Lynn Dravis's Blog

HOW The big 3 can help bailout the Bailout

l.t. Dravis — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:16:41 EST

Here’s a terrific way to help bailout the bailout.

We can stop throwing taxpayer money at bankers who pay themselves billions in bonuses and give elaborate super bowl parties by investing in products and services that not only provide income and dignity for families but also improve the quality of life for all Americans.

Why not invest taxpayer funds with the Big Three Detroit automakers to utilize their resources, capabilities, and potential to design, develop, and produce Multiple-Fuel internal combustion engine powered vehicles, Electric Vehicles, and Mass Transit systems?

Think about the possibilities here . . . we could help ensure the Big 3’s ability to pay back taxpayer supplied loans; we could save and add thousands upon thousands of good, long term jobs; we could generate millions of dollars in offsetting revenues to the treasury and to states from additional payroll and income taxes; and, we could invest in green, clean transportation systems to improve the environment while we reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

No matter which side of the so-called ‘bailout’ argument you’re on, it’s important to remember that Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors do not just build cars and trucks . . . they create, design, manufacture, sell and deliver a broad range of vehicles for a variety of applications at various price points.

These capabilities, developed and delivered by thousands upon thousands of educated, experienced, skilled, talented people working with an incredible array of advanced mechanical and electronic tools and high-tech facilities, are too valuable for the nation to ignore or reinvent.

BIG 3 CORE CAPABILITIES

1. Concept & Design . . . The Big 3 automakers are experts at creating and designing a variety of vehicles for a variety of applications; skills which can quickly be transferred to the creation and design of ‘Green’ vehicles required to break our dependence on foreign oil

2. Prototyping parts, components, and completed assemblies . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have the experience, capabilities, and tools necessary to produce computerized models of 3-dimensional prototype parts prior to dynamic elastic analysis in preparation for casting, forming, and/or machining

3. Fabrication . . . The Big 3 have the proven ability to produce parts, components, and assemblies utilizing a variety of specialty processes, including computerized press brake forming, computerized precision laser cutting and machining, Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) technologies, and computerized MIG and TIG precision welding processes

4. Assembly . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors employ thousands of men and women who know everything there is to know about manual and automated precision assembly processes

5. Distribution . . . the Big 3 Detroit automakers have perfected the logistical infrastructure necessary to efficiently and consistently deliver millions of cars and trucks to every town, village, and city throughout the country

6. Parts and Service Support . . . The Big 3 have successfully provided parts and service support for tens of millions of vehicles in tens of thousands of configurations in thousands of locations for decades

7. Warranty, Repair, and Service . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have created, written, and distributed printed and electronic service and repair protocols for numerous varieties of millions of increasingly complex vehicles produced over decades

UTILIZING TAXPAYER INVESTMENTS TO DEVELOP A NEW, 3-PART BUSINESS MODEL

1. MULTIPLE-FUEL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE-POWERED VEHICLES – Each company would develop fuel-efficient internal-combustion engines which run on bio-fuels, natural gas, hydrogen, and blended fuels for their existing lines of hybrids and non-hybrid cars and light trucks.

a. Technical Goals: Reduce time to design, prototype, acquire or modify capital equipment, and manufacture new products from the current industry standard of 48 months to 24 months. This reduction in product development time would come from strengthening relationships with suppliers and partners. New efficiencies would be built-in to the manufacturing process by utilizing advanced technologies such as intelligent flexible assembly processes, virtual manufacturing, ceramic injection, metal injection, powder metal processing, precision forging, squeeze casting, and reactive molding, improved precision tooling, net-shape forming, and the expanded use of high-tech lightweight materials (ceramics, polymers and specialty metals)

b. Cost Reduction Goal (Build-to-Order Models): Each company would implement a ‘build-to-order’ matrix which would allow consumers to order certain models with specific options direct from the factory to eliminate dealer inventory costs, minimize dealer inventories, and reduce consumer acquisition costs. ‘Build-to-Order’ vehicles would ship from the factory along with dealer inventory units and would be prepared and delivered to each consumer by the nearest factory authorized dealer

2. ELECTRIC VEHICLES – Each of the three companies would cooperate to design, prototype, and produce new battery/charging technologies to power pure-electric vehicles (similar size and design as the hybrid Chevrolet Volt) with extended range (up to 250 miles) at reasonable delivered price points.

a. Technical Goals: Improve pulse battery chargers to decrease time required to recharge electric vehicle batteries to 15 minutes or less with a full-charge battery range of 200 miles; establish a network of electric charging stations to facilitate long-distance trips in all regions of the nation

b. Cost Reduction Goal (Build-to-Order Models): The same ‘build-to-order’ matrix would apply to Electric Vehicles as would apply to Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles

3. MASS TRANSIT – Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have the people, tools, and design and manufacturing facilities necessary to create, design, prototype, manufacture and deliver Hybrid buses, GLT buses, light rail ‘Trolley’ cars, commuter rail engines & cars, and high-speed rail conventional and Maglev train cars

a. Conventional (Green-Power) Buses: Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors would design, prototype, produce, and deliver Hybrid buses which operate on bio-diesel, fuel cells (a reactant fuel is converted to electrical power), fuel generated from renewable energy sources, or electric motors charged by wind-driven generators

b. GLT (Guided-Light-Transport) Buses: The Big Three would design, prototype, build and deliver GLT buses in two modes: In ‘Bus Mode’, the GLT operates like any other bus, powered by a CNG or Natural Gas burning internal combustion engine or by electric motors. In ‘Guided Bus’ mode, the GLT tracks a central rail (guide) imbedded in the roadway to allow it to function as a ‘ground-bound monorail’

c. Light Rail (Streetcar, Tram, or Trolley) Cars: Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors would collaborate on the design and manufacture of Light Rail cars (Powered by overhead electric line via a ‘trolley’)

d. Commuter Rail Engines & Cars: The Detroit 3 would design, build, and deliver multi-level, light weight, computerized, energy-efficient engines and cars for urban passenger train service

e. High-Speed Rail (Conventional & Maglev) trains: The Big 3 would design, build, and deliver self-propelled, electric cars which draw power from a GPS-controlled remote ‘3rd’ rail. Maglev trains use electromagnetic power to literally ‘float’ over rails. Maglev trains rely on electrified coils in rails and guide way walls for ‘magnetic’ propulsion at speeds in excess of 300 miles per hour

EPILOGUE – If we take an objective, non-partisan look at the Big Three Detroit car companies, we have to admit that they design, test, produce, and sell lots of vehicles . . . even in tough economic times.

In 2007, the Big 3 Detroit automakers sold 8½ million cars and trucks in the United States and millions more in countries around the world.

General Motors outsold Toyota by 1¼ million vehicles last year and even in 2008, when the entire free world seems to be decrying General Motors’ ability to give the buying public what it wants or needs, GM managed to outsell Toyota by nearly 600,000 units.

Worldwide, General Motors sold nearly 9.4 million vehicles in 2007 – more than any other manufacturer, including Toyota.

In the U.S., Ford outsold Honda and Nissan, combined, by about a million vehicles in 2007.

And, Chrysler outsold Hyundai and Nissan, combined, in the U.S. in 2007.

Why?

Because, contrary to ill-informed hype, Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors build high-quality, market-priced vehicles that offer exceptional fuel economy.

The Chevrolet Malibu is 2 miles-to-the-gallon better than the Honda Accord; the Ford Focus matches the fuel economy of the Toyota Corolla; and, the Chevy Cobalt offers better overall fuel economy than the Honda Civic.

This message was sent to 48 Senators yesterday.

Only Senator Shelby even bothered to acknowledge having received the message and his was an automated response.

But if Senators are serious about using taxpayer dollars wisely, if they truly support the ‘greening’ of American industry and all forms of transportation produced in this country, if they trust millions of American workers, and if they believe in American technologies, and American production capabilities to keep the American Dream alive, they will amend the bailout bill to invest in our own Big Three automakers and clean up our environment while we finally turn the page on our dependence on foreign oil.

Won’t they?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards,

L.T. Dravis

THE Smirk is real!

l.t. Dravis — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:54:38 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Thursday, January 15, 2009 – George W. Bush gave his farewell, ‘feel-good’, address to the country tonight to defend his version of his record over the past eight years.

So, what’s the truth?

Let’s compare what he said to what he did . . . and then, you tell me . . . am I wrong when I say, The Smirk is real?

WHAT HE SAID: “For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President.”

WHAT HE DID: The man who said tonight that ‘it has been my honor to serve as your President’, told FOX News on December 18, 2008 that he didn’t care about what the American people thought of his decisions and policies. In fact, he said, “I’ve had, hell, a lot of serious challenges. What matters to me is I didn’t compromise my soul to be a popular guy.”

WHAT HE SAID: “The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence – a time set apart.”

WHAT HE DID: The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence primarily because George W. Bush lied to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without cause, killing over 4,200 Americans, injuring more than 30,000 Americans, killing and wounding a hundred thousand or more Iraqi men, women, and children, and costing American taxpayers $588,525,042,916.99 as of 9:32 PM, EST, January 15, 2008.

WHAT HE SAID: “And above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me.”

WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush took an oath, twice, to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet he violated the trust of the American people when he worked behind the scenes to dilute or even get rid of constitutional protections for U.S. citizens and purposefully circumvented constitutional protections by authorizing a secret program to eavesdrop on Americans in violation of an existing law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

WHAT HE SAID: “This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house - September 11, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock. I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son's police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.

WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush failed to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001. Despite the fact that U.S. intelligence sources were reporting higher-than-normal levels of terrorist communications around the world, as of June, 2001, there had not been a single Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism. On September 4, 2001, Bush administration Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke urged officials to prepare for a terrorist attack that could kill hundreds if not thousands of Americans. George W. Bush refused to acknowledge Mr. Clarke’s warnings and within a week, thousands of American heroes and their families would pay the price for his refusal.

WHAT HE SAID: “And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight: There has been no higher honor than serving as your Commander in Chief.”

WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush’s lopsided vision of establishing a democracy in Iraq on the lives and limbs of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings was mismanaged from day one. If he was truly honored to serve as Commander in Chief, why did he send too few troops to Iraq in 2003, why did he allow his dim-witted Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to disband the Iraqi army and leave caches of weapons all over the country for militias, Al Qaeda, and other warring factions to use to kill and wound American troops? Why did he allow hundreds if not thousands of precious U.S. troops to be killed and wounded in Iraq because they were not issued body armor? And, why did his administration allow wounded veterans to be neglected and mistreated at the Walter Reed National Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.?

WHAT HE SAID: “When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy.”

WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush’s failed policies caused the ‘challenges to our prosperity’ (challenges, after all, do not ‘emerge’, they are caused). This is the president who wasted the budget surplus left by Bill Clinton and more than doubled the national debt to nearly $11 trillion with year-after-year deficit spending. George W. Bush caved into lobbyists, backed away from proposed regulations on easy-credit, interest-only, no money-down mortgages, and helped precipitate the ‘mortgage meltdown’. And, what about the ‘decisive measures to safeguard our economy’ George W. Bush sounds so proud of? Those measures simply put American taxpayers in debt to the tune of more than $1 trillion in bailouts to pay for Bush’s failure to protect the economy in the first place.

WHAT HE SAID: “America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.”

WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush wasn’t worried about ‘good and evil’ when he supported ‘rendering’, ‘water boarding’ or the arrest and illegal detention of suspected terrorists for years. And, when George W. Bush said tonight that, ‘Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere,’ how does he square that statement with the forced imposition of American-style democracy on innocent Iraqis?

AND THEN HE SAID: “And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God bless this house and our next president. And may God bless you and our wonderful country.”

AND SO WE SAY: “And, so, George W. Bush, for the final time: Good night and good riddance. May God forgive you for the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries you’ve caused . . . but, most of all, may God make you go away – quietly – while we pray we never see your kind again.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

WHERE Were the tough questions?

l.t. Dravis — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:00:47 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, January 12, 2009 – George W. Bush held his final news conference today, played fast and loose with the truth as he defended his eight year record, and no one in the room had guts enough to challenge him.

George W. Bush opened the door wide several times for tough questions, but reporters didn’t dare rush in.

Why, I’ll never know . . . it’s not like any of these reporters had to worry about being barred from the next Bush Press Conference for having committed the mortal sin of asking a tough question.

Bush was aggressive, arrogant, and even joked about the incredible mess he’s left this country in.

And the White House Press Corps laughed with him.

Not one professional journalist had the courage to challenge Bush when he commented on his presidency’s record by saying, “I think it’s a good, strong record. You know, presidents can try to avoid hard decisions and therefore controversy. That’s just not my nature.”

With America mired in two wars, with our military nearing the breaking point, with our infrastructure falling down, with unprecedented deficit spending adding up to a $10+ trillion national debt, with unprecedented mismanagement of American resources in Iraq, with our economy in shambles, with millions of Americans facing foreclosure, with millions more out of work, with our banking system on the edge of failure, and with our manufacturing base nearly destroyed, why wouldn’t at least one journalist challenge that statement?

Who in the room, who in the nation, who in the world sincerely believes George W. Bush’s record, is ‘good and strong’?

When asked about America’s image around the world, Bush said, “I disagree with this assessment that, you know, that people view America in a dim light. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom.”

Of course, eight years of George W. Bush’s arrogant, detached, incompetence has damaged America’s image around the world.

Did the reporters at Bush’s final press conference truly believe that our image around the world has been strengthened by his mismanagement of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did those reporters believe our image has been helped by Bush’s lack of leadership in coping with the ongoing nuclear threat in Iran? Did any of those reporters seriously believe that the Bush administration strengthened America’s image by ‘rendering’ and ‘torturing’ suspected terrorists in secret prisons in foreign countries and at ‘Gitmo’?

Yet not one reporter challenged him.

George W. Bush then defended his record in the Middle East by justifying his failure. “It’s been a long time since they’ve had peace in the Middle East,” Bush said. “The challenge, of course, has been to lay out the conditions so that a peaceful state can emerge. Will this ever happen? I think it will. And I know we’ve advanced the process.”

No reporter pointed out the fallacy of his argument or asked Bush to explain how his administration had ‘advanced the process’.

Bush then said he’d “thought long and hard about Katrina. You know could I have done something differently, like land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge.”

Bush was revealing that the most important thing on his mind when Katrina hit was where to have a photo op . . . in New Orleans or Baton Rouge . . . yet no one in the room pointed out that he was talking about something completely unrelated to the question of his administration’s abysmal response to a national tragedy.

Bush then said something absurd . . . even for him. He said, “Don’t tell me the federal response was slow when there were 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed. Could things have been done better? Absolutely. But when I hear people say the federal response was slow, what are they going to say to those chopper drivers or the 30,000 who got pulled off the roof?”

That Bush could get away with making a statement like that . . . in front of experienced journalists was unbelievable.

It is well documented that George W. Bush failed to take charge; that he failed to make certain that every federal resource was utilized to quickly and effectively save lives and property throughout the Gulf Coast after Katrina. His failure cost lives and seriously delayed the rebuilding effort. George W. Bush and his minions failed to anticipate the scope of the disaster (despite very clear warnings from the national weather service) and they failed to react and they failed to follow-through.

Three and a half years after the fact, damage done by Katrina is still impacting the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans on the Gulf Coast.

Yet not one reporter pointed out that the Coast Guard’s valiant efforts to save 30,000 Katrina victims had absolutely nothing to do with Bush’s leadership or with his administration’s response to the tragedy.

Not one reporter asked George W. Bush to explain or justify why his Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, threw the first $350 billion of the financial bailout at banks with no accountability.

The outgoing president stood at that podium in front of the White House Press Corps for three-quarters of an hour so it wasn’t like reporters didn’t have time enough to ask the tough questions.

If the media exists only to serve as a conduit for truth between us and them, why didn’t reporters hold George W. Bush accountable for his failures today?

Were those reporters more concerned about playing by the unspoken rules of presidential press conferences, which are designed, first and foremost, to protect the president’s image or were they more concerned about honoring their obligation to report the truth?

After today, we know the answer to that question.

Don’t we?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

MAYBE I'm amazed . . .

l.t. Dravis — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:13:18 EST

CHICAGO, IL – Wednesday, November 26, 2008 – Ain’t it nice to finally have a smart guy in (coming in) to the White House?

Think about it . . . compare the way President-elect Obama handled himself in today’s press conference to the way George W. Bush muddled his way through eight years.

You remember, don’t you?

George W. Bush, the genius, was actually reelected after he said, "My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire."

And, despite the fact that there was no doubt about George W. Bush’s intelligence or lack thereof, voters sent him back to Washington for a second four year term after he said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

It is eminently refreshing that President-elect Barack Obama is more than able to string an entire series of sentences together to create cohesive paragraphs to convey a logical series of meaningful thoughts and ideas . . . a skill that is critically essential to anyone who aspires to the highest office in the country.

His ‘Help is on the way’ press conference today reassured the American people and financial markets around the world that a thoughtful, intelligent, resourceful, committed, dedicated man has arrived to lead the nation out of the morass created by eight years of the meanderings of a failed frat boy who couldn’t convey a meaningful idea on his best day.

President-elect Obama said, “I was elected with the charge of getting this economy back in shape. We are going to implement starting day one when I come into office.”

Nice political statement . . . but he then went on to support that statement by conveying the following meaningful thoughts and ideas:

He announced the creation of the ‘President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board’ (not made up of old friends from college or campaign contributors or incompetent political hacks) headed by 81 year old Paul Volker, an epitome of Washington experience whose leadership will be augmented and balanced by top staffer, 39 year old Austin Goolsbee, a well-respected, visionary, economist from the University of Chicago.

In Monday’s news conference, the President-elect announced that he would nominate 41 year old Tim Geithner, current New York Federal Reserve President, to be Treasury Secretary and on Tuesday, Obama announced he would nominate Peter Orszag to manage the Office of Management and Budget with the immediate responsibility of evaluating the federal budget, ‘page-by-page, line-by-line’, to eliminate wasteful spending and realign how taxpayer dollars are spent.

In the coming week, President-elect Obama is expected to move on from putting together his economic team to naming his national security and foreign policy team, including the vaunted, but not yet confirmed nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. He is also expected to confirm publicly that current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates will stay on for the first year of his administration.

In response to a tough question from CNN’s Ed Henry about ‘playing musical chairs’ by recruiting people who worked in the Clinton Administration, Obama said, “The American people would be troubled if I selected a treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever.”

“What we are going to do,” Obama went on to say, “is combine experience with fresh thinking. But understand where the vision for change comes from. First and foremost, it comes from me. That’s my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing.”

Lest we forget how George W. Bush handled a similarly tough question in a press conference, permit me to take you back to April 3, 2004, when the 43rd President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world, George W. Bush answered a question about whether he’d ever made a mistake in his presidency by saying, “I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet . . . I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t . . . you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”

Huh?

President-elect Barack Obama, unlike his soon-to-be predecessor, has demonstrated that he is a man of action . . . holding three press conferences in as many days to send a clear message to not only millions of shaky Americans worried about their economic futures but to the world in general.

Be advised, America and the world, there is a new man taking the helm of democracy in America, an intelligent man, a man unafraid to work at being President, a man willing to reach out to the best and the brightest the nation has to offer to build not only a better nation but a better world as well.

Maybe I’m amazed, but I’m also relieved.

Aren’t you?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well? GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

HEY, HANK . . . What are you doing?

l.t. Dravis — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:41:59 EST

LOS ANGELES, CA – Friday, November 14, 2008 – HEY, TREASURY SECRETARY HANK PAULSON . . . what the heck’s going on?

Less than a month ago you said government purchases of stock in banks stuck with so-called ‘toxic assets’ (talk about an oxymoron), represented a good investment for taxpayers. You said the government (nee taxpayers) would own shares in the form of warrants issued by banks. “This is an investment,” you said, “not an expenditure, and there is no reason to expect this program will cost taxpayers anything.”

Your immediate plan was to spend $250 billion in direct stock purchases; half of those dollars would go to the nine largest banks in the country and the other half would go to buy stock in thousands of other banks. Though the big nine banks would be receiving nearly $14 billion each, you didn’t require them or any of the other thousands of banks and other financial institutions to lend any portion of any of those taxpayer billions to business and/or consumers.

You said that taxpayer cash handed out by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), would increase banks’ confidence so they will “deploy, not hoard, their capital,”

TRANSLATION: If we give banks billions of dollars, they’ll lend it!

Okay . . .

Given everything you said up to October 20, thinking taxpayers would think your plan was working . . . that business and consumer lending would begin to ‘free-up’; that the hemorrhaging of jobs would slow or even stop; that the rate of foreclosures would begin to decline; that some of us might even be able to sleep the whole night through.

Then, on Wednesday, November 12, you suddenly announced that you were abandoning the idea of purchasing bank stocks (aka ‘toxic assets’); you said, however, that you were going to continue to use (the balance of) $250 billion (36% of the $700 billion) to buy stock in banks to ‘encourage them to resume more ‘normal lending’.

And, if I was confused before Wednesday (and I was), I’m really confused now, Hank.

Does your turnabout mean the original plan, your plan, was the wrong plan?

If so, why did you present it in the first place and why did the House and Senate go along with it?

You told CNBC today that the ‘facts had changed’ which caused you to abandon your original plan.

Okay . . . does that mean the banking system that was in such bad shape less than a month ago is now in good shape?

If that’s the case, why not put our checkbook away, finish your work with the transition team, and finalize your post-January 20 vacation plans?

But, wait a minute, you are still Secretary of the Treasury and, despite the quarter of a trillion dollars you’ve doled out to banks, the economy is still in the tank (not for you, not for the big shot Wall Streeters who’ll run like rats with million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes, not for George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or any of the rest of the Bush bunch who will ride off into the Washington, D.C. sunset with cushy pensions, book deals, and lives of privilege and ease) for the millions of hard working Americans and their children who are paying and will continue to pay with lost jobs, savings, retirement accounts, homes, and dignity for Wall Street greed and Washington incompetence.

So, what will you do with the remaining 64% of the $700 billion to protect millions more businesses, jobs, families, and homeowners who’ve been put at risk by greedy financiers and inept politicians?

At this point, Hank, you may be wondering (as I’m sure you’ve wondered thousands of times in the past several months), how did you become responsible for saving the entire economy of the United States of America?

In other words, who died and made you the big economic Sheriff of America?

Well, Sheriff Paulson, you got yourself in this spot by accepting a job with an administration too stupid, too incompetent, and too short-sighted, for too many years to build a strong, vibrant, flexible economy.

And, while we all understand that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, et al, were stupid, we can’t ignore the fact that the House and Senate were even stupider.

The House and Senate allowed all those stupid people, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and the rest of the Bush bunch, to run the country into the ground . . . for nearly eight very long years.

So, here we are . . . relying on you and the best and the brightest in the Department of the Treasury to save the nation and what have you done?

You’ve spent more than a third of the $700 billion and the credit crisis is still in crisis, hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs each week, foreclosures continue to climb, bankruptcy filings continue to increase, and there is no reason to believe anything will change any time soon.

Doesn’t sound like we’re getting much for our money, does it?

Mind if I ask a question?

If I worked for you at Goldman Sachs and I handled my job like you and your group have handled this bailout mess, would I still have a job?

And, if not, why not?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

INAUGURAL Balls . . . what a waste!

l.t. Dravis — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:44:29 EST

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – November 5, 2008 – Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." – ARTICLE II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution

Good stuff.

An essential element of our democracy: The leader of the nation stands before the world and affirms he (or she, some day soon) will preserve, protect, and defend our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

No wonder we’ve survived as a nation for 219 years since George Washington first spoke those words on April 30, 1789, followed by 42 subsequent Presidents who’ve repeated that oath of office.

The first inaugural was actually held on March 4, 1801 (the 20th Amendment to the Constitution changed the inaugural date to January 20 in 1937) when Thomas Jefferson, our third President, was sworn in.

But what’s with these inaugural balls . . . you know those extravagant parties newly elected Presidents typically throw for themselves?

Why do they cost so much and why have costs escalated so dramatically over the years?

Let’s go back 35 years and track who spent what and when.

· Before they both resigned from office, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew spent about $4 million to congratulate themselves in 1973.

· In the 1977 Inauguration Day parade, Jimmy Carter not only delighted thousands of spectators by walking down Pennsylvania Avenue, holding hands with Rosalynn, he also cut inauguration costs to $3.5 million.

· Ronald Reagan rolled out his revolution by raising the inaugural ball bar to $16 million in 1981.

· The Reagan group then bumped the inaugural ball bar to $20 million in 1985.

· Not to be outdone by his former boss, George H.W. Bush spent $30 million on self-congratulations in 1989.

· Bill Clinton’s first inauguration in 1993 cut inaugural costs to a mere $25 million.

· But in the second Clinton term, in 1997, inaugural costs jumped to $29 million.

· George W. Bush and Dick Cheney spent $30 million congratulating themselves for taking a court-ordered election in 2001.

· Bush and Cheney really went wild in 2005 after they actually won an election and spent $40 million on 9 lavish inaugural balls.

Okay . . . so how much do taxpayers pay for all this political partying, glad-handing, back-slapping, and access-creation?

We pay direct and indirect costs for House and Senate members and staff to come up with a joint House and Senate committee to plan and budget inaugural ceremonies, to prepare the Capitol Rotunda for use in the case of bad weather, and to provide money to archive inaugural documents, files, and records. We also pay direct and indirect costs for security (Secret Service, Capitol Police, U.S. Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard).

If that isn’t enough, Congress also generously devotes $1 million of our money for the swearing-in ceremony (why it would cost $27,771.78 per word to administer the 36 word (including the President-elect’s first and last names) oath of office is beyond me).

Additionally, the Office of Personnel Management has determined that Inauguration day should be a paid-holiday for thousands upon thousands of taxpayer-paid federal employees who work ‘“in the District of Columbia, Montgomery or Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, Arlington or Fairfax Counties in Virginia, or the cities of Alexandria or Fairfax in Virginia, and who [are] regularly scheduled to perform non-overtime work on Inauguration Day”.

Though we may never know exactly how many millions of taxpayer dollars go to support all those Federal employees who cool their heels on the ‘Inauguration Day Federal Holiday’, I’d bet it’s a bunch.

So, who pays the balance of the bills for all that inaugural partying?

You won’t like the answer because . . . despite volumes of campaign rhetoric every candidate spews about the evils of influence peddling, despite every candidate’s cries about how ‘it’s time to throw out the lobbyists and special interests’, every President (so far) has launched his presidency by sending out legions of surrogates to beg and borrow cash, products, and ‘in-kind’ services from individuals, corporations, labor, lobbyists, and other special interests to pay for inaugural parties (aka ‘balls’).

Booze makers donate cases of champagne sporting the Presidential Seal, car makers happily loan hundreds of cars and trucks, hair care product manufacturers fall all over themselves to give free hair styles to politicos and journalists, HBO buys televised performances of celebrities for rebroadcast for profit, TV networks create special productions for sale with profits going to the Presidential Inaugural Committee, and on and on. Cash also pours in from tax-deductible donations from individuals, corporations, and labor unions, short-term, interest-free loans from the same groups to Inaugural organizers, ticket sales to inaugural balls and events, plus sales of inaugural trinkets (everything from medallions to temporary tattoos to umbrellas to yo-yos).

I know what you’re thinking.

But it is all legal (remember who’s writing the laws).

So, why would wealthy individuals, corporations, labor, lobbyists, and other special interests give up millions of dollars for inaugural balls?

Just because they were asked to?

Couldn’t be they’re trying to ‘buy’ access, could it?

Hmmmm.

President Obama . . . forget the inaugural balls and ask all the individuals, corporations, and labor unions who would otherwise have danced the night away to do something better with their money, products, time and efforts . . . like rebuilding homes and neighborhoods along the Gulf Coast still devastated three years after Katrina.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

FORGET The Wall Street bailout . . . what about a consumer bailout?

l.t. Dravis — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:12:41 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, November 3, 2008S – Millions of Americans are not only upside down on their mortgages, they’re also upside down on credit card debt, car loans, student loans and other debt, and have no way to create any more buying power. So, if consumers can’t borrow to buy, how on earth do the Washington gurus who engineered the $700 billion bailout think freeing up the credit markets will have any meaningful impact on the economy?

Auto sales in October were down by 45% for General Motors, down by 30% for Ford, and down by 23% for Toyota.

Circuit City announced today that it is closing 20% of its stores nationwide, costing more jobs and reducing sales tax revenues.

The Institute of Supply Management reported today that its manufacturing index fell to 38.9, the lowest reading since September, 1982 when the United States was in the depths of a recession.

Why all the bad news? Because consumers can’t tap credit cards and they sure as heck can’t rely on home equity any longer, now can they?

If consumers – homeowners plus nearly 100 million renters – are buried under mountains of debt, how do Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson, et al, expect them to take advantage of the freer credit supposedly created by the $700 billion bailout and spend the economy out of recession?

Bernanke, Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, said Friday that “The boom in subprime mortgage lending was only part of a much broader credit boom characterized by under pricing of risk, excessive leverage, and the creation of complex and opaque financial instruments that proved fragile under stress. The unwinding of these developments is the source of the severe financial strain and tight credit that now damp economic growth.”

Translation into plain English: The Wall Street bailout won’t be enough to turn the economy around because subprime mortgage lending is only part of the problem.

Consumers need a restructuring of a variety of types of debt, including car loans, credit card debt, mortgages, student loans, and other debt.

Why?

Because trillions of dollars of current debt prevents consumers from purchasing future trillions in products and services.

So, how do we restructure consumer debt?

We turn it into a profit center for the federal government by purchasing all forms of consumer debt at a discount and restructuring that debt to be paid over extended periods of time, plus a fair rate of interest.

Let’s say that a consumer owes $25,000.00 in credit card debt, $10,000.00 in student loans, and has a $15,000.00 car loan. The total debt of $50,000.00 would be purchased from creditors by the federal government for $40,000.00 and would be secured by tangible property (in this case, the car would be released to the consumer upon receipt of a cash payment or cumulative monthly payments equal to its appraised value). The debt would be paid back by mandatory withholding of monthly payments of $421.93 from the consumer’s paycheck income and/or business income and tax refunds for a period of fifteen years at 6%. This example would generate a gross profit for the taxpayers of $35,947.40.

If a homeowner owed $300,000.00 on a mortgage, $25,000.00 in credit card debt, $10,000.00 in student loans, and had a $15,000.00 car loan, the total debt of $350,000.00 would be purchased from creditors by the federal government for $315,000.00 and would be secured by tangible property (in this case, title to the home and the car, either or which would be released to the consumer upon receipt of a cash payment or cumulative monthly payments equal to the appraised value of either item). The debt would be paid by mandatory withholding of monthly payments of $2098.43 from the consumer’s paycheck income and/or business income and tax refunds for a period of thirty years at 6%. This example would generate a gross profit for taxpayers of $439,434.80. If the home is sold prior to repayment of the loan, the federal government would be entitled to half of the profit but would not sustain a loss.

Consumers, irrespective of current credit rating, would qualify provided they can prove the ability to make monthly payments, agree to attain a minimum 700 FICO score within 24 months, maintain all appropriate forms of insurance on collateral, and file state and federal tax returns, subject to annual audit, on time. There would be no prepayment penalties.

Consumers who serve the nation would be credited with a portion of the monthly payment, dependent upon service rendered. For example, those who serve in the armed forces could receive 75% credit of monthly payments for their period of service, without limitation. Others who teach in inner city schools or practice medicine in rural communities could receive 50% credit of monthly payments for their period of service, without limitation. If then, a homeowner served in the military or taught in inner city schools or served in another approved vocation for thirty years, he or she would able to retire, debt-free, with a paid-for home, and with a substantial retirement income. Done right, we could create a generation of financially secure retirees in this country by 2038.

This approach strengthens the economy in a number of ways:

1. Billions of dollars in buying power are freed up for consumers

2. Consumers who take advantage of the program will manage future credit wisely

3. Banks and other financial institutions are relieved of potentially devastating losses and exorbitant collection costs

4. Small, medium, and large businesses – including service, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and retailers – benefit from immediate, managed consumer purchasing power

5. Credit markets are stabilized and become predictable and profitable

6. Taxpayers become shareholders in the U.S. economy because they accumulate profits that can be used to lower taxes, offset government spending, and pay down the national debt

Because a consumer bailout is politically distasteful, it would take courageous, thoughtful, intelligent leadership and cooperation on the part of government, business, and consumer groups to fashion a viable program . . . but the risk of not creating a meaningful way to unburden the primary source of economic driving power in this country – the everyday, average consumer – may be fatal for the nation’s economy.

So, it’s time to make a decision . . . which way do you want to go America . . . up or down?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

SHOULDN’T Bush and company just go away next Wednesday?

l.t. Dravis — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:55:13 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sunday, November 2, 2008 – WHO WANTS GEORGE W. BUSH, DICK CHENEY, OR THE BUSH CABINET TO HANG AROUND AFTER TUESDAY? Bush has been a complete bust as President; his level of incompetence is unprecedented, his total lack of commitment to serving the real needs of real Americans is well-known, and his complete inability to communicate with the American people makes him complete useless.

Dick Cheney, by any standard, has been a total waste. He has no credibility, no public support, and has not, in any way, done anything in eight years to improve the lives of Americans. A more useless human being has probably never existed within the Washington beltway.

Let’s face it; George W. Bush (who gets $400,000.00 a year) and his puppet master, Dick Cheney ($221,100.00 a year), offer nothing, except an eight year history of deceit, incompetence, lack of direction, and abject failure, to the people of this country.

So, why would we want either of these boobs to hang around after Tuesday?

Okay . . . so what about anyone else in the Bush administration?

Any help there?

Not hardly.

Not one of Bush’s cabinet secretaries (each of whom costs taxpayers $191,300.00 each and every year), except for Treasury Secretary Paulson, has done anything to help the nation cope with the current economic crisis.

Because Secretary of the Treasury Paulson is actually doing something to help the economy, he can stay after Tuesday. Whether you agree – or not – with the government ‘bailout’ of financial institutions, Congress authorized the ‘bailout’ and Paulson’s actually working at it . . . something Bush, Cheney, and their people are not known for.

Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman hasn’t said anything about how he plans to use any portion of the $25 billion taxpayer dollars he got in 2008 to reduce exorbitant fuel costs that have crippled our economy and killed so many small businesses and cost thousands upon thousands of jobs. This is a man who said, “Under President Bush’s leadership, this budget” (the 2008 budget) “builds on our commitment to strengthen our nation’s energy security by diversifying our energy resources and reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy.” Bodman made that statement a year and a half ago – after he spent $49 billion in 2007 and 2008 – and, yet the nation can’t see where he’s done anything to diversify energy resources or reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. So, why would anyone believe Bodman could or would direct his department to make any effort whatsoever to help turn our economy around? In any case, if Secretary Bodman actually cared about helping to revitalize the economy, one would think he would have already made an effort to do so.

Where has Department of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao been since the economic collapse? In 2008, she spent 50 billion taxpayer dollars this year and used 17,000 employees to run her department, a department that is supposed to “foster and promote the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, and helping employers find workers” . . . yet, we know absolutely nothing about what she’s doing with the $50 billion to help Americans stay in their jobs, get new jobs, and maintain health care coverage for themselves or their families. If Secretary Chao cared about the American worker, wouldn’t she use her economic and political power to help more people hang on to more jobs?

What has Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff done to streamline his department’s $46.4 billion dollar budget and help reduce the federal deficit? What has Chertoff done to improve economic opportunities for Homeland Security contractors and employees? What is Secretary Chertoff’s plan to utilize his department’s human, financial, and infrastructure resources to help rebuild and revitalize our economy? We don’t know . . . because we haven’t heard anything from him.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates hasn’t said a word about where his department stands on the economic crisis. Has Secretary Gates considered how the economy might improve if he directed National Guard and Reserve units to expedite rebuilding in New Orleans and other areas of the country that have been devastated by natural disasters? If Secretary Gates is truly interested in supporting our gallant troops serving around the world, why hasn’t he announced a plan to work with the Department of Veterans Affairs to come up with innovative ways to transition returning veterans into good-paying jobs in the public and private sectors?

Where has Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez been? His department employs 41,000 people and will take $6.5 billion out of the pockets of taxpayers this year. According to it’s Mission Statement, the Commerce Department is supposed to work with other Government agencies to create national policy, through the President’s Cabinet to increase international trade, strengthen the international economic position of the United States, promote progressive domestic business policies and growth, and assist communities, individuals, and states with economic progress. So, why hasn’t Secretary Gutierrez made a public commitment to use every resource at his disposal to create more economic opportunity for small, medium, and large businesses throughout the country? Doesn’t Secretary Gutierrez care? Or is he just incompetent?

With a budget of $707 billion and 64,000 employees, Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt spends more money than even the Defense Department ($647 billion) . . . in fact he controls nearly one-fourth of all the money spent by the Federal Government. What has Secretary Leavitt done with any of the $700 billion he received from the taxpayers this year to help Americans who’ve lost their jobs to retain health insurance? If Secretary Leavitt has done anything at all to reduce his operating budget to help reduce our $500 billion deficit this year, he hasn’t bothered to tell us about it. Has Leavitt made every effort to make sure that Americans who’ve lost their jobs and are about to lose their jobs in the most serious economic crisis to hit the nation since the Great Depression have access to continuing health care for themselves and their families? If so, why don’t we know about his efforts?

How about Attorney General Michael Mukasey? The Department of Justice cost taxpayers $26 Billion in 2008 and employs multiple thousands of people in all sorts of jobs all across the nation. So, where does the Attorney General stand on the economic crisis? Why hasn’t he stepped up to reassure us that the Department of Justice will protect our investments in Wall Street and in Main Street as well? Why hasn’t Mukasey come up with any initiatives to introduce, implement, and enforce new and more effective oversight regulations for the financial services industry?

Dr. James Peake, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, spent $84 billion in taxpayer money this year and we have no idea whether he has any interest cutting his department’s operating costs to help reduce the federal deficit. There’s also been no word from Dr. Peake about what he intends to do to make sure returning veterans can find good jobs in a declining economy. If he has a plan to provide good-paying, secure jobs with health and retirement benefits to returning veterans in this economy, why hasn’t he told us about it?

Where does Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters stand on the economic recovery? Is she for or against using the resources the taxpayers have given her to help improve economic conditions? She has 55,000 employees who work for 14 separate departments (from the Federal Aviation Administration to the Federal Railroad Administration to the Office of the Secretary) and she spent $67 billion this year alone. What has Secretary Peters done to invest in the transportation infrastructure to create new jobs? What has Secretary Peters done to streamline her 14 agencies to cut expenditures and return taxpayer dollars to the treasury? We don’t know . . . because we haven’t heard anything from her.

Secretary Condoleeza Rice has demonstrated a level of incompetence that leaves her completely out of any solution-making process, foreign or domestic. She has failed to make any progress in the war of terrorism. She has failed to make any meaningful progress in the Middle East. In terms of assisting the nation to recover from the current economic emergency, Secretary Rice has consistently failed to build or strengthen relationships with our allies around the world, thereby failing to create or develop bilateral import/export economic protections for our economy. Her record proves she would be of no use whatsoever . . . especially when it comes to managing the international implications behind our current economic crisis.

What has Education Secretary Margaret Sellings done to mobilize her department to help the people of America get through the current economic crisis? Out of the $66 billion she spent in 2008, she received $447 million for administrative support alone. How many of those taxpayer dollars has Secretary Sellings directed to create new investments to stimulate the economy? Why hasn’t Secretary Sellings been a leader in introducing initiatives to rebuild and revitalize schools across the nation . . . from inner cities to rural communities to the suburbs . . . to not only improve educational opportunities for our children but to also create new, good-paying jobs for Americans who need them?

Given the dismal history of these Cabinet Secretaries, why would we want to waste another taxpayer dollar on any of them?

There isn’t a winner in the bunch and Americans have no reason to limp along for more than two and a half months between Election Day and inauguration day with Bush, Cheney, and the rest of their incompetents.

We’ll want to rely on the President-Elect, the Vice-President-Elect, and their advisors for the critical leadership (guidance and reassurance) the nation so desperately needs . . . starting Wednesday morning.

Won’t we?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

IS Douglas Holtz-Eakin just another lying political hack?

l.t. Dravis — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:13:37 EDT

MSNBC NEWS – Friday, October 24, 2008 – Here we go again . . . another day, another hour, another minute, and another talking head comes on the air to ‘answer’ questions asked by a cable news host.

In this case, we’re watching ‘Race to the White House’ hosted by David Gregory on MSNBC.

By way of full disclosure, I am an avid MSNBC and CNN watcher, often flipping between both channels at a frantic rate, trying to catch as much of Wolf Blitzer, Jack Cafferty, Chris Matthews, and David Gregory as I can.

So let me ask you (again), are you as sick of listening to lying political hacks as I am?

If so, let’s take a listen to Senior Economic Advisor, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, ‘answering’ David Gregory’s questions.

Who is the real Douglas Holtz-Eakin?

Though he’s an incredibly bright guy (Senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Senior Staff Economist for President George H.W. Bush, etc.), he’s probably best known for having imputed the creation of the BlackBerry to John McCain.

Hmmm.

In any case, we need to know . . . Is Douglas Holtz-Eakin just another lying political hack?

Let’s see how he did in an interview with David Gregory this afternoon.

David Gregory: “I want to welcome Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Senior Economic Advisor to the McCain campaign who joins us this evening. Doug, it’s good to see you.”

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “Good to see you, Dave.”

David Gregory: “L-let me follow on this point, this ad that the McCain campaign is running in the context of an international crisis. Let me ask you the question in terms of an economic crisis, you’ve seen the polls, I don’t have to remind you of those . . . the advantages of taxes and the economy goes (sic) to Barack Obama. That’s in our poll. So if it comes to a test, what to you point to, to show the voters, the undecided voters, that John McCain has passed and that Senator Obama has not?”

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “I think there are three or four key points here. The first is that Barack Obama is firmly aligned with the Bush administration in not getting it that the key to this financial crisis is taking care of the housing market. Keeping people in their homes will help stabilize the real economy, help keep unemployment from going up, keep consumers spending. Stabilizing the housing market will take care of the banking sector and the idea that you just want to throw the cash at banks is really, uh, uh, uh, an incomplete and mistaken policy. I think the second major point is on the substance, Barack Obama is bad news for the economy. The kinds of things he wants to do, misplaced tax policies that hurt small businesses, trade policies that are protectionist, bad health policies are all going to hurt jobs and John McCain is not going to turn this recession into a depression like Barack Obama is.

“Third key point is, you know, Barack Obama’s got more money. He gave up the, uh, the pledge for public financing in the general election. He’s trying to buy this election by running misleading ads about all this and, and the question is, can he get away with it?”

AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. Holtz-Eakin failed to answer David Gregory’s question . . . which was, ‘What do you point to, to show the voters, the undecided voters, that John McCain has passed the test and Senator Obama has not?’ Holtz-Eakin threw out some unsubstantiated stuff about Barack Obama being ‘firmly aligned with the Bush Administration’. He lectures on the obvious benefits of stabilizing the housing market and he gives us a few more unsubstantiated claims, says Obama will turn the recession into a depression (again, without substantiation) and complains that Barack Obama has raised more money and is running misleading ads. Translation: Who put a gun to the McCain campaign’s head to force them to take public financing and the limitations thereof? And, is Holtz-Eakin calling the kettle black when he accuses the Obama campaign of running ‘misleading ads’?

David Gregory: “Let me ask you the question about tax policy and the debate that’s being framed here in the, in the, closing days. Explain to me why this pitch about Joe the plumber and about tax cuts is anything more than a play for non-college educated, working class voters in a state like Pennsylvania which is key on the electoral map for the McCain campaign.”

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “People tried for months to get Barack Obama to reveal, A, the details about what he really plans to do and, B, what exactly was the philosophy that somehow underpinned it. Without success . . . I mean, you still cannot get the Obama campaign to tell you what is the definition of a small business that gets the differential tax treatment. They, they, refuse to actually come clean.

“Joe the plumber in Ohio got Barack Obama in a moment of losing his verbal eloquence to actually lay it out. What he believed. And the American people don’t like his agenda. Ah, that’s not, ah, ah, a judgment made by this campaign. It’s a judgment made by the American people. And all we’ve done is see it exposed.”

AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. Again, Holtz-Eakin failed to answer David Gregory’s question . . . which was, ‘Explain to me why this pitch about Joe the plumber and about tax cuts is anything more than a play for non-college educated, working class voters in a state like Pennsylvania which is key on the electoral map for the McCain campaign?’ Holtz-Eakin opened with a vague criticism about Obama’s alleged refusal to reveal something about ‘what he really plans to do’. He expresses a concern about the definition a small business, criticizes Obama’s loss of ‘verbal eloquence’, and closes with a blatant lie when he says the ‘American people don’t like his (Obama’s) agenda’.

David Gregory: (interrupting): “. . . Are you saying they don’t like his agenda on taxes? On general handling of the economy, Barack Obama gets the higher ratings. The polls show that . . . “

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: (Interrupting) “ . . . Barack Obama has gotten, B-Barack Obama has gotten the higher rating but this election is not over. If you look at the only poll, the only poll that called the 2004 election right, Investor’s Business Daily, this is a 2 point race. And we shall see whether Barack Obama, uh, by revealing exactly what he’s up to, which is, let’s spend a lot of money, let’s raise taxes to, to pay for and let’s not worry about economic growth, let’s not worry about prosperity that’s generated by ss . . . having a jobs, saving for college, saving for retirement, uh, we’ll see if that plays so well.”

AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. For the third time, Holtz-Eakin did not answer the question . . . which was, ‘Are you saying they don’t like his agenda on taxes? On general handling of the economy, Barack Obama gets the higher ratings.’ Holtz-Eakin tells us the obvious – the election is not over – and then dismisses every other poll in the nation by claiming that the only accurate poll is the ‘Investor’s Business Daily’ poll because it happened to call the 2004 election right (unsubstantiated). Holtz-Eakin then makes a few more unsubstantiated claims about a secret Obama agenda to spend a lot of money, raise taxes, not worry about economic growth, not worry about prosperity generated by having jobs, saving for college, or saving for retirement.

David Gregory: “Right . . . you know, I-I was asked by, uh, uh, a voter the other day, uh, w-who was not necessarily coming from, from the other side of the aisle, but who said, look, ‘cause I-I often will say in covering the, the Bush White House that I can remember well John McCain bucking President Bush and bucking the Republican party, uh, but the facts are also clear I remember covering John McCain when he did talk about voting with the Bush Administration ninety percent of the time. So, how do you reconcile that . . . in our polling that shows nearly six in ten voters think that McCain would be more Bush at a time when you’re saying that the Bush Administration doesn’t get it. You’re going for separation pretty late in the game.”

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “Well, I mean, the reality is it’s not the number of votes, it’s, it’s what votes matter. Uh, a-at key moments, John McCain has in fact done the right things standing up to the Bush Administration. He’s done the right thing at times in standing up to the Republican party, uh, and he, he will continue to do that for the American people. That’s the key moment. The leadership moments. That’s what the ad was about today.

“Barack Obama has never displayed one moment of leadership . . . when he said that his party or his political backers, ‘no I won’t do that for you because there’s an important issue that the American people need for me to deliver on’. He’s never shown any, uh, uh, ability to do that and without that, he is truly untested and dangerous.”

AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. Once again, he failed to answer the question . . . which was, ‘You’re going for separation (from the Bush Administration) pretty late in the game (aren’t you)?’ Rather than answer the question, Holtz-Eakin talks about John McCain’s ‘maverick’ image and refers to an unknown ad. He then goes on to criticize Barack Obama for never having displayed even ‘one moment of leadership’ and he warns us that Obama is untested and, moreover, dangerous.

David Gregory: “Al right, we’re going to leave it there. Senior Advisor on the economy, uh, Doug Holtz-Eakin. Doug, uh, good to see you. Thank you for being here.”

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: "Thank you."

Though David Gregory, an experienced, well-respected journalist asked a series of insightful questions, Holtz-Eakin didn’t answer even one of them.

If Holtz-Eakin was hired by John McCain to give folks like you and me reasons to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin, he didn’t earn a dime’s worth of his pay today . . . unless bad-mouthing Barack Obama works for the McCain campaign.

But I’m curious . . . why on earth wouldn’t Douglas Holtz-Eakin take this opportunity to tell hundreds of thousands of MSNBC viewers why they should vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin?

Why would he waste your time, my time, David Gregory’s time and his time by leveling a bunch of unsubstantiated attacks on Barack Obama?

Could it be that Douglas Holtz-Eakin is just another lying political hack?

Good question . . . what do you think?

P.S. Doug . . . take a shave, willya?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

THE Final debate . . . won by Joe the Plumber?

l.t. Dravis — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:30:15 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, Hempstead, New York – Wednesday, October 15, 2008 – Let’s answer the first question first . . . did Senator McCain say anything in this debate to change his position in the polls?

No.

Second question . . . did Senator Obama say anything in this debate to change his position in the polls?

No.

So, what happened?

Senator John McCain started out talking about the anger of American voters but he spent most of the debate showing his anger toward Senator Obama . . . as if McCain is more against Obama becoming President than he is for McCain becoming President.

In response to Obama’s point about McCain policies being the same as Bush policies, McCain said, “Senator Obama, I’m not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”

Senator Obama apologized for confusing McCain with George W. Bush but pointed out it was hard to tell the difference because McCain voted so often with Bush policies.

John McCain attacked, attacked, and then attacked some more, working hard, playing catch up, trying his best to bad-mouth Barack Obama out of his lead in the polls. McCain was clearly angry and sounded petulant as he worked through his litany of complaints about Senator Obama and his campaign.

When McCain brought the old Weatherman Bill Ayres into the debate, CNN audience reaction dropped dramatically . . . making it clear that the ‘guilt-by-association’ tactic used so often by McCain and Palin may well have backfired.

Obama simply explained the Ayres relationship for what it was: He served on a board with William Ayres along with a number of other people like the President of the Chicago Tribune and the President of Northwestern University and that was that.

The McCain campaign failed to ask and answer an important question: On a day when the Dow Jones average dropped more than 700 points, were people watching this debate really concerned about Senator Obama’s ‘relationship’ with a man who committed crimes when Obama was eight years old?

Though he tried to explain his health care plan through gritted teeth, McCain did not say anything specific to convince anyone that his plan was superior to the Obama plan.

While Senator McCain rolled his eyes and scowled, Senator Obama calmly detailed his health care plan and assured voters that the McCain claim that the Obama health care plan fines small business and individuals was totally false.

McCain gave us a number of platitudes about how we ‘have to improve education’ and ‘we need to encourage businesses’ but he didn’t say anything specific about what he would do as President to resolve any of the domestic or foreign issues we face as a nation . . . so there probably won’t be a shift in the McCain poll numbers as a result of this debate.

While Senator McCain was busy trying to score ideological points to please the Republican base, Senator Obama talked about how his economic plan would create jobs, eliminate penalties for early withdrawals from IRA and KEOGH accounts, increase federal assistance to cities and states, and postpone foreclosures for ninety days.

By the way, what am I talking about when I say that ‘Joe the plumber’ won the debate?

I’m talking about Joe Wurzelbacher (referred to as Joe Wurzberger by John McCain), a plumber who caught up with Barack Obama recently at a rally in Ohio to express his concerns about how Obama’s tax policies might prevent him from buying the company he works for.

McCain used ‘Joe the plumber’ to accuse Senator Obama of proposing tax increases and a health care plan that would prevent working men and women from becoming entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, the fact checkers have proven that the Obama tax and health care plans do nothing to increase the cost of doing business for all the ‘Joe the plumbers’ of this country.

Who spent more time attacking in tonight’s debate?

Eighty percent of voters surveyed by CNN said John McCain spent more time attacking while only seven percent said Obama spent more time attacking.

And did the attacks help or hurt the candidates?

According to a CBS poll of uncommitted voters, 53% said Obama won, 24% said the candidates tied, while 22% said McCain won.

I’m reminded of the infamous Al Gore/George W. Bush debate where Gore lost the edge with a sigh; in fact, I’m thinking that McCain lost all three 2008 presidential debates because of affect . . . the scowls, the eye rolls, the grumpy grunts, etc.

And now, I’m wondering, did John McCain seem more like a ‘President’ tonight or did he seem more like the grumpy old man next door who used to shout at you to get off his lawn?

Huh?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

So we can send your concerns to 435 Representatives

and 100 Senators until they listen . . . and then, we’ll do it some more

WHO Cares where, when, how, and if McCain can ‘comeback’?

l.t. Dravis — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:31:08 EDT

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - The McCain campaign is talking ‘comeback’ and I wonder, how’s the media reading that message?

Are newspaper, radio, and TV editors hoping for hope or hoping for promise?

Hope won’t create enough drama to capture the public’s attention so editors understandably hope it isn’t hope.

Promise, on the other hand, implies drama so the media will want to jump on the promise story, create lots of interest, and continue to enjoy exceedingly profitable ratings.

Barack Obama leads John McCain by fairly good margins in most polls today so the 2008 Presidential Campaign isn’t providing enough drama to attract enough listeners, readers, and viewers, ratings are at risk of dropping and the media worries it could find itself in a world of economic hurt . . . kind of like the rest of us . . . and who wants that?

Let’s go back to that golden moment in time, just about six weeks ago, when John McCain introduced Sarah Palin, the great GOP Hope, to the world and lead Barack Obama in most polls.

Who was more excited . . . the McCain campaign or the media?

Because a switch in the polls – either way – creates drama and drama creates increased ratings and increased ratings create increased advertising revenues, the media was thrilled beyond compare.

The media, especially the 24/7 cable news networks, live or die by ratings and any drama they can dig out of the 2008 Presidential Campaign is as good or better for ratings as any national tragedy (Madonna’s divorce, Nancy Reagan’s pelvic fracture, a drop on the DOW, an earthquake, a hurricane, etc.).

If this wasn’t a campaign year, what would Bill Bennett, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Bill ‘Cussman’ O’Reilly, or Rush ‘Oxycontin’ Limbaugh be talking about today?

Janet Jackson’s bout with vertigo?

Whether or not the Phillies can put the Dodgers away in five?

Who was dropped from ‘Dancing with the stars’?

Or the economy?

The economy . . . for sure.

But is there enough economic news to fill up 24 hours a day of air time, seven days a week?

And, how willing would advertisers be to spend big bucks to have their sales pitches surrounded by doomsday news that sends a clear message to viewers: Don’t spend!

Not very . . . so, what is the media to do?

Continue to cover the boring fact that Obama leads McCain in the polls while ratings and revenues drop?

Or try to convince the public to watch and listen because there’s reason to believe McCain can ‘comeback’ to beat Barack Obama?

The answer is obvious.

So, how would the media’s ‘McCain-can-comeback’ campaign shape up?

You’d see more “Breaking News” coverage on even the slightest positive movement in McCain’s numbers.

You’d see and hear more talking heads talking more about every possible way McCain could improve his chances to beat Obama.

You’d see more columnists write about every possible angle on how the McCain campaign might ‘comeback’ to win the election.

And, you’d see and hear more promotional spots created to convince you to watch and listen to more news stories about how McCain can win.

I know what you’re thinking . . . it’s not impossible for John McCain to ‘comeback’ and win the election . . . no matter what the media does.

And you’re absolutely right.

If the economy somehow takes a positive turn, if McCain and Palin tone down the negative rhetoric and actually tell voters how their lives would be better if they vote Republican, if John McCain can convince voters that he is not ‘erratic’, or if there was some sort of national emergency that made McCain look like the better candidate to protect us, he could very well ‘comeback’ to win the election.

Nevertheless, since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, no matter what the circumstance may be, John McCain is not likely to demonstrate the kind of consistent leadership the country wants and so desperately needs.

So, I’m not at all convinced anything is likely to change for John McCain and his running mate until after the votes are in and they both go home.

But that won’t stop me from tuning in to every bit of media drama – real and otherwise – about McCain’s ‘comeback’.

How about you?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

IS THE LIAR Costing McCain the election?

l.t. Dravis — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:39:02 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Monday, October 13, 2008 – What’s the real reason behind McCain’s drop off in the polls?

Are voters turned off by the content of his message?

Are they bummed about his tax policies?

Perhaps they don’t like his $5,000.00 dollar taxable health care credit?

Are they concerned because Senator McCain doesn’t seem to have any plan to ever get us out of Iraq?

Are voters turned off by the negative McCain ads and rhetoric?

Are voters turning away from McCain because they can’t bring themselves to vote for a guy who would 75 years old in the last year of his first term?

But wait a minute . . . maybe it’s not McCain; maybe it’s Sarah Palin.

Could it be that millions of McCain supporters and undecided voters finally got tired of the big insult?

You know . . . the insult foisted on us by John McCain when he nominated a pathological liar to be his running mate.

Huh?

What am I talking about?

I’m talking about the fact that the person John McCain selected to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States is a proven liar.

Don’t agree?

Okay, then, let’s talk about the fact that Governor Sarah Palin was found to have abused her power by ‘violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act” in a report issued by a bi-partisan panel of eight Republicans and four Democrats.

Clear enough . . . right?

Maybe not . . . if you listen to Sarah Palin.

Palin, supposedly everyone’s ‘hockey mom’, cheerfully lied through her teeth when she said, “There was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired.”

“In fact,” Palin said, “remember, Officer Wooten is still an Alaska state trooper, which is up to the commissioner and the personnel top brass in the Department of Public Safety that decides who is worthy of a badge and carrying a gun in the state of Alaska.”

Whew!

“If they think that Trooper Wooten is worthy of that” (a badge and carrying a gun), “that’s their decision. I don’t micromanage my commissioners and ask them to hire or fire anyone.

“And, thankfully” Palin lied, “the truth was revealed there in that report that showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part.”

Though Governor Palin obviously believes the American people are too stupid to know that she’s lying . . . in light of an official report that has been pasted all over the internet, printed in every newspaper and magazine, and talked about on every imaginable radio and television program . . . the truth is simple: Voters are too smart to buy that load of baloney.

Could it be that millions of prospective McCain voters agree with a piece on today’s Anchorage Daily News that said,

“Sarah Palin’s reaction to the Legislature’s ‘Troopergate’ report is an embarrassment to Alaskans and the nation. She claims the report ‘vindicates’ her.

“She said that the investigation found ‘no unlawful or unethical activity on my part.’ Her response is either astoundingly ignorant or downright Orwellian.

“You asked us to hold you accountable, Governor Palin. Did you mean it?

“Perhaps Governor Palin has been too busy to actually read the Troopergate report. Perhaps she is relying on briefings from McCain campaign spinmeisters.

“That’s the charitable interpretation.

“Because if she had actually read it, she couldn’t claim “vindication” with a straight face.

“Palin asserted that the report found “there was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired.”

“In fact, the report concluded that impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired.

“Palin’s response is the kind of political ‘big lie’ that George Orwell warned against. War is peace. Black is white. Up is down.

“Governor Palin and her husband were obsessed with Wooten the way Captain Ahab was obsessed with the Great White Whale. No Wooten, no peace.

“Has Governor Palin committed an impeachable offense?

“Hardly.

“Is what she did indictable?

“No.

“But it wasn’t appropriate, especially for someone elected as an ethical reformer.

“And her Orwellian claims of “vindication” make this blemish on her record look even worse.”

Yeah, Governor Palin . . . we got tired of the big insult and understand this: We’re too smart to believe you - anymore - about anything.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

THE Bush/Cheney Legacy . . . Stupid is as Stupid does!

l.t. Dravis — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:32:00 EDT

By L.t. Dravis

After the Bush/Cheney administration sat around and stroked itself for 7½ years while the economy of the United States cracked and collapsed under the weight of skewed tax policies, wasteful deficit spending, short-sighted deregulation policies, some pundits seem surprised that the world doesn’t care anything about anything George W. Bush has to say.

Why would anyone, much less a pundit, be surprised that Bush has absolutely no credibility?

Most Americans agree that the Bush/Cheney administration has been ‘managed’ by the most inept, most corrupt, most out-of-touch, lying bunch of political hacks ever to crawl on to the public scene in the history of the United States of America.

How George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could ever have been elected and re-elected to the White House is a question most thinking Americans cannot understand, much less answer.

Bush and Cheney got everything wrong . . . from how tax cuts for the wealthy would impact the economy to how their oil industry friendly energy policies would impact our economic interests around the world to the economic and political damage caused by the deception they laid on the world to justify starting the Iraq war to the ultimate destruction of our banking system as the collective result of 7½ years of short-sighted, self-serving Bush/Cheney policies.

Could any two men be any stupider than George W. Bush or Dick Cheney?

Could any two human beings on the face of the earth have screwed things up worse than these two?

Aren’t these the two who put Alberto Gonzalez into the Attorney General’s office?

And, aren’t these the two who allowed Gonzalez to stumble around for years while he destroyed morale by playing games with the careers of United States Attorneys for political purposes?

If that wasn’t enough, aren’t these the two yokels who decided that that rambling old fool, Donald Rumsfeld, was the best qualified person in the nation to be Secretary of Defense?

And, aren’t these the two who cheered Rumsfeld on while thousands upon thousands of American troops were maimed and killed by the old man’s unbelievably incompetent ‘management’ of the Iraq War?

If you think it isn’t fair to couple Cheney and Bush together as dual dolts, let’s look at them individually.

So, why would anyone care about anything Dick Cheney might say?

Isn’t he the genius who told us that Iraqis would greet us as liberators?

And, who would trust George W. Bush to tell the truth about anything?

He’s the fool who told us just a few months ago that he wasn’t aware that gasoline had reached $4.00 a gallon at the pump.

Dear Lord . . . could these two be any stupider?

Kinda makes you wonder whether these two might suffer from some form of weird brain damage, doesn’t it?

So, what is the Bush/Cheney legacy?

Read on . . . let's let the facts speak for themselves:

THE ECONOMY

After 7½ years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ‘running the country’, we face the worst economic crisis in the history of the world
Our National Debt now exceeds $10 Trillion – so each man, woman, and child in the U.S. owes China and other countries more than $32,600.00
The Federal Budget Deficit is approaching $500 billion for this year alone
The U.S. Dollar is trading at all time lows against foreign currencies
Oil sells for $88.33 per barrel today, compared to $33.51 per barrel on the day the United States invaded Iraq
Gasoline sells for over $3.00 per gallon compared to $1.45 per gallon when George W. Bush was inaugurated in January, 2001
Home values have declined by as much as 30% to 40% across the country
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 5,000 points this year over its highest point last year
Five million Americans face home foreclosures today
Major financial institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG, and others have had to be bailed out by taxpayers
Major U.S. corporations like Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors are edging closer and closer to bankruptcy
The National Unemployment rate continues to climb - month after month
A crumbling infrastructure with airports, bridges, dams, highways, pipelines, schools, and sewer and water systems falling apart with no plan and no funding

FOREIGN WARS

4,180 precious American lives have been lost in Iraq 5½ years after the U.S. invasion and occupation
Nearly 31,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq
65,000 U.S. troops are currently held in place in Iraq by arbitrary stop-loss measures
$700 billion has been borrowed by the Bush Administration of an estimated $3 trillion to fund the Iraq war (compared to the Bush Administration’s pre-war estimate of $50-60 billion to fight the Iraq war to conclusion)
An estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties have occurred since the U.S. invaded Iraq
Nearly 5 million Iraqi refugees now live inside and outside the country
Efforts to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan have been compromised by the diversion of troops, equipment, money, and strategic focus on Iraq

WHAT NEXT?

So what do we do now? Blindly elect another President, Vice-President, and another batch of Representatives and Senators, then get back to 'Dancing with the Stars’ and ‘American Idol’ while we hope for the best?

Isn’t that what we did in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006?

How’s that working out for us?

Look . . . we’re Americans . . . we don’t have to get ripped off by our so-called leaders. We have the power to put a stop to this cycle of incompetence and graft!

The founding fathers didn’t constitute the government of the United States of America to be the playground of multi-millionaire politicians, lobbyists, and crooks who play at governing and steal us blind while we sit back and download our iPods and play the ‘Legend of Zelda’ and ‘Grand Theft Auto IV’.

The power of government comes from ‘consent of the governed’ (that’s us) which means we’re supposed to assign and monitor the powers we give to Representatives, Senators, and the President.

If every Congressperson, every Senator, the President, the Vice-President, and the Cabinet knew we were monitoring their initiatives, schedules, voting records, work habits, and their sleazy 'behind the scenes' deals, they wouldn’t have time or energy to waste on lobbyists, special interests, or self interests.

Would they?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

NICE Rhetoric . . . no answers

l.t. Dravis — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:15:37 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

ST. LOUIS – Thursday October 2, 2008 – LOW EXPECTATIONS, PALIN HELD HER OWN . . . Is that all we want in a President?

With no surprise questions and no follow-up questions from Gwen Ifill (Republicans everywhere must be thanking the good lord), Palin was able to ask and answer her own questions.

Did we learn anything more about Sarah Palin beyond her ability to recite talking points?

No?

Okay . . . did we learn anything about how John McCain will fix the problems that face the nation tonight?

When and how will John McCain end the war in Iraq?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

When and how will John McCain fight and win the war against terrorism in Afghanistan?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

How will John McCain stabilize Israel’s position in the Middle East?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

What will John McCain do to provide the regulatory network so necessary to prevent a future mortgage/Wall Street meltdown?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

What will John McCain do to make the country energy independent and when will we be 100% free from foreign oil?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

What will John McCain do about Immigration?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

How will John McCain stop the loss of jobs across the nation?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

How will John McCain strengthen the middle class?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

How will John McCain improve education to make us more competitive around the world?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

How will John McCain make sure families can afford to send their children to college?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

How will John McCain rebuild the infrastructure?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

How will John McCain eliminate budget deficits?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

How will John McCain pay off the national debt?

Sarah didn’t tell us . . .

So, who won the debate?

An early CBS poll of uncommitted voters read it this way: 46% thought Biden won, 33% thought it was a tie, and 21% thought Palin won.

What did we learn about Governor Palin?

We learned that she wants to expand the power of the Vice-Presidency.

We learned that she doesn’t grasp the issues well enough to address them extemporaneously.

We learned that she was able to memorize Republican talking points well enough to recite her way around the predicted catastrophic meltdown.

We learned that her greatest strength was to not answer the questions that were asked by the moderator. For example, when she was asked about her greatest weakness, she answered by talking about her greatest strength.

So, what does it all mean?

Not much . . . really.

A week from now, this debate will be nothing more than a cultural artifact from the 2008 election . . . people will remember this was the night Governor Palin didn’t completely fall on her face.

What can I say about Joe Biden?

He did what he was supposed to do.

He spelled out the Obama/Biden campaign’s positions on everything from the economy to energy independence to historical lessons from past interventions to foreign policy in general.

Where do the campaigns go from here?

Back to the battleground states . . . at least the ones McCain hasn’t pulled out of.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, blog with us at http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ or Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

WON'T Get fooled again . . .

l.t. Dravis — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:21:35 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Tuesday, September 30, 2008 – If past behavior is really the best predictor of future behavior, voters across the country must be wondering, “Does John McCain really think we can be fooled again?”

The failure of Congressional Republicans to pass the bailout package yesterday not only cost Wall Street a trillion plus dollars, it also gave us a preview of what John McCain would be like as a President faced with a crisis.

What?

McCain’s response to the Wall Street meltdown gives voters a frightening insight into the character, temperament, and capabilities of the 72 year old man who would be President . . . an insight that ain’t giving Americans any reason to trust McCain.

Don’t agree?

Okay . . . let’s look at what McCain has said – and done – over the past few weeks.

At a campaign stop in Jacksonville just two weeks ago, despite the failure of financial institutions like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and other ominous signs of turmoil on Wall Street and on Main Street, Senator McCain declared that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”. Ironically, at the same time he made that statement, the McCain campaign was running a TV ad that opened with a poignant phrase: “Our economy is in crisis.”

Less than two weeks later, without having a clear idea of where his campaign was headed on the economic crisis, McCain told the nation that he’d decided he had no choice but to suspend his campaign so he could immediately return to Washington to provide the leadership necessary to resolve the Wall Street meltdown.

This is what Senator McCain said: “Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday nights debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.”

And this is what Senator McCain did: With cameras flashing, McCain attended a highly promoted White House meeting with George W. Bush, House and Senate leaders, and Barack Obama, with the promise of bringing everyone together to create a quick, resolution to the economic crisis. The Senator from Arizona added absolutely nothing constructive to the proceedings and the meeting ended in chaos.

Then, despite his commitment to remain in Washington until the economic crisis was resolved, despite his initial decision to stay away, McCain suddenly changed his mind and flew to Mississippi to debate Barack Obama.

Fast forward to yesterday morning when John McCain bragged to the world how his leadership brought the bailout bill to victory . . . only hours before the bailout bill was defeated.

Later yesterday, after it was clear that dissident Republicans effectively killed the bailout bill, McCain distanced himself by saying the bill failed because, “Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process.”

Despite McCain’s rhetoric, everyone knows that Senator Obama didn’t defeat the bailout bill; everyone knows that the bailout bill was defeated because John McCain wasn’t capable of persuading 133 of 199 Republican Representatives to support it.

If McCain had the ability to bring politicians together to put the bailout bill over the top, don’t you think he would have done it yesterday?

Woulda, coula, shoulda . . . but he didn’t

So, what does John McCain’s behavior over the past few weeks tell you, me, and the rest of the country?

It tells us that when faced with a crisis, a President John McCain would work the cameras, play the media, and talk the right talk while failing to provide the leadership necessary to unify opposing factions to provide a viable resolution.

Seems like we’ve been there and done that.

After two terms of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, I’m betting we won’t get fooled again.

What do you think?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

THE Bailout bill goes down . . . so who's got the power?

l.t. Dravis — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:03:42 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, September 29, 2008 – The House of Representatives voted down the $700 billion bailout bill by a vote of 228 to 205, taking the wind out of the Bush administration’s sails and seriously questioning the power and authority of the House of Representatives.

The democracy we’ve known and loved for more than two centuries has been forever changed.

Why?

Because the power of the people has finally been felt.

Too many voters sent too many very clear messages to too many representatives to not be heard.

And the lesson is?

The people have the power to set not only the direction of legislation but also the tone of the debate in this country.

Don’t believe it?

Look at the political weight that was thrown behind the bailout bill.

The entire leadership of the Democratic Party has been promoting the bailout to anyone and everyone who would listen for the past ten days . . . yet it failed.

The Bush administration has put more time and energy into warning us about the dire consequences of the failure of this bill than they ever did with those yellow-orange-red alerts they used to throw around for whatever reason . . . yet it failed.

Democratic and Republican leaders argued before the public that the bailout was essential to the very survival of the American economy . . . yet it failed.

Before the vote today, the White House, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Josh Bolton were on the phone, twisting arms, trying to convince representatives on both sides of the aisle to support the bill . . . yet it failed.

During the 40 minute long roll call, several representatives on the House floor were shouting warnings about how the Dow Jones Average was dropping precipitously . . . yet it failed.

The American people let their representatives know that they didn’t trust their government, especially President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, enough to support the bailout.

And their representatives listened.

Talk about the power of the people.

Let’s hope we never forget today . . . the day the democracy we’ve known and loved for more than two centuries has been forever changed.

How about that?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

IS Nancy Pfotenhauer just another lying political hack?

l.t. Dravis — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:24:33 EDT

WALL STREET/WASHINGTON, D.C. – Wednesday, September 24, 2008 – Aren’t you sick and tired of political hacks who give convoluted, lying answers to straight questions asked by journalists?

If you are, permit me to introduce you to Nancy Pfotenhauer.

And once you know who she is, you may wonder why you should care about anything she has to say.

Nancy Pfotenhauer is an educated (Master’s Degree in Economics from George Mason University), accomplished woman with an impressive resume which includes a number of responsible positions with organizations like Americans for Prosperity, the Independent Women’s Forum, and the Republican National Committee.

Nancy Pfotenhauer was also the number one Washington lobbyist for Koch (pronounced ‘Koke’) Industries, the largest privately held conglomerate in the United States, employing approximately 80,000 people in 60 counties, with annual revenue in excess of $110 billion.

Pfotenhauer, who divorced her first husband and married top mortgage industry lobbyist, Kurt Pfotenhauer, now works for the McCain campaign as a spokesperson and top policy advisor.

So, what kind of spokesperson is Nancy Pfotenhauer?

Is she just another lying political hack?

Let’s judge Nancy Pfotenhauer by how she answers straight questions asked by a well respected journalist.

In an interview this morning on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell asked Pfotenhauer to respond to recent reports in the New York Times and Newsweek magazine that, despite John McCain’s denial this past Sunday, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis’s lobbying company received $15,000.00 monthly payments from Freddie Mac until it was seized by the Federal Government last month.

Here’s how the Mitchell/Pfotenhauer question and answer went:

Andrea Mitchell: “The campaign has come out again today very aggressively against the New York Times. Now, the New York Times is not alone. It was Newsweek and Roll Call reporting on at least payments made,” (Ms. Pfotenhauer laughs nervously) “to campaign manager Rick Davis’ firm. And you pointed out, the campaign, you have pointed out that Rick Davis did not lobby, did not take money from the firm, has not been not been involved in anything involving Fannie or Freddie. Can you guarantee that, you know, the voters, the American people, that even though Rick Davis has not taken any money and you say has not lobbied, that he will not sometime in the future benefit from money that has gone to his firm in which he still has a partnership interest?”

Nancy Pfotenhauer: “Well,” she said, with a stunning smile, “y-you know, Andrea, you at least you, you, at least are, are presenting it even-handedly. Rick never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie and let’s, you know, that, I don’t think they reported the story. I think they engaged in activist journalism that’s more of the Huffington Post, uh, caliber, than certainly should be expected from a, a, major newspaper outlet. The, the story is that Rick never took any money from Fannie, never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie and that John McCain actively fought for reform versus Barack Obama who took record number, amounts of money from Fannie and Freddie and looked the other way on reform. That, you kn . . , that’s the story. And as far as potentially benefitting in the future, the McCain campaign has the highest level of standards ever applied in Presidential election history that precludes us bene . . . , uh, eh, lobbyist involvement and, uh, any potential future benefit. And we challenged the Obama campaign repeatedly to comply by the same rules, and, rules, and they won’t do it and they won’t release their list of advisors even though they acknowledged there are lobbyists on that list.”

Did Mrs. Pfotenhauer give a convoluted, lying answer to Andrea Mitchell’s question?

Let’s see . . .

Andrea Mitchell wanted to know whether Davis would “sometime in the future benefit from money that has gone to his firm in which he still has a partnership interest”.

Though the answer to this question is obvious (Since Davis is still an equity partner in the lobbying firm, Davis-Manafort, he will of course benefit from $180,000.00 a year received from Freddie Mac), Mrs. Pfotenhauer completely ignored the question.

Was Nancy Pfotenhauer lying when she said, “Rick never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie”?

According to Newsweek reporter Mike Isikoff, Rick Davis’s lobbying firm did in fact receive $15,000.00 monthly payments for the past three years, long before and long after Rick Davis joined the McCain campaign.

If, according to Nancy Pfotenhauer, Rick Davis ‘never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie’, why on earth would Freddie Mac pay $15,000 a month to Rick Davis’ lobbying firm?

What do you think of Nancy Pfotenhauer now?

And, what do you think of a campaign that would hire Nancy Pfotenhauer to be its chief spokesperson?

Hmmm?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

IF Sarah can't handle the press, how can she handle the job?

l.t. Dravis — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:24:11 EDT

NEW YORK – Tuesday, September 23, 2008 – Why did the McCain campaign try to prevent the press from witnessing Sarah Palin’s vaunted meetings with a world leader in New York today?

As the Governor of Alaska was about to sit down for a face-to-face meeting with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Palin’s handlers suddenly decided to ban everyone but camera operators from the room.

The whole world knows that the McCain campaign orchestrated this series of meetings with world leaders to try to fill-in a huge gap in the rookie Governor’s foreign policy experience . . . so this last-minute tactic came as a complete surprise.

But, when the media threatened to take its cameras and go home if reporters weren’t allowed to ask questions, the campaign caved in.

After all, what is a photo-op with no photos?

The campaign desperately needs film and still photos to try to convince voters that a couple of minutes of idle chit-chat with a foreign leader, any foreign leader, transforms Sarah Palin into a foreign policy expert (they do think we’re stupid, don’t they?).

But, like her or not, Sarah Palin, everyone’s favorite hockey mom, is by no means a sophisticated, educated stateswoman.

So the McCain campaign is justifiably worried that voters will see her as an ‘empty dress’, completely incapable handling the foreign policy aspects of the Presidency should a President McCain ever be unable to handle the job.

Lest you think that the McCain campaign did the right thing and let reporters in to ask questions so voters could learn how candidate Palin handles herself, it didn’t . . . in fact; the campaign showed its true colors and conned the media.

The con worked like this: Palin’s handlers allowed cameras, camera people, sound folks, and reporters into the room for the Karzai/Palin meeting for all of 29 seconds . . . just long enough to get the film and stills they wanted, but not long enough to risk the media catching Sarah with her mouth open.

The question that begs to be answered is, why is the McCain campaign so afraid of the press witnessing a simple photo-op conversation between Sarah Palin and a foreign leader?

For the same reason the campaign won’t let her hold a press conference . . . it knows she doesn’t know what the heck she’s talking about.

Now, before millions of Palin-ophants start praying for my demise, I’ll ask you to objectively consider the following exchange between a voter and Sarah Palin at a Town Hall Meeting in Michigan on September 18:

The voter asked, Governor Palin, there has been quite a bit of discussion about your perceived lack of foreign policy experience. And I want to give you your chance. If you could please respond to that criticism and give us specific skills that you think you have to bring to the White House to rebut that or mitigate that concern.

The best the could-be-next President of the United States could come up with was to give the following non-answer: Well, I think because I’m a Washington outsider that opponents are going to be looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize and they can kind of try to beat the candidates here, who chose me as his partner, to kind of tear down the ticket. But as for foreign policy, you know, I think that I am prepared and I know that on January 20th, if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office as your president and vice president, certainly we’ll be ready. I’ll be ready. I have that confidence. I have that readiness.

Come on . . . you’d expect a better answer from someone running to be 8th grade class president!

If Palin really was the best qualified person in the United States to be John McCain’s running mate, she would have answered the question, directly, concisely, and intelligently by listing the specific foreign policy skills she would bring to the White House.

But she didn’t.

So let’s not pretend the truth is something other than what it really is . . . Sarah Palin was a political choice; she gave John McCain a way to get lots of media attention along with the hope that she might attract enough women voters to make a difference on November 4th.

No thinking American actually believes Palin was chosen because she’s the best qualified person in America to be Vice-President.

If the McCain campaign really believes in her, it would prepare Sarah Palin to learn everything possible about foreign affairs . . . not with meaningless two minute ‘meet ‘n greets’, not by sending her for a tutoring session with Henry Kissinger, but by sending her to meet with world leaders where they live.

Why not send Governor Palin to Israel to meet with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni . . . the woman who just might become the next prime minister?

Why not send her on a fact-finding trip to North Korea to talk with Kim Jong Il’s regime about its plans to renew activities at the nuclear weapons facility at Yongbyon?

Why not send her to meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy to learn more about his recent diplomatic initiatives in Georgia and Syria?

Why not send her to meet with President Felipe De Jesus Calderon to gain some insight into Mexico’s perspective on illegal immigration?

Why not send her to meet with Prime Minister Gordon Brown to discuss ways to strengthen economic ties between the U.K. and the U.S.?

Why not?

Unless the McCain campaign decides to help Sarah Palin acquire the foreign policy knowledge, understanding, and wisdom she would need to be a fully functioning President, it is setting her up for failure.

And I wonder, how does that put “Country First”?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

We want to hear BOTH SIDES NOW© so we can send your concerns to

435 Representatives and 100 Senators until they listen . . . and then, we’ll do it some more

WHY Not pay burglars?

l.t. Dravis — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:46:58 EDT

WALL STREET/WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, September 22, 2008 – Don’t mean to be nosy, but how much did you make last year?

Did you pull in anything close to $400,000.00?

Why do I ask?

Because that’s the amount of money John McCain wants to take out of our pockets to pay each CEO of each Wall Street firm as part of the $700 billion (or more) Wall Street bailout.

If I could interview Senator McCain, I’d open with, “Come on, Senator McCain . . . on your idea to compensate Wall Street senior executives as part of the bailout . . . you can’t be serious!

“You’re talking about giving $400 grand to each of the same people who caused the Wall Street crisis!

“This is nearly as unbelievable as the statement you made a week ago today when you told us that the fundamentals of the economy were good - barely about 24 hours before the Wall Street meltdown!

“Senator McCain . . . if you sincerely believe that taxpayers should spend up to $400,000.00 per person to reward or pay-off or support the people who brought down Wall Street, I wonder, would you advocate that victims pay burglars for their creativity, time, and efforts?

“Though you’ve tried to distance yourself from George W. Bush, you’re obviously in lockstep with the Bush administration’s press release today that criticizes any plan to limit compensation for those inept, greedy executives.

“Do you have any idea how much in bonuses these people paid themselves in just the past year?

“If you’re not up to speed on this, Senator, permit me to tell you that ABC News reported that CEOs employed by Bear Sterns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley paid themselves nearly $40 billion in ‘bonuses’ last year.

“And the $40 billion in bonuses these people paid themselves came out of the nearly $75 billion lost by shareholders in those companies in 2007.

“Do you think these same CEOs spent the $40 billion they collected last year and now need another $400,000.00 to tide them over until they can get jobs with the Department of Treasury as ‘consultants’ hired to tell the government how to ‘manage’ billions of dollars worth of worthless securities?

“Now, it isn’t like I’m making any of this up . . . I’m simply reacting to your words at a campaign stop today when you said, My friends, the top executives are asking for two and a half billion dollars in bonuses after they ran the company into the ground! The senior executives of any firm that’s bailed out by the treasury should not be making more money than the highest paid government official. We should have that criteria (sic).

“Since the highest paid government official is George W. Bush and we taxpayers pay him $400,000.00 a year to do whatever he does, it is reasonable to deduce that that is the compensation package you want to hand over to a bunch of inept Wall Street bigwigs.

“Thank you, Senator McCain, but no thanks. We can’t afford to waste our hard-earned or, in this case, our hard-borrowed money, on a bunch of losers, but most of all, we can’t afford to have a man in the presidency who is so willing to throw good taxpayer money after bad.”

To taxpayers, I would say, “This is a bad deal . . . don’t let McCain get away with it. The group who brought down Wall Street should go home, without applause, without notice, and most of all, without taxpayer money in their back pockets. Contact your Representatives and Senators – today – and tell them you don’t buy the McCain's idea to bailout disgraced Wall Street senior executives!”

To burglars, I would say, “Take heart . . . if John McCain becomes President, his kind of ‘change’ could mean a bright future for you.”

And, to you dear reader, I ask, “What do you think?”

HEY, Sarah . . . what are you afraid of?

l.t. Dravis — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:00:09 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

NEW YORK – Wednesday, September 17, 2008 – Is Sarah Palin the real deal or just another mealy-mouthed, hypocritical, self-serving politician who will say or do anything to get elected?

The experts say that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, so let’s look at Palin’s past behavior.

On July 11 of this year, she fired Walter Monegan, the Public Safety Commissioner of Alaska.

According to Commissioner Monegan and others in Alaska’s Public Safety Department, the Governor, the Governor’s husband, and some of the Governor’s staff had been pressuring him for months to fire Michael Wooten, an Alaska state trooper who’d been involved in a nasty divorce and custody battle with Palin’s sister.

Monegan believes he was fired because he refused to fire Wooten, saying, “It was a significant factor if not the factor.”

So, the Alaska State Legislature decided to investigate the Governor, her husband, and some of the Governor’s staff members.

If the investigation determines that the Governor is guilty of pressuring Monegan or causing others to pressure Monegan to fire trooper Wooten, she could be charged with abuse of power. If true, beyond the legal ramifications, this past behavior gives us a scary insight into Sarah Palin’s character . . . that the Governor of Alaska would misuse the power of her office to ‘get even’ with a former brother-in-law is reminiscent of another republican politician, Dick Cheney, and his petty peeve against Ambassador Joe Wilson which resulted in Cheney getting ‘even’ with Wilson by outing Wilson’s wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Palin has contradicted herself more than once on the Monegan firing. For example, just after she fired Monegan, Palin said she never pressured him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. Within a month, however, she backtracked on that statement and admitted that some of the people who worked for her and her husband had contacted Monegan twenty-five times or more, to ‘talk about’ Wooten. Since Palin denied knowing anything about any of those contacts, we would have to believe that Palin’s husband would never have talked to his wife about telling Monegan to get rid of Wooten.

In August, Governor Palin publicly committed to fully cooperate with the Alaska legislature in its investigation. “Hold me accountable,” she was quoted as telling the people of Alaska and she agreed to testify.

But then, after having been picked by John McCain to be his running mate, Palin has suddenly reversed course and decided not to cooperate with the investigation.

The Anchorage Daily News, evidently more honorable than the Governor, doesn’t like hypocrisy or deception and said in an Op-Ed piece that since Governor Palin takes every opportunity to tell the public how she honest she is and how she stands for transparency in government, she should honor her original commitment to fully cooperate with the investigation.

But political observers from both sides of the aisle agree that the Governor and the McCain campaign have decided to stonewall the investigation in an effort to prevent the voting public from learning the truth about Palin’s behavior until after they go to the polls on November 4.

Though the investigation is nowhere near being concluded, the McCain campaign has already determined that Governor Palin is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. “The Governor did nothing wrong and has nothing to hide,” the campaign said in an August 29 statement.

Moreover, the McCain campaign, without citing any supporting evidence, claims that the investigation was not initiated by the Alaska State Legislature but was initiated by the Obama campaign. To support its position, the campaign issued the following unsubstantiated accusation: “It’s outrageous that the Obama campaign is trying to attack her over a family issue. As a reformer and a leader on ethics reform, she has been happy to help out in the investigation of this matter, because she was never directly involved.”

So what would she do if she was ‘directly involved’?

Hmmm.

Okay . . . let’s ask a couple of salient questions.

Does Sarah Palin seriously believe that we can’t see that she’s trying to block the investigation because she in fact does have something to hide?

Does the McCain campaign seriously believe that we’ll actually buy the “Obama campaign is trying to attack her over a family issue” line?

Do we really want another double-speaking, innuendo-dropping, hypocritical, self-serving politician to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

And how about John “I approve this message” McCain? He picked Palin and he allows his campaign to come up with lies that insult the intelligence of every voter . . . is this kind of character we want to assume the power of the Presidency?

We’ve already seen this act . . . it’s been running night after night for seven and a half years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Shouldn’t we put up the closing notice on the Palin/McCain act before opening night?

Huh?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com

(goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

THE Economy's tanking . . . what should you do now?

l.t. Dravis — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:40:07 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

NEW YORK – Wednesday, September 17, 2008 – THE DOW DROPPED 445 POINTS TODAY . . . So, What should you do about the crisis on Wall Street, taxpayer supported government bailouts, the mortgage meltdown, bank failures, rising unemployment and persistent predictions of an extended recession?

The first and best thing to do is sit tight . . . no matter how hard it may be . . . and think through the implications of what has happened in the past few weeks before you make any decisions about your money and your financial future.

And, while you’re thinking, here are a few things you’ll want to keep in mind.

In an uncertain economy, cash is king . . . so hold on to as much of it as you can.

Don’t buy anything you don’t absolutely need and avoid debt at all costs. Translation: If you can go to someone else’s home for the holidays and save the cost of that kitchen remodel you were dying to do, do it.

Forget about buying the larger house in a buyer’s market . . . for now . . . the experts predict that we won’t see the bottom in the housing market until 2009. So, if you can wait, wait.

Don’t waste time switching banks. You’re insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to $100,000.00 per account in any commercial bank. If you’re worried because you’re fortunate enough to have more than a hundred grand laying around in any account, find a better place to put your money (like a CD or other interest bearing instrument) . . . TODAY!

The Securities Investors Protection Corporation (SIPC) protects investors like the FDIC protects bank depositors so, your investment portfolio, subject to investment ups and downs, is secure. In other words, even if you’re a Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch client, you can conduct business as usual without losing too much sleep. Double-check with your financial advisor before you make any moves to invest, divest, or diversify.

If you have a 401K account, don’t chase specific investments because when you do, you increase the chances you’ll lose. Even if you’re losing money in your 401K account and your employer continues to match your contributions, stay with it because you’re getting a fifty percent return on your money . . . where else can you get that kind of return? By the way, always talk to a professional financial consultant before you make any moves with a 401K account . . . there’s too much at stake not to.

Pay off all credit card debt before you spend money on anything else . . . look at it this way: You’re guaranteed to make twenty-plus percent on every dollar of credit card debt you retire. You can’t earn that kind of guaranteed money in any traditional investment so get with it!

Insurance companies typically put money into broadly diversified investments which means they are less likely to be hammered by mortgage-backed securities than investment banks. Insurance companies are also required by state and federal law to maintain significant reserves against potential losses. The bottom line? With the exception of an AIG which specializes in insuring mortgages held by banks, keep on paying those premiums. In any case, always, always make sure you’re being covered by a top-rated company . . . if not, switch today.

Should you start stuffing cash in the mattress?

It never hurts to have cash at the ready but with today’s easy-access banking system (extended hours, Saturday hours, supermarket branches even open on Sundays, and a nationwide network of ATMs) you can leave the mattress alone . . . for now.

Remember that like the weather, the economy is unpredictable; it is moved and shaped by internal, external, and sometimes mysterious forces and it will continue to expand and contract whether you like it or not.

However, in the short-term, this economy is not looking good.

Consumers are too debt-burdened to shop the economy out of its current doldrums and for the first time in a long time, tight credit standards have jammed businesses, banks, and large financial institutions into the same sinking boat as consumers.

It’s going to take some time and some strong leadership, and unprecedented consensus governing in Washington, D.C. to turn this economy around which means we aren’t likely to see any serious improvement until spring, 2009.

In the meantime, the best way for you to get through the coming months of economic uncertainty is to do everything you can to create a solid return on your employer’s investment in you, put at least six months’ of living expenses into a liquid investment account, refinance your mortgage to the lowest possible fixed rate, and pay off as much debt, especially credit card debt, as you can.

If you’re looking for a little solace from one of the nation’s best-known leaders, consider the following quotation:

“You know, in this business, you don’t have any control over what the press says and how they portray things. And that’s their prerogative. But I think anybody who looks at it objectively has trouble making the case that somehow this is a bad economy.”

- Dick Cheney – Vice President of the United States of America – 2000 - 2008

Don’t you feel better now?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

IT'S About jobs, stupid!

l.t. Dravis — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:58:49 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

NEW YORK – Tuesday, September 16, 2008 – The people we trusted to govern, lead, and protect our economy – the Bush administration, Congress, the Federal Reserve Board (FED), and the CEOs and boards of major financial institutions - the bunch who brought us the mortgage meltdown, bank failures, and Wall Street’s current collapse, are now busily making things worse.

Because federal regulators sat on their thumbs for decades and did nothing to protect individual and institutional investors and because the FED cut interest rates to make money dirt cheap, CEOs and boards of major financial institutions got greedy and pushed trillions of dollars in mortgage loans on anyone and everyone, whether or not they were creditworthy.

Trillions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities then became worthless because too many homeowners weren’t and aren’t able to make their mortgage payments.

The reasons are simple and predictable.

First and foremost, millions of homeowners have adjustable rate mortgages that ‘adjust’ their monthly payments beyond their ability to pay. This problem has been compounded by the fact that housing values have dropped precipitously, wiping out trillions of dollars in equity, which prevents people in trouble from refinancing to lower monthly payments. Secondly, hundreds of thousands of homeowners lost the ability to pay their mortgages along with their jobs . . . a fate that faces hundreds of thousands more homeowners as the economy continues to tank.

Financial institutions that sell, trade, and use mortgage-backed securities as collateral for operating loans have been particularly hard hit. So, it should have come as no surprise that venerable institutions like Bear Stearns, founded in 1923, would fail or that 158 year-old Lehman Brothers, the 4th largest investment bank in the country, would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, or that Merrill Lynch, one of the most trusted names in the financial world, would be forced to literally give itself away to Bank of America to avoid liquidation.

The Bush administration, Congress, and the FED should have anticipated at least a year ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quasi-governmental institutions, guarantors of trillions of dollars in mortgages, would run out of cash and would ultimately have to be taken over by the Federal Government.

Now, to make matters worse, American International Group (AIG), a major insurer of billions of dollars in corporate loans and mortgages held by banks all around the world is running out of cash. If AIG failed, all those loans would be uninsured and umpteen dozen banks would see their balance sheets tip the wrong way . . . many into insolvency . . . so the Federal Reserve will likely loan $85 billion taxpayer dollars to bail AIG out of its current crisis.

And that’s how the experts are making things worse.

They’re throwing billions and billions of taxpayer dollars at the wrong end of the problem.

Just this morning, the Federal Reserve dropped $70 billion in taxpayer cash on banks to encourage them to ease tight credit conditions with no guarantee that any of that money will ever be lent to businesses or consumers.

Dramatic?

Yes.

Effective?

No.

Throwing taxpayer money at the wrong end of the economy does nothing to change the fact that trillions of dollars in worthless mortgage-backed securities are destroying our financial institutions and threatening the future of the economy we’ve known and trusted for the past sixty plus years.

If the Bush administration, Congress, and the FED were serious about solving this crisis and preventing a reoccurrence next month, next year or the year after, they’d invest taxpayer money to bring back value to mortgage-backed securities.

Until that happens, financial institutions will continue to fail, taxpayers will continue to pay, and the economy will continue to fall apart.

How do you bring back value to mortgage-backed securities?

You give people the ability to make their mortgage payments.

For homeowners fortunate enough to still have jobs, you make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pay back a portion of their taxpayer bailouts by sending financial counselors out to renegotiate adjustable rate mortgages so homeowners can make mortgage payments within their current budgets.

For those who’ve lost their jobs, you create jobs across the country, in a variety of disciplines – from blue collar to professional - rebuilding our infrastructure, building wind farms, refurbishing schools, and cleaning up inner cities so homeowners can make their mortgage payments, support their families, stimulate the economy by consuming other products and services, and generate local, state, and federal tax revenues.

For those who’ll argue against government investment in creating new jobs, keep in mind that because of the unprecedented ineptness of the Bush/Cheney administration’s eight years in power, because of the hundreds of billions of dollars lost by the Bush/Cheney preoccupation with the Iraq war, and because of Congress’ inability to regulate the financial services industry to prevent the current economic crisis, the free market economy is no longer free to correct itself.

Why?

Because business and consumer credit is likely to remain tight for the foreseeable future, because hundreds of billions of dollars in investment capital has been lost through greed and mismanagement, because the national debt costs the American taxpayer nearly $2 billion a day in interest alone, and because historically high deficit spending for the past eight years puts the Federal Government in the position of competing with businesses and consumers for loans.

For these reasons, the economy is no longer free to raise the capital it needs to create, design, produce, and deliver products and services essential to grow and drive the its way out of this mess.

So, while the Bush administration, Congress, and the FED waste billions of taxpayer dollars on the wrong end of this economic crisis, while more and more people lose their homes and their jobs, remember that we actually elected these people . . . freely . . . to lead us to this place.

Makes you wonder why, doesn’t it?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com

(goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

THE Truth behind McCain’s boost in the polls . . .

l.t. Dravis — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:09:07 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Friday, September 12, 2008 – The New York Times is reporting that with 52 days to go until election day democratic operatives are ‘nervous’ about the McCain campaign’s recent boost in the polls.

There are rumblings that some democratic strategists think McCain may have picked up enough momentum in the past week to carry him through to victory on November 4.

I don’t know about that, but there is a legitimate question on the table: Why are voters running to Senator McCain?

Even voters with misgivings about how Obama plans to pay for his proposals say they see his ‘change we can believe in’ message as reasoned, viable, and generally good for the nation and the world.

Voters give Obama kudos for not having jumped from one track to another like McCain did when he recently morphed from the ‘experienced’ candidate to the ‘change’ candidate.

Voters view the selection of Joe Biden to be a solid, straightforward choice without political gamesmanship, controversy, or doubts over potential conflicts or scandals.

Voters understand and appreciate the fact that the Obama campaign focuses on issues, not personalities, distractions or distortions.

And, voters who look into the Obama campaign will see that the two Davids (Axelrod and Plouffe) who engineered the hard fought victory over Hillary Clinton in the primaries are considered by those in the know to be the best of the best (since James Carville) at managing a political campaign.

On the other hand, voters who compare what John McCain says versus what he does will wonder why, despite his ‘anti-lobbyist’ stance, he hired Rick Davis, one of Washington’s best known lobbyists, to run his campaign.

Voters who ask why John McCain and Sarah Palin refuse to talk about specific solutions to specific problems will get their answer from Rick Davis who told the media that the 2008 presidential campaign is about personalities, not issues.

By the way, what do you think? Would Rick Davis stand face to face with laid-off workers in Detroit or with working families struggling to send their children to college or with a retired couple filing for bankruptcy because they can’t pay medical bills or with the families of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq and tell them to forget issues and vote personalities?

Yes? No? Probably not.

In any case, what is the truth behind McCain’s boost in the polls?

It didn’t happen because Senator McCain offered specific solutions to serious economic problems currently faced by the American people.

It didn’t happen because he came up with a strategy to immediately reduce the price of gasoline.

It didn’t happen because he proposed a new plan to immediately begin reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil.

It didn’t happen because he introduced plans to seal our borders and cope with twelve million illegal immigrants and their families.

It didn’t happen because he proposed new legislation to help American families pay for their children’s college educations.

It didn’t happen because he introduced new foreign policy initiatives designed to make the world safer for America and our allies.

And it didn’t happen because the good senator came up with a plan to provide affordable health care insurance for all Americans.

So, what’s the truth behind McCain’s boost in the polls?

The truth is voters chose to believe distortions and lies (like the phony indignation over ‘lipstick-on-a-pig’ and the McCain approved ad that actually accuses Senator Obama of endorsing sex education for kindergarten students) and because McCain slickly picked the inexperienced, proudly imperfect ‘hockey mom-we-all-can-identify-with’ to be his running mate.

What could these voters be thinking?

Shouldn’t they support the candidate whose insight, vision, and judgment embody the leadership qualities necessary to quickly and effectively solve the problems we currently face?

Shouldn’t they support the candidate who best manages his campaign because they can see how he will manage the country?

Shouldn’t they support the candidate who proposes specific solutions for specific problems?

And, shouldn’t they support the candidate with the character, intellect, temperament, and wisdom to be a commander-in-chief who would never send American troops to fight the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time?

Shouldn’t they?

Join the conversation about politics from the working person’s point of view, BOTH SIDES NOW style, at http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com

(goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

WHAT Do you think?

l.t. Dravis — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:18:02 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Wednesday, September 10, 2008 – Okay . . .Republicans, Democrats, and the media wasted another day avoiding the real issues facing the nation by going on and on about ‘lipstick on a pig’.

Come on, folks!

We’ve got serious problems and we don’t have time for this silliness!

So, Senator Obama . . . stop running against Sarah Palin . . . let Joe debate her while you debate John McCain.

And, Senator McCain . . . tell your surrogates to drop the phony indignation about lipstick and a pig!

We’re not buying it.

And, while you’re at it, Senator McCain, tell Sarah to stop lying about her ‘conservative credentials’.

No matter how many times she tells the lie, we know that she was for the bridge to nowhere before she wasn’t . . . okay?

Truth is, we just don’t care!

In fact, we don’t care about Sarah Palin’s record, family, history, or beliefs.

We don’t care who she’s married to, we don’t care how many kids she has, we don’t care how big her family may be, and we don’t care whether she was a runner-up in a beauty contest.

Most of all, we sure as heck don’t care about who got who pregnant, when, where, how and why.

We only care about whether or not Sarah Palin, the hockey mom, the former mayor, and twenty-some month governor of a state with fewer people than Austin, Texas has what it takes to take over for John McCain . . . if he ever does become President and if he ever does become incapacitated.

After all, Senator McCain is 72 years old, has had more than a few bouts with cancer, and, frankly, he doesn’t appear to be the most physically fit presidential candidate we’ve ever seen.

Let’s get to the heart of the matter . . . what do you think of Sarah Palin?

I’m talking about whether or not you think she’s qualified to become President of the United States of America . . . whether she’s capable of handling the toughest job in the world!

So, do you really think that Sarah Palin possesses the ability, the confidence, and the shrewdness it’ll take to successfully negotiate with world leaders like Prime Minister Putin, Hu Jintao, Hugo Chavez, Nuri al-Maliki, King Abdullah II, or the Saudi Arabian Royal Family?

If so, why?

Do you think that Sarah Palin has the political savvy, the insight, the relationships, and the leadership qualities necessary to reach across political aisles in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate to advance an aggressive agenda of ‘change-legislation’ required to rebuild our domestic and international economies, to rebuild our educational institutions to prepare our children to compete with students in other countries, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to rebuild our moral, economic, political, and military standing in the world, to revamp and modernize our military institutions including reserves and the National Guard, and to reduce the size of and eliminate waste in the federal government?

If so, why?

Do you think that Sarah Palin has the background, education, and experience necessary to recruit, motivate, and inspire capable cabinet members, department heads, and to select and appoint qualified Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices?

If so, why?

Do you think that Sarah Palin has the vision, the wisdom, and the skills necessary to create, design, build, and drive the broad-based ‘green’ infrastructure we need to lead the United States of America toward energy independence over the next four to eight years?

If so, why?

Do you think that Sarah Palin has the knowledge, understanding, and tenacity necessary to rebuild America’s image around the world and initiate viable relationships with emerging economic and political factions and nations in an ever-changing world during the next several years?

If so, why?

Do you think that Sarah Palin has the courage, fortitude, and strength required to successfully prosecute the war on terror to ensure the safety of United States of America and its embassies, consulates and bases overseas?

If so, why?

Do you think that Sarah Palin has the judgment, strength, and temperament to be a wise, prudent, and effective Commander-in-Chief of the strongest military in the history of the world?

If so, why?

Do you think that Sarah Palin is the best qualified person in the entire country to become President of the United States in the event John McCain is incapacitated during the next four years?

If so, why?

So what do you think of Sarah Palin?

Think she can do the job?

Yes?

No?

Not sure?

You’ve got fifty-some days to find out.

Hope you’ll watch closely.

Join the conversation about politics from the working person’s point of view, BOTH SIDES NOW style, at http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/

In the interim, if you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

NOTHING Else to talk about but Lipstick on a Pig?

l.t. Dravis — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:28:45 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Tuesday, September 9, 2008 – Good morning, Senator McCain. With less than sixty days until the election, your campaign has evidently run out of things to say about how your economic policies would be better for America than the policies offered by Senator Obama.

Why do I say that?

Because when Senator Obama commented on your economic policies on the campaign trail yesterday, your campaign didn’t respond by telling voters how your policies will create more jobs, stabilize credit and mortgage markets, help more Americans afford college for their children, encourage new investment in U.S. business, increase savings rates for working folks, revamp our crumbling infrastructure, or eliminate our reliance on foreign oil.

Your campaign chose instead to attack Senator Obama with a distraction wrapped in hypocrisy.

Senator Obama was commenting on how your economic policies are no different from the failed Republican policies that brought the nation to its economic knees when he said, “You can put lipstick on a pig . . . it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change’. It’s still going to stink after eight years.”

Okay.

Obama expressed his opinion about your economic plan.

So what?

No big deal . . . right?

Isn’t that what political opponents do?

They point out what they don’t like about the other candidate’s platform, policies, and ideas.

Isn’t that what you do?

We understand that your campaign would disagree with Senator Obama’s characterization of your economic policies, but why wouldn’t it simply respond by telling us why your economic policies are better than his economic policies?

Your campaign didn’t even bother to disagree with Senator Obama.

Rather, it decided the best thing to do was to organize a telephone conference call with the media to demand an immediate apology from Senator Obama for calling Vice-Presidential nominee Palin a “pig”.

Huh?

Whoa . . . what could possibly have caused your campaign to conclude Obama had called your running mate a ‘pig’?

Obama wasn’t even talking about Governor Palin when he made the comment . . . he was talking about your economic policies.

So, how do you make the connection to Sarah Palin?

By the way, where was your apology after your comments last year on the health care proposal put forth by then First Lady Hillary Clinton in the 1990s? Do you remember how you characterized her health care proposals? In case you’ve forgotten, permit me to remind you that you said, “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

Don’t remember hearing that you apologized to Hillary . . . in fact, I don’t remember hearing anyone even ask you to apologize.

In any event, while you’ve recently changed to become the ‘change’ guy, I presume you’re still representing yourself as the ‘straight talk’ guy . . . right?

Okay, so let’s talk straight.

If your economic policies provided viable solutions for the serious challenges that face this nation after eight years under Bush/Cheney and a primarily Republican Congress, your campaign wouldn’t waste America’s time and your money with an ad whining about your supposed indignation over an inane comment about ‘lipstick on a pig’.

Because the ‘experience’ thing didn’t catch on with voters, you’re now trying to sell yourself as the ‘change’ candidate, but after two terms in the house and three terms in the Senate, your record tells us everything we need to know about your interest and ability to ‘change’ anything.

And, when we look closely at the economic policies you’re currently running on, we recognize them as essentially Bush/Cheney policies wrapped in a different logo.

So, it isn’t difficult to understand that your campaign would feel pressured to focus on distractions as opposed to ideas and solutions.

What else can your campaign manager, Rick Davis, and his crew do?

Still, I’m surprised that you would be so obvious about it.

It doesn’t make sense that a campaign so desperate to take away the Obama change mantle would at the same time so obviously play ‘politics as usual’ with phony indignation over nothing.

What if the voting public sees through this charade and comes to recognize what you’re up to?

What if voters begin to see you, your running mate, and your campaign as no better and no different from the Bush/Cheney campaign that smeared you out of the 2000 Republican Primary race with distractions, distortions, and lies?

What if?

Evidently you believe that you and Rick Davis can do to Obama what George W. Bush and Karl Rove did to you eight years ago.

That’s too bad, Senator McCain.

Some of us thought you were better than that.

Guess we were wrong.

WE Don't have to get off your lawn, now, do we?

l.t. Dravis — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:16:09 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA – Tuesday, September 2, 2008 . . . The McCain campaign is getting a little testy these days . . . sort of like the old man who yells at neighbor kids to get off his lawn.

Don’t believe it?

Well, believe this . . . John McCain pulled out of an interview with Larry King because he didn’t like the way CNN’s Campbell Brown interviewed a McCain campaign spokesman by the name of Tucker Bounds.

When you look at Tucker Bounds, you’d think you’re looking at a fairly youthful fellow with a reasonably bright mind who appears to be capable of handling a CNN television interview without causing his campaign to throw a tantrum . . . but you’d be wrong.

So how did Campbell Brown’s interview cause the McCain bunch to take their Larry King marbles and go home?

Brown had been interviewing Bounds about Sarah Palin when she asked, “Tucker, foreign policy experience has been a huge issue in this campaign because you guys made it a big issue, pointing out John McCain has far more experience than Barack Obama and nothing in your view is more important than the campaign. I don’t have to tell you there’s a feeling out there by some that you’re not holding your VP pick to your own standard, the standard you define. So explain to us why you think Governor Palin is ready to be commander in chief?”

Bounds attempted to sidestep the question with, “Governor Palin has the good fortune of being on the ticket with John McCain who there is no question is the most experienced and shown proven judgment on the international state. He understands foreign affairs.”

Campbell Brown is much too smart to let Bounds hide behind John McCain, so she said, “We know all about John McCain, Tucker. I asked you about her. We all know the role of the VP as John McCain defined it is to be able to step into the job of the presidency on day one. I’m asking you about her foreign policy experience.”

That Bounds didn’t want to talk about Sarah Palin was made obvious by his unrelated response: “Yeah, Campbell, there are a number of people supporting Barack Obama’s candidacy and feel he’s experienced enough to take on the oval office. Our feeling is . . . “

Campbell wasn’t about to let Bounds slip and slide away, so she said, “You’re not answering my question . . . “

But Bounds wasn’t getting it. “Just as much experience as Barack Obama,” he interjected.

Campbell, ever the professional, kept going for a meaningful answer. “Okay. So does she . . . you . . . what I’m saying is that you set a different standard by arguing how important it was with John McCain. No one’s arguing with you he has much more experience than Barack Obama, so I’m trying to get someone from the campaign to explain to me what foreign policy experience or qualification she has that would allow her to be ready to be commander in chief if something should happen to Senator McCain.”

“Well, Campbell, let me be clear,” Bounds said, proceeding to not be at all clear. “I don’t think there should be a problem explaining her experience. She has executive state level experience. She’s been in public office reforming Washington. She’s been in executive office longer and in a more effective sense than Barack Obama’s been in the United States Senate. She’s been the commander of the National Guard of the Alaska National Guard that’s been deployed overseas. That’s foreign policy experience.”

Campbell Brown, clearly tired of Bounds’ shameless attempts to spin every answer, said, “If I can interrupt for one second because I’ve heard you guys say this a lot. Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard. Just one?”

But Bounds simply was not going to come clean. “Yeah,” he said. “She’s made . . . any decision she has made as the commander of the National Guard that’s deployed overseas is more of a decision Barack Obama’s been making as he’s been running for the president for the last two years.”

Campbell Brown refused to join Bounds on his spin trip so she pressed on with, “So tell me. Tell me. Give me an example of one of those decisions. I’m curious, just one decision she made in her capacity as commander in chief of the National Guard.”

“Campbell,” he said indignantly, “certainly you don’t mean to belittle every experience, every judgment she makes as commander . . . “

“I’m belittling nothing,” Campbell said, obviously surprised by his huffy reaction. “I want to know one judgment or one decision. I want to know what one decision was. I’m not belittling anything. I am curious.”

“As she makes a decision how to equip or how to command the National Guard in Alaska,” Bounds reached, “that is more . . .”

“But Tucker,” Campbell interrupted calmly, “those are the Pentagon’s decisions. That’s General Petraeus. That’s the White House.”

Tucker Bounds was lost. “Pardon me?”

Brown tried to get him back on track with, “No governor make decisions how to equip or deploy the National Guard. When they go to Iraq, those are decisions made by the pentagon.”

But Tucker Bounds wasn’t interested in getting back on track; he saw an opportunity to distract her and he went for it. “Campbell, on a factual basis, they certainly do. In Alaska, if I have an emergency in your state, the National Guard is under the command of the governor. That is more of a command role than Barack Obama has ever had. I would argue that John McCain and Governor Palin between the two of them have far more command experience in military than either of the candidates on the democratic side.

“I do want to argue this is about the top of the ticket. Ultimately when people go into the ballot box and decided between Barack Obama and John McCain, they will decide between John McCain’s record of reforming Washington and Barack Obama’s rhetoric on the campaign trail, doesn’t have a lot of experience, certainly no command or military experience which both our candidates have. That’s an important distinction I think voters will make the call in November.”

Campbell Brown, clearly recognizing that Tucker Bounds would never give her a straight answer, surrendered with a gorgeous smile. “All right, Tucker. I’m just going to give it to you, baby. We’ll end it there.”

Bounds sighed with relief and simply said, “Appreciate it.”

“I appreciate you coming on and taking time to have this debate,” Campbell said sincerely. “I think it’s important. People don’t know a lot about her. They want to understand her qualifications as much as possible. We’re not beating you up here. We’re not trying to. We’re just trying to educate ourselves and educate our viewers. So I really do appreciate your time and thank you for your time coming on . . . “

___________________________________________________________________________________

That’s the interview that caused the McCain campaign to pull out of the Larry King interview.

And here’s how McCain spokesperson Maria Comella characterized her boss’ reaction to the interview. “After a relentless refusal by certain on-air reporters to come to terms with John McCain’s selection of Alaska’s sitting governor as our party’s nominee for vice president, we decided John McCain’s time would be better served elsewhere.”

What?

Come on, Senator McCain, you’re not really going to tell us to get off your lawn now, are you?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

CHANGE We can believe in . . . delivering the promise

l.t. Dravis — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:03:21 EDT

By l.t. Dravis

Barack Obama has called on Americans to implement change we can believe in; sounds good, but what does it really mean?

Well, you can believe that change we can believe in will not come easy, nor will it happen in a vacuum.

When President Obama is sworn in on January 20, 2009, nothing will change . . . unless and until we, the people, take responsibility for holding government – on all levels – accountable for providing not only the leadership, but the insight, the direction, and the resources necessary to rebuild our communities.

President Obama will need people on the ground throughout the nation; people who are capable of reaching up through government on all levels to mobilize the resources necessary to make change happen so we can revitalize our economy, rebuild our infrastructure, and make government truly responsive to everyone, not just the well-connected, wealthy few.

The people who would make change happen would be Community Coordinators . . . folks whose responsibilities would include mobilizing resources to establish after school programs for children in inner city neighborhoods; soliciting local support, private funding, and government funding for infrastructure improvements in suburban communities; working with major corporations like Microsoft and Intel to provide computers and wireless access for rural school districts; coordinating bank-sponsored seminars on good money management for people from all socioeconomic backgrounds; working to expand enterprise zones for small businesses in rust-belt cities; coordinating solar panel installations for buildings in underdeveloped communities; helping farmers grow more food more efficiently; and on and on.

Community Coordinators would use a step-by-step manual to write, implement, and monitor action/change plans for each Congressional district by:

1. Getting to know the district to determine critical needs and evaluate meaningful opportunities

2. Establishing a series of prioritized goals to define and mobilize the resources necessary to meet those goals

3. Enlisting support of business, education, community organizations, and local, state, and federal government officials to marshal resources

4. Delivering resources necessary to achieve goals to make change happen or take advantage of each meaningful opportunity

5. Following-up to monitor progress toward completion of each goal

Dependent on population and geography, each Congressional district would be assigned three to seven Community Coordinators (democrats, republicans, or independents) appointed to a one year term by the elected Representative.

Coordinators would give up their day jobs as business professionals, police officers, firefighters, teachers, programmers, retail clerks, machinists, et al, to work full time making change happen in their communities. When a Community Coordinator’s term ends, he or she would go back to work and share a once-in-a-lifetime experience with colleagues, families, friends, and neighbors.

Coordinators could also be recruited from organizations like the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE). SCORE volunteers are retired business owners and executives with the education and experience so necessary to apply viable solutions to complex problems. These folks would work to mentor other Coordinators and would hold town hall meetings and offer seminars and workshops to bring individuals, business, education, and government in each Congressional district into the change process.

Coordinators who give up income from their jobs to serve could be supported in part by grants from private groups like the Knight Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and other foundations that support National Public Radio and community based projects throughout the nation with millions of dollars in donations every year. Community Coordinators and their activities could also be supported with cash, employee volunteers, in-kind services, and products provided by corporations and corporate foundations with names like Bank of America, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Ford, Genentech, IBM, Microsoft, Wells Fargo, Wiley Corporation and hundreds of others*.

Though we don’t pretend to have anticipated every contingency here, this outline can serve as the basis for at least taking the first step toward establishing a national Community Coordinator program.

While we recognize that Community Coordinators would be faced with tough challenges on a variety of levels, we also know that there aren’t any quick solutions and there are no short cuts to change.

On the other hand, Community Coordinators, like Peace Corps Volunteers, would be uniquely rewarded by having been part of an experience that is extraordinarily challenging, exhilarating, and worthwhile.

And, that is change we can believe in . . . isn’t it?

*According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy (August 21, 2008), corporations and corporate foundations donated $3.8 billion to community projects in 2007

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

ENERGY Independence . . . what would it mean?

l.t. Dravis — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:51:57 EDT

WASHINGTON – Saturday, August 2, 2008 – Everybody’s talking about exorbitant gas prices. No matter where you go, no matter what you do, no matter who you see, the big topic is how we’re being ripped at the pump.

While President Bush’s drill some more for some more policy will boost oil company profits even higher in 2017 and beyond, it won’t do anything to cut the price for a gallon of gas tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year.

Congress won’t do anything about high energy prices until Representatives and Senators figure out how to come up with some sort of compromise that won’t tick-off cash-flush oil companies or offend voters three months before an election.

Talk about the impossible dream!

Seven administrations, eighteen Congresses, and umpteen ‘Energy Acts’ after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, we are where we are . . . in the same old energy mess, only worse.

The Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations did nothing to make us energy independent even though they knew what we know: There are only two ways to free ourselves from the oil stranglehold we’ve been bound by for the past thirty-five years: First, we have to develop viable alternative energy sources and, second, we have to intelligently, consistently, and significantly reduce the amount of oil we consume.

Not that hard to understand.

So why did 7 Presidents and 18 Congresses fail to make the United States of America energy independent?

Some say the answer lies in the half billion dollar contribution trail that runs from oil companies to lobbyists to politicians over the past 20 years.

Oil companies understand that they’ll never make the really big bucks if they allow Washington politicians to write legislation without a little lobbyist input. At the same time, they’re too smart to let you to catch them manipulating Congress and the White House, so they pay lobbyists millions of dollars to do the dirty work for them. Oil and gas lobbyists came up with a ‘hat-trick’ when they convinced Congress and the White House to parrot the oil industry’s 3-part mantra that global warming wasn’t a serious threat, that it doesn’t make economic sense to invest in renewable energy, and that it is impossible for the United States to ever become energy independent.

So, how do we get around lobbyists and weak-kneed, self-serving politicians to make this country finally energy independent?

We start by understanding what energy independence would really mean to us.

Energy independence will do more than just lower the price of gasoline at the pump. Energy independence will mean more than freedom from decades of OPEC threats to disrupt supplies and increase prices at will. Energy independence will do more than eliminate terrorist threats to interfere with the flow of oil into the United States.

Energy independence will mean that we can finally begin to reverse global warming. Energy independence will give us the freedom to pursue economic and foreign policies without having to worry about how countries like Algeria, Libya, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, and Venezuela might react.

Moreover, energy independence will free up the resources we need to revitalize and stabilize our economy for the long-term, eliminate the federal deficit, pay down the national debt, rebuild our infrastructure, increase our investment in education, and fund social security for the foreseeable future.

After nearly eight years of unprecedented incompetence and lack of direction in Washington, D.C., America is sick and tired of ‘politics as usual’ and is ready to make sweeping changes this November.

This is your opportunity to vote for candidates for the House, the Senate, and for the Presidency who demonstrate they have the vision and the political will to lead us through the economic, social, and technological changes necessary to finally make us energy independent.

Don’t miss out on this chance to vote for change . . . the country may not be able to wait until the next election.

Can you?

CHANGE WASHINGTON OR LOSE THE NATION

l.t. Dravis — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:07:31 EDT

CHANGE THE GAME IN WASHINGTON OR LOSE THE NATION

THE PROBLEM: To preserve their positions of power, Washington politicians have driven the national debt up to nearly $10 Trillion.

Congress continues to authorize spending on the war in Iraq and for domestic and foreign policies, programs, and earmarks that cost far more than the government receives in tax revenues, increasing the national debt, every single day.

According to the watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, Congress stuffed 11,610 earmark projects – a 337% increase over the number of projects pushed through in 2007 – into all types of legislation in 2008, costing taxpayers an extra $17.2 Billion.

Congressional spending gets a bit complicated when a lobbyist’s project or a fat cat contributor’s earmark has to be paid for . . . when checks have to be written to consultants, contractors, and vendors.

What to do?

Congress can do one or more of the following:

Congress can tell the truth and raise taxes to generate the cash necessary to pay for its programs, policies, and earmarks
Congress can admit its own limitations and reduce spending to eliminate deficits
Congress can pay for unfunded appropriations with money printed by the department of the treasury
Congress can finance deficits by competing with consumers and businesses for loans from U.S. and foreign banks

Tell the truth and raise taxes? Never gonna happen!

Admit limitations and reduce spending to eliminate deficits? You’ve got to be kidding!

Print some money? Hmm, that doesn’t sound so hard, does it? If you’re the Federal government, all you have to do is tell your pals at the Department of the Treasury to print up a few hundred billion dollars. Now, this is not an entirely good idea because when the government arbitrarily prints money, the dollar is devalued against foreign currencies and also causes that nasty little gnome known as inflation to raise its ugly little head. If the Department of the Treasury printed enough money to pay for all the deficits authorized by Congress, plus the billions wasted by the Executive Branch of government, inflation would soar to rates that would likely destroy our economy . . . so the government prints only some of the money it needs.

Because the government can’t get away with printing all the money it needs, it takes the next best path of least resistance . . . it borrows, obligating generations of future taxpayers to pay back trillions of dollars, plus interest.

The government doesn’t borrow to make capital investments or to create jobs or to generate profits; it borrows to hide its inability to manage money. Government borrowing strains credit markets by taking billions of dollars away from loan sources for businesses and consumers, puts upward pressure on interest rates, and adds to future interest costs owed by taxpayers. If you’d like to know how irresponsible politicians have become, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) estimates it will cost taxpayers nearly $1.5 Billion Dollars a day in 2008 just to pay the interest on the national debt.

Since President Bush and Vice-President Cheney came into power with a complicit Republican House and Senate in 2001, Federal spending has increased by 45% with no corresponding tax increases to pay for any or all of those added expenditures. At its current rate of growth, experts project Federal spending to increase to more than $50,000.00 per citizen per year within the next decade.

If this isn’t bad enough, nearly 80 million ‘baby boomers’ are expected to retire within the next few years, putting a question mark on the government’s ability to fund Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

THE SOLUTION: We hear lots of talk about change in 2008 but what does change really mean? We’ve heard this mantra from politicians for years . . . remember the Contract With America (CWA) and its Fiscal Responsibility Act that was supposed to secure a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and the line item veto and a host of other promised reforms that ultimately never saw the light of a legislative day? CWA was created by, introduced by, promoted by, and killed by politicians. Even though CWA is credited with giving the Republican Party a governing majority in 1994, even the majority party in Washington wasn’t able to make change happen.

Politicians alone can’t and won’t change anything . . . change will happen only if and when the people challenge politicians to:

CHANGE THE GAME BY CHANGING THE PLAYERS: First things first . . . the old 'business-as-usual' game in Washington has to change. Politicians need to know that voters are no longer going to allow them to spend the nation into bankruptcy. Voters have to let every Representative and every Senator know that any one of them who does not support a comprehensive package of budget and tax reforms to balance the budget and pay off the deficit as quickly as is possible will not be reelected
LIMIT TERMS/LENGTH OF TERM: If every Representative and Senator and the President was limited to one term in office, the power of Political Action Committees and Lobbyists would be seriously diluted, saving untold billions of dollars for taxpayers. Each member of the House of Representatives would be limited to one four-year term, each Senator would serve one six-year term, and the President would serve a single six-year term.
TAKE MONEY OUT OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS: All national campaigns would be conducted in public forums only. Public forums would include open Town Hall Meetings, Debates supported by publicly funded and non-profit organizations (League of Women Voters, National Public Radio, etc.) or media organizations (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc.), public rallies, campaign stops, and other forums to encourage and facilitate open communication between the public and candidates. There would be no media buys, no television advertising, no radio advertising, no mailers, and no billboards authorized, produced, or paid-for by campaigns or Political Action committees, 527 groups, or any other organization. No political candidate would ever again be forced to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and promote negative campaign ads.
DEMAND ZERO-BASED BUDGETING: Each governmental agency would be required to justify every expenditure every fiscal year. Budgets would be established from a ‘zero base’ and every program would be evaluated on a cost versus return basis. Each agency would build its overall budget on the cumulative total of the cost to administer and deliver economically viable programs. Each agency would integrate long-term strategic goals into specific operational areas so costs could be measured against past results and future challenges. Though bureaucrats will argue that Zero-Based budgeting is time-consuming, they can’t dispute the fact that Zero-based budgeting eliminates the waste of money on duplicative, outdated, or unnecessary programs.
PLACE LIMITS ON DISCRETIONARY SPENDING: Discretionary spending (about 1/3 of all Federal dollars spent) includes expenditures for defense, highway projects, etc. Without limits or restrictions, Congress currently determines how much money should be spent on discretionary projects. With statutory limits in place, discretionary spending could be reduced to a level at or below the rate of annual growth of Gross Domestic Product, causing politicians to set realistic budget priorities and negotiate for improved efficiencies and cost cuts.
PLACE LIMITS ON MANDATORY SPENDING: Mandatory spending (2/3 of all Federal spending) is authorized by permanent legislation and includes ‘entitlement’ programs like Food Stamps, Medicare, and Social Security. In addition to funds allocated by legislation, Mandatory Spending is directly impacted by the number of people who apply for ‘entitlement’ benefits. With statutory limits to maintain spending at or below the rate of annual growth in GDP and to meet the costs of anticipated rates in demand for services, politicians would be forced to make responsible decisions before authorizing expenditures.
GIVE THE PRESIDENT THE LINE ITEM VETO: The President would have the power to veto any line item in the budget. Congress could oppose any line item veto with an up or down vote to override, thereby making the budgeting process more transparent and more accountable to taxpayers.
PASS THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT: A Balanced Budget Amendment would change the Constitution to prevent Congress from spending more money than the government collects – with a few tactical exceptions such as a national emergency or war.
REBUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITH PRIVATE-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Congress would develop mutual investment partnerships with major corporations and small business sector specialists to renovate and rebuild airports, bridges, communications, dams, highways, levees, pipelines, rail lines, schools, shipping facilities, subways and utilities. Rebuilding our infrastructure would not only boost our economy and create new jobs; it would also improve the quality of life for people all across the country. Rebuilding our infrastructure would also make the country safer because investments in communications and transportation give authorities greater mobility in their efforts to prevent terrorist attacks.

EPILOGUE: While politicians have the power to legislate change, the people have the power to make change work. If the majority of Americans communicated clearly, directly, and often with their representatives in Washington and if every Congressperson and every Senator knew constituents were monitoring their initiatives, schedules, work habits, and voting records, they wouldn’t have time to waste on lobbyists, special interests, or self interests.

No matter how effective the next President is, real change in Washington isn’t going to happen unless and until the people of this country get to work by communicating with government at all levels, by performing community service, and by volunteering to serve at every opportunity.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards,

l.t. Dravis

An Evening with Michelle and Barack Obama

l.t. Dravis — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:43:31 EDT

I would like to suggest a way the Obama campaign can break through the self-destructive war of words that threatens our ability to win the general election as a desperate Hillary Clinton and the former President continue to prove they and their surrogates are willing to say anything negative about Senator Obama to win the Democratic Nomination.

I believe the Obama campaign has an extraordinary opportunity to present Senator Obama to the nation not as an African-American, not as a naive day-dreamer who happens to be a United States Senator running for the Democratic nomination, but as a man who cares deeply about our nation and its people and as the only candidate truly capable of mobilizing the citizens of this country to join with political leaders from both parties to resolve the host of problems we currently face. The Obama campaign has a unique opportunity to eliminate negative innuendo and speculation about experience, race, and religion by giving Senator Obama a forum from which he can freely speak to and listen to the nation.

I suggest the campaign invest in An Evening with Michelle and Barack Obama, an hour long program to be presented on prime-time network television on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary.

The Senator and Michelle would sit at a roundtable for a candid discussion about the candidate’s motives, his experience, and his vision of the future compared to Hillary Clinton’s motives, documented experience, and vision.

Participants would include:

A. Two representatives from the media, acting as moderators (Anderson Cooper, Candy Crowley, Robin Roberts, Tim Russert, Diane Sawyer, Leslie Stahl, or Brian Williams), would be seated at the table for the entire hour and would introduce each topic (the economy, foreign policy, health care, the Iraq War, the war on terror, etc.) and would manage time allocated by topic and by question; moderators would also ask questions posed electronically and would introduce callers with questions or comments.

B. A Clinton surrogate (Paul Begala, James Carville, General Wesley Clark, Representative Yvette Clarke from New York, or Representative Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas) and an Obama supporter (Senators Claire McCaskill, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry) – would be in place at the table throughout the entire hour

C. A nationally known economist (Austan Goolsbee), would be seated at the table during a specific segment dealing with the economy

D. A foreign policy expert for the campaign (Gregory Craig, Scott Gration or Susan Rice) would join the discussion during a segment on foreign policy

E. A retired military officer (General Anthony Zinni) would be seated at the table during discussions regarding the Iraq War, the War on Terror, and the role of our military in general

The agenda would include:

1. An opening statement in which Senator Obama talks about his motives, experience, and vision for the nation and the world during the next four years.

2. An opening statement in which Michelle talks about why and how she supports her husband’s candidacy and goes on to discuss her vision of her role as First Lady.

3. The candidate would then talk about his choices (generally or specifically) for experienced, qualified, motivated cabinet members and key liaisons in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and in every Governor’s office in every state . . . to enable an Obama administration to implement the changes the campaign stands for and the nation needs.

4. The Clinton surrogate and the Obama supporter would pose questions to the candidate and would rebut answers as directed by the moderators

5. Moderators would then ask questions posed electronically and would introduce callers with questions or comments.

Summary

An Evening with Michelle and Barack Obama gives Pennsylvania voters in particular and the American people in general a unique opportunity to get to know the man, his experience, his motivation, his dreams, and his capabilities in ways that would propel his candidacy through to the nomination and a win in the general election.

Who could ask for anything more?

Regards,

Lynn Dravis

WEEPING FOR GENERATIONS LOST

l.t. Dravis — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:22:00 EST

We are missing something in the Obama campaign. We are missing the impact an Obama presidency would have on young black men and women in this country. Imagine the young high school dropout who, facing a future of drug use, encounters with law enforcement, and consistent failure. could look up to a role model like no other. This would be unprecedented in our history and the impact could be revolutionary.

That point needs to be made - forcefully - by the campaign because the potential is too great to miss.

As Shani Collins, the poet, says in her poem, WEEPING FOR GENERATIONS LOST:

We weep for any black child whose potential is wasted and cast out into the gutters, the streets, the alleys and the sewers of life.

We weep for the black child who never receives a hug. We weep for the black child who never hears I love you. We weep for the black child who is never told that he or she is something special.

We weep for the young dying mothers who no longer embrace life. And we weep for the young dying fathers who use violence to hide their pain.

We weep for the young black men and women who are addicted to hopelessness.

And we weep for those who have given up on life.

But mainly, we weep for the generations lost.

With President Obama in the White House, we may never have another generation lost . . . something the world needs to know.

Thanks for listening.

LTD