a warrior's response) that is not presidential. He needs to stay put in the Senate, if he's going to remain in the public service business. Our next president must exhibit strategic thinking skills. Obama has those skills and is comfortable implementing stragey once it's been well thought out.

Mc Cain Has No Vision Per His Own Admission in the Debate Tonight

Chayah Masters — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:12:14 EDT

In the debate tonight, Mc Cain said that he wouldn't repeat the same mistake that he regrets when the US washed its hands of the Afghanis after helping the freedom fighters rid the country of the Russians.

Ummmm, wasn't Mc Cain in the Congress and Senate during that time? The answer is yes... he had been in the house of representatives as a Congressman for 4 years before being elected to the Senate in 1986. The Russians were defeated and forced out of Afghanistan in 1988 and withdrew in 1989. Over the course of six years, Mc Cain hadn't realized that country would need immense help and support when the war was over? It's taken him another twenty years to realize that was a mistake? And now, he's choosing the war in Iraq to correct his error in judgment? Yikes.

And, Sen. Mc Cain has been in the Senate the entire time that de-regulation has been taking place. He didn't have enough sense to stop it before it ruined our economy as we've seen this week. The man has no vision. He's not a big picture guy.

Mc Cain is a warrior, not a strategic thinker as the above two issues (and his political career) have demonstated. I hope we can help our fellow countrymen connect the dots. We can't survive a Mc Cain administration.

Mc Cain compares the US business tax to Ireland's? Is he joking?

Chayah Masters — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:37:36 EDT

In the debate tonight, Sen. McCain tried to condemn Sen. Obama's business tax by comparing it with the business tax in Ireland which McCain stated is 11% to the United States' 35%.

You can't compare the two. It's Ireland. Hardly a world power. If Americans want the quality of life we're accustomed to, it has to be paid for.

Just a quick fact - the population of Ireland is slightly over 6 million people - someone should explain to Sen. McCain that the United States has a population of over 300 million people. The United States has a few more mouths to feed, a few more children to educate, and a much larger border to protect - nevermind the overwhelming burden in health care costs.

Whoever on Sen. McCain's team gave him Ireland as an attack to use in the debate is an idiot and indicative of the out of touch, inexperience that Mc Cain has chosen all along. Perhaps Sarah offered him Ireland as an example. Yikes!

"Thanks, But No Thanks" Sarah is a Fraud!

Chayah Masters — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:18:48 EDT

Since the night of her acceptance speech, Sarah Palin has proudly touted the fact that she said, "thanks, but no thanks" to Congress for the money to build the bridge to nowhere.

In actuality, Sarah Palin supported the bridge while running for Governor of her state because to do otherwise according to another quoted Alaska governor - Bob Weinstein - was political suicide.

So, while John McCain first began scolding his fellow politicians about earmarks back in 2005 to include the bridge for over 200 million dollars to a town of 50 people, Palin was running on a platform to win the governor seat saying Alaska's voters should support their congressional leaders because they are bringing money home to Alaska.

Then, when Palin became Governor, she rejected the bridge only there was no bridge to reject at that point because John MCain's efforts to stop the bridge and the outrageous earmarks had embarrassed the Alaska Reps to reword what the money would be for in the legislation they were earmarking to receive the money from.

Palin DID accept the earmarked money that was originally for the bridge. She just used the same amount of money (I don't know the exact amount but it's over 200 million dollars) for other pet projects in her state.

Since this "thanks, but no thanks" nonsense is a main pillar to her stump speech we need to be armed with the real story and let people in on what really happened.

The fact Mc Cain chose her also speaks volumes since he has to know she was supporting the bridge in the beginning just to get elected and then still took the money from the Federal Government.

Please get the word out, Palin took the money and ran when it was offered from Congress.

Palin's Best Friend's Won't Commit to Voting for Her Ticket!

Chayah Masters — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:32:40 EDT

This morning on Good Mornina America, 4 of Sarah Palin's self proclaimed "Elite 6"
were interviewed.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=5750876&page=1

Funny how Palin likes to paint Barack Obama as an "elitist" yet she and her best friends of 15 years in Alaska label themselves as elite.

Aside from that, one of Palin's elite 6 friends stated that she not only wouldn't commit to voting for Palin at this early stage in her nomination but she has disagreed with Palin's decision as Governor of Alaska in the past.

When pressed for an example, the woman stated - Palin's decision not to list the Polar Bear on the endangered species list. The woman insinuated Palin was more concerned about the ramifications of doing so.

The only ramifications I can think of have to do with the major industries in Alaska (oil and fishing). By placing the polar bear on the endangered species list this would have likely prevenented oil companies and fishing corporations from having their "big business" way.

Palin talks out both sides of her mouth.

As a self-proclaimed Christian who is a Creationist, it would seem that she'd be interested in protecting the creatures God created at all cost. At least we know that's where she stands on abortion (if you believe a fetus is a viable creature from God before it's born). Not so for the polar bear as her track record stands.

Palin may be honest as her friends pointed out in the interview but from where I sit she's as honest as the special interests aren't affected. It's one thing to be honest within your inner circle of 6 elite friends. Chances are, if you weren't honest, your close friendship wouldn't last as long as theirs has. However, these woman confirmed - they don't talk politics with each other.

It's a whole different level of honest when you're dealing with big business, foreign interests, and competing government programs - all of which have ways of enticing a candidate's honesty one way or the other.

If the Polar Bear issue is any indication on Palin's honesty - I would venture to say she's not that much of a maverick. She upheld the wishes of industry in her state rather than embracing what science and global warming have proven - Polar Bears are endangered. An honest, soul searching governor, would have truly digested the proven research and made the decision to list the animals on the federal protection list.

Too bad Polar Bears can't send financial contributions to sway Gov. Palin their way!

Barack Obama on This Week with George Stephanopoulos 9/7

Chayah Masters — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:03:10 EDT

The more I hear from Barack Obama the more I like everything about him. This morning, Senator Obama was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on the weekly news show, This Week on ABC.

One of the best things I heard Senator Obama say was that he was committed to auditing ALL government funded programs. It's about time.

Republicans should have been the party to make this part of their goals being the"business" oriented party that they are. They should understand the need for auditing to identify programs that are working and not working. We can't correct problems we don't know about. I've not heard the Republicans say one word about this issue. I've only heard them reminiscing over 9/11 and continuing their ceaseless fearmongering. Enough. None of us have forgotten what happened 7 years ago however we have moved on. It's about time the Republican's did too.

Thank you Senator Obama. You truly are interested in putting OUR country first and you understand it is our responsibility to pay for it.

Advocate for Special Needs Children?

Chayah Masters — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:54:19 EDT

Whether or not Gov. Sarah Palin intends to use her youngest child as a photo op and/or manipulative emotional tool for her political aspirations is beside the point I'm about to make.

In her acceptance speech last night, she stated that as a mother of a special needs child, families with special needs children would have an advocate in the White House if she and Sen. McCain were elected to the presidency (as if an Obama/Biden ticket wouldn't be an advocate for this group).

Her statement insinuated that Democrats were heartless and insensitive to the needs of this specific segment of the American population. As a former Republican, I can't tell you how often I've heard Dems called the "bleeding heart" party by Republicans I knew.

If anything, I'd expect a ticket like Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. John McCain to use their "veto" power as she relished in touting last night, to veto any legislation that might add cost to the already stretched federal budget (a result of Republican spending on the war). Instead, Sarah likes to beat her chest and say how well she can take care of herself and her family - I'd expect her to tell the families with special needs kids that if she can do it, they can do it on their own too. Or, could special needs children be considered a special interest group? Sarah can't have it both ways.

The fact that Sarah Palin pointed out this obvious fact about her interest in special needs kids infuriated me. She could have left that part out of her speech to speak about the economy, which we all know she avoided like the plague because neither she, nor McCain, know what to say about it.

Sarah Palin is a dynamic and charismatic women that gives good speech with the intense guidance and training of the RNC cronies. I have nothing against the special needs segment of our population but it is not the main issue of concern in this election. Sarah used it as a diversion tactic to pull at the nation's heart strings.

Her supporters in Alaska were right about one thing, Sarah is a fast learner. She's learned how to play the political theater game quickly. Too bad that's NOT putting our country first.

It's the economy stupid!

Dems were the first to nominate anyone other than a white male...

Chayah Masters — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:01:10 EDT

With all of this uproar about Sarah Palin being the first woman VP to be nominated by the Republican's, I keep finding myself wondering why the Democrats don't point out that they were the first to ever be colorblind AND gender neutral in their presidential ticket nominations. Am I incorrect on this assumption?

It took the Republicans almost 25 years to follow in the footsteps of the Democrats by nominating a woman for the VP slot. Geraldine Ferraro's nomination was in 1984. As a lifelong Republican (until now) I can attest to the fact that there were plenty of more qualified Republican woman candidates in the years gone by to be considered for the VP slot. The only reason Sarah is on the ticket is because the Republicans are scared they can't win without a woman to combat the reality of the US demographics. I'm insulted and I feel every woman in America should be too.

All this bluster coming from the Republicans is rather obnoxious considering it took them so long to open their minds to supporting a female candidate for a top political slot nevermind VP.