Robert Bell's Blog

Doing a Great Job, but....

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:59:33 EST

Obama is doing a great job and handling the Ft. Hood massacre with dignity and proper decorum. His call to hold off making judgements until all the facts are in is a sound call.

Unfortunately, earlier in the year, he was not waiting for all the facts to be in before weighing in on the Harvard Professor case (where the Police mistakenly believed a man trying to break into his own home was a burgler).

You can see where Right-Wing Talk Radio will take this - it writes itself. When Police hassle a black man, well, Obama is quick to jump in and make the call of racism.

But when a disturbed Muslim opens fire on a room full of troops, he calls for us to hold off judgement until all the facts are in.

The latter is the RIGHT ANSWER for both situations. Unfortunately, the earlier gaffe makes the latter fuel for the talk radio folks (who will no doubt dredge up the hoary old "Obama is a Muslim" canard and/or accuse him of sympathy for terrorists).

Nobody is perfect, and President Obama (why does NPR call him "Mr. Obama"?) has done a stellar job so far (compared to the last guy). The economy tanked about the same time he took office, and less than 9 months later, nearly half the "lost" value in my 401(k) has come back, home sales are rebouding, Ford is showing a PROFIT (and Chrysler says it may have one soon). The only downside is the jobless numbers, which usually lag in a recovery.

But just remember in the future, your own line - wait for all the facts to be in. That whole "Beer at the White House" thing was kind of embarrassing.

Other than that, keep up the good work. Still pissed about the dog thing, though. Designer Dogs?

THE DOG - Another Campaign Promise Broken!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:01:20 EDT

Many folks are already disappointed with the Obama Presidency. Some say that he amounts to no more than a slighly more liberal Bush. While some changes have been made by executive order, many other things are just about ths same as they woud have been if Bush was still in office.

Expediency trumps values and beliefs, it seems, once you are in the oval office.

To some extent, one can understand this. After all, the Iraq war (it is a war, or an occupation, or what?) cannot be stopped in a matter of days. Gitmo can't be emptied out without finding a place to take all the inmates (other than Venezuala?). Change doesn't come quickly.

But other things that are not as critical that can be done according to principles, unless you are just lazy.

Obama promised that he would get a dog from a shelter. Why is this important?

Well, every time a breed of dog becomes a celebrity, the puppy mills start cranking them out and the market is flooded, as people want "the same dog as the President has" or "that cute dog I saw on TV!"

Remember the Jack Russell craze from "Frazier"? People ran out and wanted a Jack Russell terrier, as the one on TV was so cute and trained. The reality was that the dogs can be a terror, and without careful training, can destroy an apartment in an afternoon. Throw in poor breeding and inbreeding to meet the demand for puppies, and you have a recipe for disaster.

2-3 years later, shelters were flooded with Jack Russells. Most were put down. You can't adopt-out hyperactive little dogs. No one wanted them. Frazier was off the air, and so much for the dogs.

The same happened whenever any breed becomes a celebrity. Dobermans, pit bulls, english bulldogs, chocolate labs, you-name-it. Once they become popularized, they end up flooding the shelters. Many, such as the fighting breeds, are hard to adopt out (other than to the Michael Vick's of the world) and are euthanized.

I PREDICT that in 2-3 years, we'll see the same effect as Portugese water dogs flood the shelters. West Virginia puppy mills no doubt are racing AT THIS VERY MINUTE to get these dogs and start breeding them quickly while the demand for puppies (and the prices) is high. YOU WILL SEE on CNN in the next few weeks, stories about how demand for these puppies has skyrocketed.

Human nature is a sick thing sometimes, and people will say "I need a Portugese Water Dog like Obama has" and not even think how perverted and depraved it is to want to own a live animal based on what amounts to a fashion trend.

Obama's PROMISE to obtain a shelter dog was a breath of fresh air -and if people followed his lead (as people tend to do) shelters would be flooded with people looking to adopt. The trend of breeding and creating life to satisfy fashion trends might diminish.

(NOTE: there is nothing wrong with owning a a particular breed of dog in an of itself. The problem is when people who don't really want the responsibiliy of pet ownership decide to acquire a pet as a fashion accessory or to be trendy. As a celebrity or leader, it is important to set a good ROLE MODEL for the rest of us).

But instead we have this. Lame excuses. "My daughters have allergies" (get a retired racing greyhound). "Ted Kennedy got the dog for me and he's sick." That's even worse. Trying to pave-over a campaign promise using the dying body of Ted Kennedy.

Yes, that is probably the most disgusting aspect of it. Any criticism of this broken campaign promise is shouted down by raising the cancer-ridden body of Ted Kennedy as a talisman. "How DARE you criticize Obama, when dying Ted Kennedy gave him this dog!"

And others will say, of course, "What a tempest in a teapot! We have a hostage situation here, and a war going on!"

Tell that to the 60,000 Portugese Water Dogs that will be euthanized in shelters in the coming years, as people buy these puppies and then realize, that like any other dog, they require time, patience, attention, training, feeding, space, etc. Yuppies love to buy designer dogs and then dump them at shelters.

Dogs will die, and it didn't have to be that way. Obama would have been better off with NO DOG than to purchase (through Ted Kennedy) a designer hound.

And you know what? I'd be willing to bet there was one of these dogs languishing in a shelter somwhere, too. But like most idiotic Americans, they want a "cute little PUPPY!". Puppies, like children, lose their appeal quickly, and then are ignored. I hope Obama's daughers think about those implications.

How sad, but not entirely unexpected.

When you abandon your principles...

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:28:24 EST

I can only think that John McCain is suffering from the early stages of Dementia.

The John McCain of 2000 was a different man.

In the 2008 election, not only has he turned against every single thing he has ever stood for, he trampled those principles into the ground and then spat on them.

He renounced his own immigration reform bill!

He kow-towed to the far right of the party after years of saying they were the problem, not the solution.

Something is very wrong with McCain - or he was fooling us all those years.

There is an excellent article in this week's New Yorker on the subject.

Their take was that he wanted to be President so badly, he was willing to do anything to get it - and lost everything he had in the process.

I'd be willing to bet he loses his Senate seat. Cindy will dump him, and with the pre-nuptuial agreement, he will be flat broke and living in Sun City, Arizona in a double-wide before long.

A very sad end to what could have been a great man.

When you abandon your principles, all is lost.

LET the INFIGHTING begin!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:05:16 EST

John McCain's closing argument was that if we elect Obama, then the Democrats will run the House, Senate and the White House and run roughshod over the American People.

I, for one, was not worried, as history shows that when Democrats and Republicans run the whole government, they devolve into petty arguments, bickering, and infighting, within about 10 to 15 seconds after the election.

Already we are seeing jockying for power, with Murtha's power play. And I am certain that Hillary will play it strategically if she remains in the Senate, and use her position to let Obama take the blame for the economy (which will get WORSE before it gets better) and run in 2012.

But the bigges dustup is coming out of California. The Gay Marriage Protests are getting ugly, and one big division in the Democratic electorate is between Gays and African Americans, the latter of whom voted 70% in favor of Proposition 8.

Instead of taking this close loss in stride and working to develop a new propsition for next year's ballot (and perhaps outreaching to the community to build support for such a measure), many self-appointed Gay leaders (I didn't vote for them) are pushing the enevelope with protests, lawsuits, and the blame game.

This sort of bitter infighting is accomplishing nothing. It will not overturn Proposition 8, nor will it endear Gays to other voter groups - goups whose support will be needed to overturn Proposition 8 during the next election cycle.

The lawsuits are pointless and ill-advised. Even if successful, they will help spread the feeling that the Courts are being used to overturn the will of the voters. This is just bad Public Relations, period.

And I doubt the lawsuits will be successful anyway. If the State constitution is amended, how can a court say it is unconsitutional?

It would be better to BUILD support and convince African-Americans to vote to repeal Proposition 8.

Ugly protests and accusations are not going to accomplish this. But they will provide much fodder for anti-Gay elements in society.

Where's Barack?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:57:12 EST

There is an old saying, "You can't be TOO THIN, TOO YOUNG, or TOO RICH."

I'll add to that phrase, "An you can't have TOO MANY SENATE SEATS."

We have an election in Georgia on December 2nd, and Saxby Chandliss, who by all acounts is a lazy, bigoted coward, is set to win a runoff, after a fairly narrow win in the general election.

Without the African-American vote, Jim Martin doesn't stand a chance.

We need Obama to campaign here in Georgia. We need SOMETHING.

All I hear about on the radio is Saxby, Saxby, Saxby.

It would be a shame if this "Boss Hogg" were re-elected for another SIX YEARS!

Eight Reasons why GM should go Bankrupt!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:53:21 EST

Let GM go bankrupt. Ford too, if necessary. I am shareholders in both companies, but I've already taken my losses at this point - the stock is essentially worthless. Take the rest. It would be better for the country in the long haul.

If the car companies cannot find debtor financing, THEN, the government should step in and help out duing the post-bankruptcy transition period.

Bankruptcy would:

1. eliminate "golden parachutes" and fat-cat pensions for executives, past and present.

2. Cut UAW wages from their ridiculous levels (4 or 5 times market value) to a more reasonable level.

3. Cut gold-plated retirements and health care for existing and former workers.

4. Allow GM to eliminate unnecessary brands (Pontiac, Buick) without facing Billions in dealer lawsuits.

5. Allow GM to cancel dealer agreements and eliminate unprofitable dealers, without facing Billions in dealer lawsuits.

6. Allow GM to import vehicles from its overseas subsidaries (Australia, Japan, Korea, Europe) without silly caps imposed by the UAW.

7. Allow GM to CLOSE unprofitable assembly plants without having to worry about UAW requirements that they maintain X number of workers.

8. With these savings, invest in product development for new domestically built cars.

Bankruptcy would restructure the company as a PROFITABLE enterprise. A leaner, meaner GM could compete on a world level with any automaker. GM's unburdened overseas divisions are already doing this.

If we BAIL OUT GM without bankruptcy, then nothing changes, and the company is still bloated and unprofitable and all we've done is band-aid the company and patch it up for another few miles down the road, where it will break down yet again.

A pre-bankruptcy bailout would just prop-up the old structure for another 12 months or so. You'd be back to the bailout table in 2010.

While it is tempting to play Superman and "Save the Day" sometimes people (and companies) need to work through their problems.

I've heard some analysts compare GM to an alcoholic - and I think the analogy is apt. Giving money to GM is like giving booze to an alcoholic. It might make them happy for a while, but it does not solve the underlying problem.

Let GM go through its 12-step program and then, only then, help them up from the gutter.

Keep your Friends Close..... (Hillary)

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:27:45 EST

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Sun-tzu
Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC)

Sound advice from 2400 years ago.

Get Hillary in the cabinet or in the administration at all costs.

If she resists, you know what her plan is.

Already, many are saying that she would prefer to stay in the Senate and be free to criticize Obama and take pot-shots at him (and scuttle legislation) and then be able to declare him a "failed President" and position herfself to run in 2012.

I don't doubt it for a minute. She is a strategic thinker. However, I think she fails to realize people will see through the strategy, particularly if we announce it NOW rather than just let her do it.

If she were in the cabinet, however, she could not criticize an administration that she was a part of.

Find her a job - somewhere! But don't let her free-range in the Senate. You will live to regret it.

FALSE CHOICES - Let GM declare Chapter 11!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:21:41 EST

One misconception about the auto industry bailout is that if we don't "rescue" it, it will "go down" and take many other industries with it.

Not true!

The Democrats are presenting a FALSE CHOICE by saying that the only alternative to a bailout of GM is that the company would be dissolved and take out millions of jobs.

Declaring bankruptcy and starting over will not even mean the assembly lines shut down or anyone misses a day of work. It is a seamless process.

What it does mean is that creditors, shareholders, pensioners, workers, and salary bosses will all take a long-overdue hit. They have milked the car companies dry for years, taking the path of least resistance - building empty steel boxes called "SUVs" and "Pickups" which had high profit margins, while conceding the more difficult and competative market segments to the Japanese and Europe.

We we "bail out" GM and others, they will go back to their old ways (particularly now that gas is $1.87 here in Georgia) and sell more SUVs and Pickups and nothing will change.

We cannot reward bad behavior.

In addition, giving GM $20 million without changing the fundamental management and labor structure will just be tossing $20 million down the drain. GM will go under (or request bailout after bailout) and take our money with it.

Why not just nationalize the company like they did in France? (Just kidding, that's an even worse idea!).

This idea of "ALL OR NOTHING" being pur forth by Pelosi and the governor of Michigan (whatshername) is a FALSE CHOICE. Companies CAN go bankrupt and still survive.

Rather than BAILOUT GM now, let it go bankrupt and then if they have trouble getting debtor-in-possession financing, THEN step in (with a loan or a stock purchase).

But propping up incompetent management and corrupt unions is a BAD IDEA. I've seen union members SABATOGE the assembly lines out of shear boredom. And many managers are more interested in building their own empires than in the overall success of the company.

DO NOT REWARD THESE PEOPLE FOR THEIR BAD ACTIONS!

DO NOT USE MY TAXPAYER MONEY TO DO SO!

If you do, WHERE IS MY BAILOUT? You'll have to bail all of us out then - it would only be fair. And that would BANKRUPT the country - chapter 7, not 11, too.

I am SO disappointed that the Democrats are already pandering to Michigan with this bailout plan. I wonder if voting for Obama was the right idea.

One BIG problem with the "big three" is that they ARE in Michigan. The automotive tastes of Michigan (opera windows, landau tops, camaros, Grand La-Barges, crappy quality) do not play well in the coasts. Japan and Europe have filled a void where Detroit has failed.

Let GM go Bankrupt - then bail it out!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:30:07 EST

Barack -

I used to work for GM. I went to their little college, General Motors Institute. I watched as both managment and the unions frittered away a 60% market share by selling cheaper and cheaper cars and mortgaging the future of the company.

PLEASE do not bail out GM - at least just yet. Let GM go bankrupt first. Then provide bailout money as Debtor-In-Possession.

If you give them the money NOW, it will all go to fat-cat salaries for management (and bonuses no doubt) and to continue paying the $70 an hour wage of the UAW workers. It will also prop up extinct brands such as Pontiac and Buick and prevent GM froim paring down its dealer network.

Bankruptcy will force new management, new union rules and rates, and also slim down the company by eliminating unprofitable brnads and dealers.

At that point, GM can survive. If you give them the money NOW as Pelosi wants to do (pander, pander) all that will happen is you will delay the inevitable for a few months, maybe a year.

Let Generous Mothers go chapter 11 and reorganize. THEN bail it out, if they need the dough.

Just my 2 cents. The employes of GM (that is not a typo, they spell employe differently there) both salary and management drove the company into the ground. They should not be rewarded for this task.

Post Mortum: 13 Mistakes McCain made

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:00:12 EST

In his excellent concession speech, John McCain said that he would leave it to others to catalog the mistakes he made in his campaign. So here's a start. By the way, where was the John McCain that gave that concession speech for the last two years? Too late he finally delivers a decent speech!

McCain made so many mistakes, his campaign will be used in political science textbooks for years to come. Here are a few I can think of. Some may seem trivial, but when you add them up...

1. The Count Dracula Black Suits: These made McCain look old and creepy. For a man who needed to look younger than he was, he dressed poorly. I think someone told him black made him look thinner. Bad advice.

2. The Smile: Not since "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" have Americans been subjected to such BAD TEETH and such a FORCED SMILE. Again, some bad advice from someone here. Someone told him to "show teeth". That is good advice for a Hollywood star or someone like Obama who has a natural "big mouth" smile. But for some folks, it just looks creepy and forced. Bad idea. Better off to do the closed mouth smile and look natural than to "show teeth" when it doesn't work for you.

3. "My Friends..." OK, that was funny the first few times around. But after a while it started to sound like a tag line from a bad sitcom - sort of like J.J. Walker's "Dyn-O-MITE!" Presidents don't have tag lines.

4. Immigration Reform: The Bush/McCain immigration reform bill was the only good thing to come out of the Bush Presidency, and the far right shot it down (aided by some opportunistic Democrats). Going against HIS OWN IMMIGRATION BILL was the ultimate flip-flop and it did not play well with the Hispanic voters, who ended up being a deciding factor in many States.

5. Pandering to fear: McCain offered more than enough spurious reasons to fear Barack Obama, but offered no compelling reason to vote for him. He pandered to the "we hate blacks" part of the country (Notice how nearly all the SLAVE STATES went McCain) but turned off the rest.

6. Sarah Palin. Wow. What a colossal screwup.

7. Poor campaign management: He started out with one team in the primaries, blew through nearly all his money and nearly lost, then switched teams, pandered to the far right to win the primary, then switched to another team, and forgot to go back to the center for the general election. He was poorly served by all the management in his campaign, who openly bickered with each other and with Sarah Palin's advisors. Amateur night!

8. Insulting our intelligence: McCain did very poorly with educated voters. When you come out with these claims that Obama is a Marxist or some stupid attack ad that a child can see through, you insult the intelligence of any thinking American. Meanwhile, on the TeeVee, we see images of bellicose and belligerant McCain supporters at his rallies saying some very, very ignorant and nasty things. Smart peope don't go for that. The reassuring news is that Smart people seem to outnumber dumb people, despite "no child left behind". You can't fool all the people all the time!

9. Not Dividing himself from Bush: McCain WAS a Maverick back in 2000 and even 2004. He had serious diagreements with George Bush over many policies, and his record should have been enough to distance himself from the unpopular President. However, in the last few years, as part of his pander spectacle, he aligned himself more closely with Bush, and that backfired.

10. The Cheney Vase: Getting Dick Cheney's endorsement was the kiss of death. What was McCain thinking? He should have told Cheney to go back to his "undisclosed location" and stay there until Novemebr 5th. The only worse endorsement you could get would be Osama Bin Laden himself.

11. "The Economy is Fundamantally Strong" This may be technically correct, but was bad political theater. (The economy will recover with suprising speed, and even now shows signs of recovery, just wait for it). Regardless, however, telling someone who lost their job or house that things overall are good is not the right thing to say. It's all in how you say it.

12. George Bush's Scare the Crap out of Everybody Speech: GW did not favors to McCain when he went on national TeeVee and said the entire country is headed for the dumpster unless we bail out Wall Street NOW with $700 Billion. If the economy seemed "fundamentally strong" the week before, it certainly didn't the next. Bush could have played this better so that it did not hurt McCain as much. Of course, GW and McCain have some history, so perhaps it was intentional?

13. Suspending the Campaign and Rushing to Washington to Save America: This came across as histronics of the worst sort - and a form of narcissism (the word of the hour!). McCain would single-handedly save American from the economic crises! Perhaps that was the plan with Bush all along? Bush would set up a slow pitch for McCain (the crises speech) and McCain would bat it out of the ballpark by "fixing the economy" by passing the bailout bill. If so, someone forgot to tell the rest of the Republicans, who shot down the effort. McCain's "suspension" ended up seeming overdramatic and ineffectual - two things we don't want in a President.

There are, of course, maybe dozens more mistakes he made. Not renouncing the racist and violent comments of his "supporters" for starters (and pandering to that "base base" in the first place). The list goes on and on. It is a TEXTBOOK case of how to lose an election.

His speaking style was also a key. He stumbled and hesitated and sounded like someone WHO DID NOT BELIEVE, IN HIS HEART, WHAT HE WAS SAYING.

The only decent pseech he gave was his concession speech. That was polished and poised and smooth. You felt he WAS speaking from the heart then.

All he needed to do was get the middle class, middle-of-the-road voters. And he failed. Even my Republican friends in Northern Virginia who voted for Bush last time voted for Obama. That says a lot.

He blew it!

Elizabeth Dole Called....

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:27:07 EST

I got a robocall from Elizabeth Dole asking me to vote for her.

Problem is, I am registered to vote in GEORIGA. Wrong State, Liddy!

Why did she call me? Well, I left a message on her website telling her I thought her "Godless" comment about her opponent was totally unacceptable. They asked for a phone number, so I gave them my local number.

Well, Liddy Dole is my new BF. She has called three times now with her robo-dialer.

It is too late for this election, but it gave me an idea. If you want to help squander an opponent's resources, to encourage your supporters to register with an opponent's website, so they waste valuable resources on mailings and robocalls.

But then I thought, "That sounds like something Karl Rove would do". So, no. Bad idea.

Besides, its too late for this election. But I am glad that Ms. Dole squandered a buck or two putting me on her mailing list and calling me over and over again. My answering machine had a nice chat with her robo-caller.

I am SO disappointed in her. She and John McCain have the same advisors, it seems.

THEY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:41:41 EST

THEY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

I went to have blood taken today at the Hospital for a routine test.

The nurse, a young Hispanic, asked me who I was voting for, to distract me while she jabbed me with the needle.

"I'm no supposed to ask that," she said.

"That's OK," I said, "I'm voting for Obama."

She drew back in horror. "Don’t you know he's a Muslim? Don't you know he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Don't you know he took the oath of Office on the Koran?"

I smiled and said, "Those are just rumors on the Internet, they aren't true!"

She replied, "Really? How can you be sure?"

I told her of all the evidence to the contrary, but she remained unconvinced. The fact that Obama has been on video saying the pledge, testimonials from people in his church, video of him taking the oath of office ON A BIBLE, etc.

Nothing would convince her. She kept saying "How do you know it is true?"

Finally it dawned on me.

"You've heard about Reverend Wright, the minister in his church who said all those crazy things, right?"

"Oh yes," she said, "That Reverend Wright is a very bad man!"

"Well there you go," I replied, "He can't very well be a Muslim if he is attending a CONTROVERSIAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH, right?"

"Oh…..right" she said. Perhaps a glimmer of understanding occurred there.

The Republican rumor-mongers CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. They can't criticize Obama for the actions of Reverend Wright and at the same time say he is a Muslim. He's one other, not both.

The fabric of silly lies and rumors has propagated to the point where they disagree with each other.

They can't have it both ways.

P.S. – After all of THAT, she said that she hadn't registered to vote! GOOD!

Pastey Fat (Stupid) White People for McCain!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:56:18 EST

See:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/11/03/spellman.jen.the.security.guard.cnn

Why has CNN run this piece? Very odd. It is hardly "newsworthy" in any regard. And certainly biased.

The poor lady gets laid off from a "high tech job" and is now working as a security guard. Whose fault is that? Apparently Obama's.

Her message "We can't afford to redistribute the wealth to people who don't want to work. Who is helping me?"

This is a common refrain amoung many poor white voters. They mistakenly believe that somehow the Welfare system automatically gives out money to black candidates but that Whites are excluded. Despite data to the contrary, they believe that millions of Blacks are living "high on the hog" while they sweat and toil.

She said attending the McCain rally convinced her. I am sure that attending a Scientology rally has the same effect - everyone is nice to you and you feel loved and wanted.

But in terms of money, she stands to gain more with Obama, who will CUT HER TAXES and perhaps even give her a cash refund of a tax credit.

No wonder she got laid off from that "high tech" job - she can't do math!

(BTW, I see she is suffering, with a brand new pickup truck and plenty of food to eat and a nice apartment!)

Under McCain, security guards will pay more taxes, while the Cindy McCain's of the world get their taxes cut. Just wait for the "trickle down" they say.....

HATEFUL REPUBLICANS Ruin HALLOWEEN

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:33:34 EST

This election has highlighted a certain nastiness among some Republicans. This nastiness has backfired, as it has turned-off most foks.

You already read about the fellow who put up the NO PARKING FOR OBAMA SUPPORTERS sign in his parking lot (a parking lot that had a CONTRACT with city hall for employee parking!).

Now this, the newest and lowest sort of thing - going after the CHILDREN:

GROSSE POINTE FARMS, Mich. - A woman refused Halloween candy to children whose parents support Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Shirley Nagel passed out candy Friday on the scary U.S. holiday, but only to those who shared her support for Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his vice presidential pick Sarah Palin.

Television station WJBK reported that a sign posted outside Nagel's house in suburban Detroit served this notice to children seeking treats: "No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters."

* * * * * * *

Sick, isn't it? Why doesn't she just come out and admit she's racist? Or is this the crop we sow when McCain spreads lies and negativity?

BOOS! versus CHEERS!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:39:54 EST

On NPR the other day, two correspondents following the campaigns were giving their thoughts on the "final push" before election day. One was at a McCain campaign rally, the other at an Obama rally.

While you could not hear what the candidates were saying (the correspondents were talking), you could hear the audience's responses in the background.

The contrast was startling and summarizes this election and the strategies chosen by the candidates.

At the McCain Rally, the responses to McCain's rhetoric were BOO! and NOOOOO! The sound was ominious and negative, almost like the moaning of a ghost. The only other response was chanting of mindless slogans, and even this sounded almost fascist in its negativity. It was not a happy chant.

At the Obama rally, the audience response was CHEERS and happy ones at that. The audience sounded upbeat and happy.

McCain is selling FEAR and NEGATIVITY at a time in our country that people want reassurance and hope.

Obama is selling OPTIMISM and HOPE at a time when our country needs a good hug.

The old "Osama Bin Laden is out to get us" rhetoric doesn't work anymore, as it is clear that Al Queada has been knocked down in Afghanistan, DESPITE the Iraq war (which did more to fuel Al Queada than dispel it).

Fear simply does not sell anymore. We know that we have been lied to all along, and if the government had SIMPLY DONE ITS JOB, 9/11 would not have happened (if even ONE of the 90 FBI agents examining Monica Lewinsky's Blue Dress had bothered to investigate the numerous reports sent in by flight training schools in Minnesota and Florida, the entire plot would have been uncovered and stopped).

Americans are, by nature, are a positive-thinking people. You cannot sell negativism for very long. It has a short shelf life. And the Bush-McCain "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism" are past their expiration date.

McCain on SNL... too little too late?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 08:30:04 EST

McCain on SNL...

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-sen-mccain/805401/

This skit is perhaps too real - he is already doing both the "Reverse Maverick" (doning what everyone tells him to) and the "Double Maverick" (going beserk). The opening QVC sequence was funnier.

Like Kerry and Gore, too little and too late, do they show their human side, so obsessed they are about appearing "Presidential".

The Real John McCain was a decent person. What happened?

He was very poorly served and poorly advised by his campaign staff and advisors.

This could have beem McCain's year. He made every mistake possible.

Dialog and Unity

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:20:11 EDT

McCain promises to unite America. How can this be when he refuses to even allow political dialog?

This campaign, he tells us, is not about different policy positions or rational disagreements over policy.

No.

In the last week, the campaign has been redefined as "saving America" from THEM (The Blacks, the Communists, the Terrorists, etc.).

You are either with us, or with the terrorists. That is the message.

Not only are Obama's policies wrong, McCain says, they will DESTROY THE NATION.

This is a bit extreme, to say the least. How is this "reaching across the aisle?"

The response from the PEOPLE has been "Well, what do you think BUSH has done?" No President in history has done more to ruin the domestic economy, bankrupt the nation, trash our reputation overseas, and bog us down in two wars with third-rate third-wold countries that should have been over and done with years ago.

Which party is really DESTROYING THE NATION? The Republicans.

I drove by the election board today. The line to vote was around the block. I'll try again tomorrow.

Our precinct has only 600 voters, so I might just wait until election day. Nice to see a fantastic turnout.

Obama won the Internet

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:40:06 EDT

Obama will win this election because he won the internet contest. This election will go down in history as the first where the Internet made the difference - in courting the younger voters (and the elderly - they are online all day!) and also in strategy, marketing, and countering negative attacks.

No politician after this will neglect, misunderstand, and misuse the Internet as McCain did.

Go to the McCain website. It is lame. No blog. No interaction. Hard to use.

Go to the Obama website. Easy to use, lots of interactive features. It is clear that Obama "gets" the internet.

Here's how Obama WON the election online:

1. Fundraising: The Obama website raised staggering amounts of money. McCain was too little, too late in this regard, and his "base" is internet illiterate (and the other kind of illiterate as well).

2. Advertising: Starting with the viral videos (e.g., the Obama Mac ad), the Obama campaign has used the relatively "free" medium of the internet to its advantage. The only McCain internet ads and viral marketing came across as some paranoid videos from crackpot religious cults.

3. E-mailing: Both McCain and Obama have my e-mail address as I have registered with both sites. The Obama site sends me an average of an e-mail every day or every other day. They stay in touch and use the medium. McCain sends maybe one e-mail a month if that. But he does love his robo-calls! How 20th century!

4. Mythbusting: The Internet is good at spreading rumors, but after a decade or mroe, people are wising up that you look pretty foolish when you mass-forward some cookie recipe or other nonsense and one of the people you forward it to says "hey, fool, don't you bother to check SNOPES before you hit SEND?" So Internet rumors carry little in the way of weight anymore. And it is SOOOO easy to fact-check online with just a click.

5. Fact Spreading: On the other hand, it IS easy to get the "real dope" on McCain and his policies online nowadays, and thus, you can't make the sort of bland statements and outright lies anymore without people saying "hey, that's not right". Moreover, the media this time around is more aggressive about saying whether something is true or not. Kudos to CNN and teir "fact checker" blog.

The Internet CAN be a tool to improve democracy. Obama will win because he understood this and used the Internet to his advantage. McCain will lose because he viewed the Internet as some sort of fad for kids that was not really important.

By the time of the 2012 or 2016 elections, the concept of "television" as a broadcast medium will be obsolete. More people will be downloading their video online than watching "broadcasts" of shows and news at certain times.

By the next election, the Internet will be the whole ball game, and the concept of "big television buys" for ad time will be obsolete, IMHO.

This is the start of a big CHANGE.

Barbara West – impartial journalist?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:14:41 EDT

Barbara West – impartial journalist?

Barbara West, the "journalist" who asked Joe Biden if Barack Obama was a communist, on the air, is claiming that she is "just a journalist". If you believe that, so is Sean Hannity.

Her husband is a Republican party operative in Florida. She is about as partial as you can get.

This quote from a recent Larry King interview is the tipoff:

West: Well, Larry, no, I don't believe that it is just a graduated income tax. I think a lot of people who are talking to me out on the street are saying they are very, very concerned that this idea of redistributing the wealth means taking it out of somebody's pocket who is a wage earner and putting it in somebody's pocket who refuses to work. And they're asking about. That's what they don't want. That is what they want to know, what does this really mean? My job as a journalist is to ask those questions and get those answers, and I don't believe I got answers at all.

For those of you who don't have your Republican Decoding Rings with them, it goes like this:

"Wage earner" = WHITE PERSON

"Somebody Who Refuses to Work" = BLACK PEOPLE ON WELFARE

The scare tactic of "Black folks getting rich on Welfare while you work your fingers to the bone" is about as old as the hills – and as RACIST as well.

Obama is going to give black folks more welfare, well, because he is one of them!

That is how the argument goes.

Unfortunately for McCain, the only people this argument resonates with are the far right nutjobs who are going to vote for him anyway.

Speaking in code words to interst groups (Christians, for example) is a page right out of the Karl Rove playbook.

Lies of Joe the Plumber

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:10:14 EDT

The "Big Lie" that Joe the Plumber and McCain are perpetrating is that somehow businesses will be taxed on GROSS RECEIPTS rather than net income.

Very few plumbers are making $250,000 a year in net take-home pay. Yet "Joe the Plumber" implies that his GROSS receipts of $250,000 would somehow be taxed under Obama.

Gross receipts have never been taxed at the Federal Level and never will be.

NET PAY is taxed at the Federal level. Average pay for a plumber these days is $47,000. Such folks would get a tax CUT under Obama. Joe the Plumber fails to mention this.

Note also that the argument that a tax hike on the rich will suppress jobs is plainly false. Again, salary expenses for employees are DEDUCTIONS not TAXABLE INCOME, so there is no disincentive to hiring people. You will not "pay more taxes" by hiring more employees.

(Note: "Joe the Plumber" is actually an unlicensed plumber's assistant, and it is unlikely he will "buy the business" he works for anytime soon, the entire scenario was a "gotcha" question for Obama).

Why does "Joe the Plumber" and John McCain spread these clear falsehoods about basic tax law? Because they can. Because to most people, tax law is a voodoo mystery. It really isn't all that hard, if you can add, subtract, multiply and divide. But thanks to "no child left behind" very few can do that either.

Closing Arguments Contrast

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:57:20 EDT

The "clsoing arguments" speeches by Obama and McCain are an intersting study in contrasts.

(McCain, after the fact, said his speeches all week were his "closing arguments")

Obama's speech spelled out his plan for America.

McCain's speech spelled out why he thought Obama was no good.

Obama rarely or never mentioned McCain by name in his speech.

McCain used Obama's name in nearly every sentance.

McCain presented no clear view of the future other than dire warnings of what would happed if we failed to vote for him.

Negative CAN work, but only up to a point. You also have to present your vision.

After 8 years of a failed economy, and a never-ending war, people have to wonder "how can voting Obama be any worse than THIS????"

McCain's negative arguments may have worked in better times, when his "alternative" (more of the same) might sound like a good idea. But his vision of the future is cloudy and vague at best.

McCain has failed on this point. I think that is why he will lose.

Gay Assassins?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:47:35 EDT

The recently arrested "skinhead duo" claim to have been planning a killing spree and an attempt on Obama's life while wearing.......white tuxedos and top hats...????

Am I the only one to think these two would look like refugees from a Gay Wedding?

Am I the only one to think these skinheads are basically a bunch of closet cases?

Am I the only one to think that these "Skinhead Rallies" where young muscled men run around with their shirts off and shouting slogans look no different than the boys at "Fantasy Fest" week in Key West?

Come out of the closet, boys! All that anger is nothing more than repressed sexual frustration.

Perhaps the nice Judge will put you lovers in the same jail cell.

Even in their mug shots, they make a cute couple.

John McCain Codeword Translator

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:41:27 EDT

When John McCain (and his minions, lackeys, hangers-on, spokesmen, et. al.) says "Obama is going to redistribute the wealth" what he is saying really is "The Black guy is going to take away all your hard-earned cash and give it to drug-dealing welfare queens in the ghetto".

THAT is the underlying message, and it resonates with certain voters.

The problem with McCain's underhanded racism is that the only people "convinced" by this are folks already inclined to vote Republican.

WTF?

Polical Junkies (Angry White Men) and Talk Radio

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:08:00 EDT

You know them. You've seen them. Maybe some of them work with you, for you, or are even friends of yours. You know - the political junkies.

They come in all flavors, but are mostly right wing. But the lefties are just as bad, and often have the same (or similar) views. Little more than facist, really.

You can spot them easily. Usually unmarried (or divorced, or soon-to-be) white men, aged 25-50, with a pasty white complexion, bad haircut, 50-100 lbs overweight. They usually drive a small, poorly-made car (e.g., Geo Metro) with the entire back end plastered with rightous bumper stickers.

They listen to AM "talk radio" all day long, in the car, or on their headsets. Rush, Liddy, you name it. At home, it is FOX NEWS, 24/7.

The common denominator is that these folks use political obsessions to subjugate their own personal problems. Moving out of Mother's basement and getting a job? How can you think of such things while BUSH IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE? (Or Clinton, or whatever).

(In the moving "Raising Arizona" there is a great line by Nicolas Cage along these lines. How can he succeed with "Reagan in the Whitehouse"? The phenomenon is nothing new!).

These folks are the political "base" of Rush Limbaugh and the far right of the Republican party. Some on the left seem them as some sort of conquering army or perhaps a polical movement. However, I would suggest that they are little more than a blip on the political radar screen.

To begin with, these "junkies" are NOT part of the "Christian Right" that you read about. Most I've met are not religious at all, and not "Born again" or anything like that. The "dittoheads" and the fundamentalists are two distinct groups and should not be lumped together.

Think about it. How often does Limbaugh talk about Jesus?

Second, while they may have plastered American flag bumper stickers all over the back of their Geo Metro (or Chevy Aveo) it is lost on them that they are driving a foreign car. So while they decry free trade agreements or "Jobs going overseas" they do not practice much of what they preach. They are largely oblivious as to how politics affects their personal behavior and vice-versa.

Third, while they will buttonhole you and bore you to tears with their political conspiracy theories (if you hear "Main Stream Media" more than once, head for the door) they RARELY VOTE. Many I have talked with do not even register to vote. It is like the foreign car thing. Irony is lost on them.

So why do Limbaugh et al. continue preaching to these idiots? Well, it is profitable. While many look at the right-wing talk-show phenomenon and see a political movement, in reality it is little more than a marketing niche. Limbaugh gets high ratings on little-used AM radio stations (and some FM now) and as a result, he sells airtime. He makes a lot of MONEY telling folks what they want to hear.

But that's it. AM radio is largely dead. Ever listen to it? All scratchy and staticy and nothing on but Jesus stations, Spansh-language radio, and right-wing talk radio. So Limbaugh is a "phenomenon" on AM radio in that he has garnered a share of that lucrative white male, aged 18-35 segment that you can sell ANYTHING to.

Not ALL of them, or even a major share, of course, just a large enough number to make the enterprise popular and a cost-effective medium for advertising. If you own an AM station, the right wing talk show is a godsend. Since it is syndicated, it costs little for the owner to franchise, and it generates ad revenue from local tire stores and the like. Maybe you have to hire one guy to babysit the transmitter, a couple of ad salespeople and a front office person, and that's it. It just chugs along and makes money for you, with little effort.

Of course, FM radio is dying as well, and talk radio is making the transition to that media. Think about it, when was the last time you listened to the RADIO? If you go through the dial, it is mostly "Classic Rock" stations (endless playings of "Brown Eyeed Girl") crappy "New Country" radio, some Jesus stations, and one lonely NPR station at one end of the dial. Radio is largely idiotic and more and more irrelevant. Do you prefer "Froggy 92" over "The Wolf 104"? Who the *F* cares? They are all the same. Do you listen to "Hank and Bubba" during "Drive time"? I certainly don't. I own an iPod. And with satellite radio available on all new cars, even the FM band is rapidly becoming a wasteland.

So don't confuse profusion of right-wing talk-radio shows with some vast polical movement. It is aimed at (and listened to) by a small minority of folks who use political junky-ism as a substitute for a real life.

So why doesn't the LEFT have a similar talk radio network? Yes, "Air America" tried to launch a left-wing political talk show network, with mixed results. To many on the left, this is proof that the right is in the majority and the left is declining.

I disagree.

Again, don't confuse a marketing segment with a political movement.

Air America and left-wing talk radio largely failed because people on the left tend to THINK FOR THEMSELVES more. They don't want to be TOLD WHAT TO THINK and be mirror image "dittoheads" for some demagogue on the left (Sorry Al Franken, you're just not that interesting, or funny). Folks on the left are not interested in vitriol or hate speech, no matter how politically motivated.

So the marketing model of right-wing talk radio just can't be applied to the left. And besides, the left has NPR already.

And that cuts to chase. The Political Junkies are not about politics at all. They like the hate-speech aspect of talk radio - thinly veiled and coded words that tell them that THEY are not responsible for their own personal problems. No, no, it is Nancy Pelosi and the Demmycrat party that is causing all the trouble! Time for the two-minute hate.

Certain folks want nothing more than a SCAPEGOAT for their problems, and right-wing talk radio delivers that by the carload.

Yes, such folks (listeners) can be dangerous, as they can be easily manipulated into supporting any demagogue who tells them what they want to hear. But a major political movement? No.

A marketing segment? Yes.

And I think that is one reason that Obama is leading in the polls this time around. McCain and Palin are going around making speeches that appeal to the so-called "base" of the Republican Party, which is a bad strategy. The "base" is already going to vote Republican. McCain needs the "juicy middle" to win, and his talk-radio hate-speech rallies are not going to delvier that vote.

McCain and his advisors confused a marketing segment with a politcal movement.

October Surprise: CHEAP GAS

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:13:59 EDT

I posted several weeks ago:

"Driving to Auburn today, I notice gasoline in HIGH-TAX NEW YORK STATE has slipped to as low as $3.17 a gallon.

There's your "October Surprise" - gas will drop to $2.50, McCain will say everything is now OK, and people, who have VERY SHORT MEMORIES, will line up to buy new Hummers.

You heard it here first... "

On the way South, I've seen gas as cheap as $2.49 a gallon so it looks like my prediction came true after all.

This is nearly a 1/3 decrease in the cost of fuel and is going on totally unnoticed by the media.

The reasons are many and predictable:

1. consuption has gone down, people are driving less and using more fuel-efficient cars. Commuting to work in a 7,000 lb crew-cab pickup is finally being viewed as ridiculous by motorists, The laws of supply and demand again come into play.

2. Oil prices are dropping in response to reduced demand.

What IS interesting is that most economists have noted that gas prices generally spike up (and make a big news story) but then drop back down slowly, over a long period of time (which is not a compelling segment for the 5 o'clock news).

This time, gas prices (and oil prices) seem to be in free fall.

It is hard to believe that only a few months ago, Diesel fuel was over $5 a gallon in many places and gas was well over $4 a gallon.

I wonder if the "October Surprise" this time around is cheap gas. A lot of folks were angry about high gas prices this summer. Perhaps now they will not worry so much about the economy?

McMisinformation on Taxes

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:23:45 EDT

On the CNN ticker this morning, several people posted messages like this one. So similar, that they appear to be taken from a Republican "talking point". These folks would get an "F" in tax law.

Both of these postings make the same erroneous assumption: That a business has to pay some sort of "federal income tax". Not true. For a sole proprietorship (i.e., one owner business) partnership (multiple owner business) or a Subchapter-S corporation, PROFITS "pass through" to the owners.

GROSS RECEIPTS are not subject to Federal Income tax, only NET PROFITS. In both of the examples that follow, the poster assume that the GROSS RECEIPTS of a business are taxed - that somehow the business owner has to pay the highest marginal rate on his gross recipts.

NOT TRUE. Each worker, including the OWNER pays taxes based on what he TAKES HOME. IN all the examples below, the workerd and the owner make less than $250,000 a year - far less.

So why does this LIE keep circulating the Internet? You tell me. Because McCain wants it to.

Yes, I got an "A" in tax law.....

messages follow:

Atlanta October 16th, 2008 11:56 am ET

BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN, your failure to understand business cracks me up. Labor Stats show plumbers make $47,350, round that to $48,000. If Joe employs 4 plumbers at $48,000 and 2 apprentices at $20,000 , an office manager at 40,000 and receptionist at $25,000 then he must make at least $297,000 to pay his employees. Now he has to pay himself, lets give Joe a salary of $100,000. His total salary for 9 employees is $397,000. Lets dont forget to mention business costs and insurance. This example of a small businees of 9 employees will fall into your tax hike over $250,000. Joe will have let got of some employees to pay his taxes. I hope nobody working for a small businees votes for socialism this election!!!!!!

Wharton's Cool of Bezness October 16th, 2008 11:56 am ET

Joe Biden–98% of small businesses earn less than $250K in Delaware? I "fact check" does a number on that one!!!

Let's say Joe has his own plumbing business with 8 other plumbers working for him. At wages of $47,350 each that would be total annual wages of $378,000.00 just for his hired help. Mr. Biden, that looks a lot more than $250,000 for Joe's small business. And guess what Mr. Biden–Joe's business hasn't paid any other overhead or employee benefits, or himself–from those profits yet.

We are so ignorant as Americans–to expect any one of these goombas to really make sense when it comes to understanding small busines?

You know Biden, Obama, and McCain have never had a job outside of public service!! Do either one of these idiots have any concept of what it actually takes to start and grow a small business!

The Conundrum of our Time

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:28:59 EDT

An earlier posting by Susan, trying to convince Wal-Mart employees that Obama is not a Muslim points out an interesting conundrum of our time.

A person working at Wal-Mart is making little above minimum wage, and thus is not likely to be much affected by any tax increases on the rich. And yet:

1. Many poor people vote Republican because they want "lower taxes" when in fact, those making $20,000 a year or less pay little, if any, Federal taxes.

2. Many poor people vote Republican to abolish the "Death Tax" (Gift & Estate Tax) which only kicks in for estates over $750,000 (1.5 million if you do it right). Most are never likely to pay a "death tax" in their lifetimes.

3. Many poor people vote Republican for "jobs" when Republican policies move jobs offshore and insure what jobs remain have lower benefits and pay.

4. Many poor people vote Republican for "values" like being against Gay Marriage and Abortion, yet the poor have more abortions than any other social class (and are more likely to be impacted by an abortion ban, as the rich can fly to Canada if they want to).

5. May poor people vote Republican to "win the war on terror" when in fact their trailer park is not likely to be targeted by Osama Bin Laden anytime soon. However, their spouses and/or children are more likely to be killed fighting in Iraq or overseas.

In short, the conundrum is that the poor consistently vote against their own self interests. Why is this?

The answer is complex. But most poor people are not poor by accident.

The cycle of poverty may be started by lack of acces to education and opportunities. However, the cycle of poverty is perpetuated when the poor make bad economic decisions.

Having a low income is bad. Taking out a payday loan or renting-to-own furniture is even worse. The poor largely remain poor because they make poor economic decisions with what little money they have.

Lack of education is the key - and this explains why Republicans want to "reform" education to concenttrate on rote learning and not enhance critical thinking.

Republicans win elections by appealing to (and perpetuating) prejudices and sterotypes. By planting stories that Obama is a Muslim and by allowing the nightly news to hype on black crime, they have created an atmosphere where uneducated folks are afraid of blacks and religious minorities.

I've worked in auto plants and I've also been a Teamster. Many "hard hats" vote Republican. Back in the day, they were all for Nixon. My hippie communist agitator brother would go on about the "worker's rights" and other Communist nonsense. I'd tell him "Bring that stuff down to the plant and the 'workers' will kick your ass big time!"

Clinton was able to get around this by appearing to be a "Bubba" and also conservative on many issues.

THIS is why McCain has repeatedly tried to paint Obama as a "Liberal Elitist" and "Out of Touch with the Ordinary Worknig American" when clealry it is McCain's policies that are more out of touch.

Many poor folks will vote for McCain based on pride, prejudice and (misguided) patriotism. Not much you can do about it, unfortunately.

A Fresh of Breath Air! (Voice in Another Room)

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:43:48 EDT

At one point in the debate, I left the room to seek refreshment.

Hearing the debate from a room away, I could not hear what the candidates were saying, only their voices.

But the tone and cadence was interesting.

McCain was stumbling, and his voice was a higher pitch, almost like a child whining. It hurt my ears. His sentances went up in pitch toward the end, as if each statement were a question. He sounded like someone who did not believe what he was saying.

Obama's steady baritone was more calm and reassuing, although he stumbled in a few places. On the whole, it sounded like someone in authority talking. Someone in charge and not afraid. Someone.......Presidential?

Returning to the room for the debate, I was amazed and appalled at the number of slipups that McCain made while speaking. Obama stumbled a few times, but McCain seemed to be in the early stages of demetia.

At one point, he called Palin a "Fresh of Breath Air". And at another time, he confused the names of Supreme Court Justices, accusing Obama of "voting down" a Justice who came to the bench 10 years before Obama came to Washington.

I wonder if anyone has cataloged these slipups and boners. It would make a good youtube bloopers tape.....

Joe the Plumber and TAX LAW

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:31:16 EDT

John McCain is exploiting most American's ignorance of TAX LAW to make it sound like the small businessman is going to be taxed out of existance. He uses the example of "Joe the Plumber" to illustrate how the "average Joe" will be taxed under Obama.

What he fails to explain is that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between GROSS INCOME and NET INCOME.

A business is not taxed on its GROSS INCOME, but rather on the NET (take home) pay.

If Joe the Plumber buys a business, he can run it as a sole proprietorship or as a Subchapter-S Corproation (LLC). In either case, he is only personally taxed (at the Federal Level) on what he TAKES HOME, not on his gross receipts.

If he is taking home $250,000 in pay as a plumber, then I am certainly in the wrong business. That is a lot of money for a plumber to make. But then again, many "trademen" can make osix figure incomes if they work hard enough.

But if he is only BILLING $250,000 in sales, then his net take-home will be less than that - a lot less. When he gets done deducting the cost of materials, his truck, his tools, his uniforms, office space, advertising, employee expenses, etc. his take home will be far below the $250,000 cutoff for Obama's tax plan.

McCain doesn't go into the fine points, of course, as he wants to make it sound as scary as possible - as though a BUSINESS will be taxed based on its gross receipts ("what it makes") veruss what people take home.

For a small business, the "Business" does not "make" money, the person OWNING the business makes money. If the person owning the business makes over $250,000 a year, then they are doing pretty well, in my book.

Maybe I need to change occupations.....

A message from the year 2012

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:33:06 EDT

A message from the year 2012

Through the miracle of the Internet, it is now possible to receive e-mails from the future.

I received this one in my inbox, written to myself from October 15, 2012.

Hey –

Just thought you might like to know what's going on now. Obama is finishing his first term as President. Yea he won the election, in the first landslide by a Democrat in decades. No "close call" this time around. Even Florida went for Barack.

Don't get discouraged. I know things looked bleak back in the fall of 2008 (has it been that long?). But times are better now.

To begin with, the economy has recovered. Yes, some changes have been made. But the new GM/Chrysler (GMC), recently emerged from bankruptcy, is doing very well now. National health care has slashed labor costs for the new company, and now that they are finally selling the fuel-efficient cars they've had in Europe for decades, GMC is actually gaining market share. And the Chevy Volt – who knew GM could beat Toyota at their own game?

The election aftermath was messy. Sarah Palin went back to Alaska and was impeached for abusing power and ethics violations. It was not joyous, just sad to see, as her whole life, built like a house of cards, fell apart. Todd left her for a stripper. The last we saw of Palin was a centerfold she did for Penthouse. She needed the cash, apparently. How the mighty have fallen.

Speaking of which, John McCain failed to win re-election to the Senate after his defeat in the Presidential race. I guess all the negativity didn't help his image. He is retired now and living in Sun City, Arizona. Cindy left him for a younger man. Turns out she had a pretty iron clad prenuptial agreement. How sad for John. We wish him well. He now has just one house.

It has been nearly three years since the Iraq war ended. What a waste that was! The new Iraq government is working out as well as you'd expect – rife with corruption and sectarian bickering, but no major violence – yet. But withdrawing from Iraq allowed us to concentrate on Afghanistan, and our troops are largely gone from there as well.

No, Democracy has not flourished in the Middle East. That was a stupid neo-con fantasy. But the governments there are relatively stable and the violence has dropped considerably – along with the price of oil.

Yes, world demand for oil has actually dropped in the last three years. Alternative power sources, including Nuclear have supplanted our needs for a lot of that oil, and for the first time in decades, we are importing less oil than in previous years. Maybe someday we'll export it, you never know (will they let us join OPEC then?).

The housing market has almost recovered to its 2005-2006 levels. It takes a long time for values to rise to those "bubble" levels. But this time, the growth has been slow but steady, and based on reality, not theoretical or hyped-up values. Yea, a lot of investors lost their shirts, but they should have known better. And the folks who were foreclosed upon in 2009 have mostly found new housing since then. Easy mortgages and funny lending terms are a thing of the past. There's laws against that sort of thing now.

And the stock market? Well, doing OK, which is fine with most people after the shocks of 2008-2009. It was rocky going in the Spring of 2009 and a lot of folks thought Barack wasn't up to it at first. But in retrospect, he had to clean up a lot of messes not of his own making. We had to make some sacrifices, but in the long run, we are better off.

So, hang in there. Things will get a lot better in the coming years. It is always darkest before the dawn. But a new day will dawn. Things look pretty good for Obama's second term. You'd never guess who he is running against!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Over the TOP!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:14:33 EDT

CNN is predicting Obam the winner:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/index.html

Meanwhile, McCain in the most DESPICABLE, RACIST move to date, is trying to bootstrap Jesse Jackson's comments about Israel onto Obama.

I guess to John McCain "They" all look alike to him.

The fact that Jackson was AGAINST Obama and threatened to castrate him is just too subtle for Old Man McCain.

(He can't tell the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, either. Hey, they all look alike, right?)

John McCain was a decent and honest man at one time. Unfortunately, he fired his campaign staff and hired the Karl Rove staff. This won him the Primary, but he should have reverted back to the "good" John McCain.

Or maybe we are just now seeing his real true colors? I don't know. All I know is, I liked the old McCain of 2000. But the new McCain of 2008 comes across as a racist reactionary and dangerous old man.

2009 has promise!

Scapegoating: Hitler & the Jews, McCain & the Democrats

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:39:55 EDT

Scapegoating: Hitler & the Jews, McCain & the Democrats

It is no mystery why McCain audiences are "angry" and shouting at the McCain and Palin rallies.

They have been fed a steady diet of propaganda which is as nasty as that used by Hitler in the 1930's.

Recent e-mails and postings (some posted in this blogsite) have alleged that not only is the current Economic Recession NOT the Republican's fault, it is actually the DEMOCRATS who caused it, and in particular, Barack Obama.

Hang on tight, because this twisted logic roller coaster is a wild ride.

The propaganda story goes like this:

The economy was in great shape for years under George Bush, until the mid-term elections in 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress. Since then, it has been nothing but bad news. (This is called confusing correlation with causation, but let's not use Big Words, right?). So obviously this must be the Democrat's fault.

Further, Obama, through an organization called ACORN, forced the helpless Big Banks to lend money to Unqualified Borrowers (code word for the "N-word"). These helpless bankers had to sit by and watch themselves go broke, while Obama and his ACORN minions laughed and the Unqualified Borrowers ended up with million dollar homes for free.

Hitler used a similar story. Germany's economic problems were not caused by a crippling war and years of reparation debt payments. No, it was the Jews, because they ran everything in secret and they drove the economy into the ground for their own nefarious purposes.

It was a ridiculous story, but people BOUGHT IT.

It worked for Hitler, it is "working" for McCain. By creating a SCAPEGOAT, he can FOCUS the energy of people who are all-too-willing and predisposed to HATE.

Is McCain another George Wallace? No, Wallace was a rank amateur compared to McCain.

McCain does appear to have a smidgen of character, though. TOO LATE, he has realized what terrible GENIE he has let loose and is now trying to control the damage.

Sitting in a Vietnamese POW camp, I am sure he never thought he would someday become America's next terrible demagogue.

McCain Sings.....Streisand?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:18:14 EDT

John McCain in 2000 was a funny guy, full of self-depreciating humor. What happened? When did he become the Angry Old Man?When did he stop singing....Streisand?I would have voted for THIS guy:http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=20&gps=83_11_1196_1781&f=00&tt=9&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//vodpod.com/watch/835874-mccain-sings-streisand--Bob.

John McCain and MWAA

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:05:18 EDT

MWAA is the Metropolican Washington Airport Authority.

They run National Aiport and Dulles. The Authority is supposed to be independent from Congress, with the local juristictions (VA/DC/MD) appointing Board members from a list of candidates provided by Congress.

The joke was, Congress provided exactly the number of names on the list as there are vacancies on the Board, and as a result, MWAA is in the pocket of Congress. The local jurisdictions suppsedly control MWAAA, but since Congress provides ONLY X candidates for X Board seats, Congress maintained effective control over this local jurisdicational issue.

There is a famous court case on this from the 1990s, challenging Congress's actions with regard to MWAA. Went all the way to the Supreme Court. The local Jurisdictions (DC, Virginia, Maryland) eventually won.

Who was behind this hijacking of local authority? Why would Congress want to run the local airpots?

More than one person was involved, but John McCain's name was linked to it, and for the pettiest of reasons.

You see, MWAA tried to promote passengers to use the larger and safer Dulles and BWI airports, as they have longer runways, larger facilites, and can handle larger planes. Old National Airport has one of the unsafest landing approaches, short runways, and can handle only smaller planes. National also has a severe airplane noise problem as well. Many called for closing National completely. It is like the old Denver Stapleton airport - located in the center of a major city.

So Congress and the MWAA made a simple rule, known as the PERIMETER Rule. Any DIRECT flight that went further than the Mississippi river had to go out of Dulles or BMI. National would be reserved for shuttle flights to New York and other flights up and down the East Coast and as far west as the Mississippi River.

This did NOT suit John McCain, who wanted to drive from the Capitol, park in the FREE Congressional Parking lot (yes, our overseers have their own parking lot at National) and then get a DIRECT FLIGHT to Arizona from National. No driving to Dulles for our Maverick McCain!

So back in late 1980's/early 1990's McCain said he would halt any Federal funding for airport improvements for WMATA until he got his way. He was willing to shut down the Capitol's three major airports, just so he could have a direct flight home (Most major airports rely on Federal funds to do major repairs, renovations, and even for help in operating budgets).

It was, to say the least, a monumental hissy fit on McCain's part. A major power play, and for what? To help the country? For the betterment of the USA? No, for his personal convenience.

See:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp104:FLD010:@1(sr166)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. MCCAIN

While the legislation approved by the Committee varies greatly from the original version, S.288, as introduced by my colleagues, Senator John Warner, Senator Chuck Robb and myself, I'm glad we're taking steps to abolish the Board of Review in compliance with the judgement of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I introduced legislation on National and Dulles Airports which sought to abolish several of the most egregious examples of Congressional interference in the highly competitive, deregulated airline industry. The legislation, which I introduced with Senator John Warner and Senator Chuck Robb would abolish the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) Board of Review; eliminate the Perimeter Rule at National Airport (this law imposes a 1,250 mile limitation on air travellers beyond which no non-stop flight between National and another airport is allowed); and eliminate reserved parking spaces for Members of Congress and other top government officials.

I am particularly concerned about the Perimeter Rule, which flies in the face of the 1978 legislation authorizing airline deregulation. The Perimeter Rule is found in section 6012 of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986. It prohibits nonstop flights between Washington National Airport and cities more than 1,250 miles apart. The Perimeter Rule was originally devised in the 1960s to limit congestion at National Airport by limiting nonstop flights to and from points within 650 miles and seven `grandfather cities' that were already receiving service.

In the early 1980s, the Federal Aviation Administration adopted the Perimeter Rule, but limited flights to within 1,000 miles. In 1986, the Perimeter Rule was included in the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act, but the limit was set at 1,250 miles. In addition, non-stop service was allowed to both Dallas/Ft. Worth and Houston in a compromise orchestrated by Representative Jim Wright from Texas. This new Perimeter Rule was also supposed to make Dulles Airport a successful air transportation hub for longer-range air traffic, because it would not have to compete with Washington National Airport.

An artificial barrier such as the Perimeter Rule is at odds with the fundamental principles of airline deregulation. The guiding principles of the 1978 Deregulation Act were that the marketplace would decide demand. A legislatively imposed perimeter rule is yet another example of wrongful Congressional interference in the marketplace.

THIS is the real John McCain.

Thought you'd like to know.....

P.S. - the embarassement that our Congressmen got free parking at National Airport (in a land of supposed equality) was addressed in legislation introduced by McCain in 1995:

http://www.google.com/search?q=mwaa+mccain&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GWYF

The "Sense of the Senate" was that free parking for Senators should be abolished. The rest of the spaces on the Monopoly Board, however the Senate gets to keep. ;)

PHILADELPHIA FREEDOM!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:20:58 EDT

You GOTTA LOVE those Philadelphians!

I guess they didn't like having their sports team turned into a campaign event.

PHILADELPHIA (CNN) – Although many Philadelphia Flyers fans cheered and clapped as Sarah Palin took to the ice at the Wachovia Center on Saturday night to drop the ceremonial puck kicking off this town's NHL season, their warm reception was no match for the 90 seconds of sustained booing that rumbled through the arena, drowning out most of the cheers in support of the Republican vice presidential nominee.

As Palin stepped onto the ice before a capacity crowd to drop the puck, joined by her daughters Willow and Piper, the arena's jumbotron flashed a futile message to the thousands of notoriously harsh Philadelphia sports fans in attendance.

"Flyers fans, show Philadelphia's class and welcome America's #1 hockey mom, Sarah Palin," the massive electronic message board pleaded, to little effect. Booing quickly erupted when the smiling candidate emerged from a tunnel leading onto the ice, muffling the applause of any Palin supporters in the crowd.

Some in the audience simply gave her a thumbs down gesture. Others called her names.

Palin spent about a minute and a half on center ice, posing for pictures with Flyers captain Mike Richards and New York Rangers assistant captain Scotty Gomez, an Alaska native. The crowd commotion was sustained for her entire time in the rink.

Palin's showing did not appear to help the Flyers, who looked hapless in the first period, giving up four goals to their rivals from New York. The governor stayed to watch the first two periods with family and staff, and by the time she departed the Wachovia Center for her hotel, the Flyers had narrowed the lead to 4-2.

Through the Looking Glass: McCain Defends Obama

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 10:44:57 EDT

After deriding Obama with a slew of smears, half-truths and outright lies in a series of Campaign ads all ending with the phrase "I'm John McCain and I APPROVED THIS MESSAGE", the McCain camp apparently realizes it has gone too far in inciting anger and even VIOLENCE against Barack Obama.

Having SET THE HOUSE ON FIRE, John McCain shows up in his fireman's gear and fire hose (with his faithful Dalmation, Palin) to PUT OUT THE FIRE and declare himself a HERO on the side of TOLERANCE and DIGNITY - this against his own fan base and supporters.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — John McCain on Friday moved to calm rising anger among his supporters at rival Barack Obama, describing him as a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

McCain was booed after the conciliatory words about his Democratic foe.

The Religious Right doesn' tlike McCain because he isn't one of them. The fiscal Conservatives dislike McCain because his policies are hardly fiscally consevative. Traditional Conservative thinkers are even abandoning ship. Now the crackpot far-right racist hatemongers hate him as well.

What is left for his base?

The McCain campaign will go down in history as a textbook case of what happens when you abandon your moral compass and embrace the hate-mongering "anything to win" philosophy of the Karl Rove et al.

Bush, Bush, and Reagan were able to succeed with the Rove strategies as they at least were true to their own internal twisted logic. But McCain abandons whatever convictions he has as soon as it is politically expedient to do so.

No wonder conservatives are manning the lifeboats. This ship is going DOWN big time!

OCTOBER SURPRISE: $2.50 GAS

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:49:44 EDT

Driving to Auburn today, I notice gasoline in HIGH-TAX NEW YORK STATE has slipped to as low as $3.17 a gallon.

There's your "October Surprise" - gas will drop to $2.50, McCain will say everything is now OK, and people, who have VERY SHORT MEMORIES, will line up to buy new Hummers.

You heard it here first...

McCain's Disasterous Pandering Bailout Plan

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:21:49 EDT

McCain & Co. will say anything at all to get elected at this point.

His latest populist pander, which has drawn fire from his own party, is his claim that if elected, he will seek to buy bad mortgage loans at FACE VALUE from lenders, even though lenders are already willing to sell them for severely marked-down prices.

This reminds me of the episode where Homer Simpson buys a new car, and pays over list price, despite the salesman offering him a lower price. Homer insisted, nay demanded, that he pay the higher price.

Several questions arise if this plan is enacted:

1. Is the U.S. Goverment now the mortgage holder for millions of Americans?

2. If so, will the Goverment forgive these loans, restructure them, or forclose on the homeowners?

3. Should I stop making my mortgage payments NOW so I will be in foreclosure when this occurs? It seems to me that only idiots at this point will continue with their obligations on their loans if the government is going to bail everyone out.

McCain's plan rewards bad choices and punishes those of us who put 20% down and opted for more expensive but more rational 30-year-fixed loans.

The fellow down the street who put nothing down on his million-dollar mini-mansion will have his loan terms (balanace owed and interest rate) reduced to less than that of my modest home. He gets a free ride for being irresponsible.

Meanwhile, even folks with good credit (like me) can't get a loan for anything.

Why are we rewarding bad behavior?

McCain says we need to "shore up" housing prices. But in places like Florida and Las Vegas, there are more homes than there are people. Houses are overpriced. The CRAZY prices NEED to drop to make them more afforable for the PEOPLE.

Trying to "fix" the market by artifically inflating prices is very, very Un-Republican.

Bailing out the banks by giving them face value on bad mortgages as a payback to contributors, however, IS very Republican.

I am SO disappointed in John McCain!

Philly Flyers (Comcast) to Host Palin

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:41:37 EDT

Somone posted a note that Sarah Palin will use the Flyer's opening game as a campaign event to "drop the puck". They thought that this was unfair, as the team was allowing a partisan candidate to use the opening game as a publicity stunt. I agree.

Perhaps they know their audience (Hockey Moms?). I don't know.

It does distress me that comporations (and professional sports teams are for-profit corporations, which is one reason I have as much interest in watching professional sports as I do watching a board meeting or an assembly line running) will let candidates use their facilities to stage campaign events.

I wrote about this before with regard to Hillary using the Maker's Mark facility days before the Kentucky primary. It got a LOT of press coverage, and the owner of the company was a Hillary supporter.

Free publicity, you can't BUY that sort of thing. Worth potentially tens, of not hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Maker's Mark event got headlines and photos in all the media outlets.

You can bet the Palin/Puck drop will do the same. It will get Palin in the news for free, whereas equivalent ad "buys" would run millions.

And do the Corporate Sponsors have to report this lagress as a donation? NO.

Who owns the Flyers? Usually, sports team owners have other commercial interests. Follow the money, as they say. Perhaps they own a TV or radio station that has an FCC license up for renewal?

Let's see. Oh, we do have Google, don't we. Wikipedia has the answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Flyers

The FLYERS are owned by COMCAST. Does that surprise you?

If you are a cable TV company, it helps to have friends in the FCC.

I suspect Comcast, the owners of the Flyers will expect some sort of payback if McCain is elected.

That's how the system works.

War Bonds - An Idea whose time has come again?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:25:05 EDT

While listening to the debate on NPR, a friend of mine was quite taken with the last question submitted by an elderly lady - what sacrifices are Americans willing to make, and what sacrifices would the candidates ask us to make to help make America better?

Bingo. What a question. Both candidates have been PANDERING to the public, each trying to be the bigger Santa Clause, with an economic bailout, tax package and health care reform, all promising more for the voter at less cost.

I wrote about this before - today's voters are all about "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme," and "What's in it for ME, Jack?"

Things like sacrifice, honor, courage, are all out the window. We want the Government to wait on us, hand and foot, while sending the bill to someone else, preferably our Grandchildren.

The question was quite startling, and both candidates punted it. Obama at least mentioned the idea of ENERGY CONSERVATION (dust off that hoary old idea from the 1970's, right?) which was a good START, but he did not take it far enough. He also took a stab at Bush, whose only "sacrifice" was that he asked us to shop more.

McCain totally punted.

We have several problems in the USA. One is a ridiculously low savings rate (1-2%). Another is our high debt, exasperated by the expenses of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During WWII, Americans were asked to SACRIFICE to win the war. No new cars were built for four years. Gas was rationed (it is today in Atlanta, but that is a different story). Peopel ran scrap metal and even carboard drives to gaher "war materials".

And we were all exhorted to "BUY WAR BONDS" to help pay for the war.

Perhaps a similar thing is needed today. Americans should be taught that SAVING is a PATRIOTIC DUTY that also HELPS THEM. By putting aside even a few dollars a month, we could help pay for the "war on terror" and also help Americans increase their dismal savings.

Yea, I know, times are hard, and people need all the money they can get. But even $50 a month adds up over time. And who can't afford a couple of bucks a day for savings? There is always somewhere in the family budget you can scrimp a bit more (take your foot off the accelerator, for example.) If the average American can save a half-gallon of gas a day, they could put $50 a month into savings. It is not impossible to do.

The best thing of all, is that the system is ALREADY IN PLACE. Treasury Direct (www.treasurydirect.com) allows you to set up an account to buy savings bonds (and even t-bills) from Uncle Sam. I have $50 a month taken from my checking account every month, and it adds up faster than you think. Yes, is it hardly a retirement plan, but someday, there will be enough money in that account to buy a new car or pay for some other expense, when I need it down the road. Better to SAVE than to BORROW.

Perhaps we could PROMOTE this savings plan using the "BUY WAR BONDS" type of patriotic appeal. For every $50 of savings bonds you buy, that's $50 we DON'T have to borrow from CHINA or abroad.

If 300 million Americans put $50 away every month. that would be 1.5 BILLION dollars a month - or about enough to equal this "bailout" in 38 months. It would make a difference.

And best of all, it would help the Americans participating in the plan, as they would be saving, not spending, which would reduce inflation and also provide them with some security.

We should encourage SAVING, not SPENDING. The fallacy of the "consumer economy" is becoming all too clear. We mortgages and refinanced our homes for years and years so we could buy inexpensive junk from Costco (made in china, of course).

The ghosts of the Manhatten Indians are having a good laugh. They sold us Manhatten for $24 worth of beads and trinkets and we called them fools. We sold the Chinese the entire country for $24 Trillion in big-screen TeeVees and Jet skis.

Who's the fool now?

Electoral College Map Math

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:37:57 EDT

See:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/

To Win, Obama needs only to take all the "Leaning" and "Safe" States plus ONE Swing State.

For McCain to win, he has to take all his "leaning" and "safe" States, PLUS EVERY SINGLE SWING STATE!

McCain can make NO ERRORS in his campaign from here on in.

A lot can happen in four weeks, but the trends are good for Obama.

McCain abandons Michigan

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:34:48 EDT

McCain has "pulled out" of Michigan to concentrat on other States. He has cut spending in Missouri with only a slim lead (if any) in the State.

If you look at the electoral Map, in order to win, McCain has to win EVERY state he is leading in or "leaning" toward him, AND he has to win all the "tossup" States as well.

For Obama to win, he need only win the leading/leaning States and maybe ONE or TWO tossup States, for example, Florida.

McCain has an uphill battle here. He has to make NO MISTAKES between now and the election, and take EVERY battleground State to win.

If McCain cuts back spending and tanks his campaign, he can keep whatever money is left over.

Sounds like a plan to me, John, Keep the money!

LEAKED: McCain's Secret Economic Plan!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:24:52 EDT

I hacked into McCain's e-mail account and was able to obtain these TOP SECRET documents concerning his Secret Economic Plan.

Yes, John McCain now has e-mail and is learning all about the Internet! Amazingly, within hours of getting on the 'net, Senator McCain has found a SOLUTION to our economic problems!

McCain plans to announce the plan as a last minute surprise before the election. If you were looking for an "October Surprise" then THIS IS IT!

McCain plans on getting $700 BILLION for the bailout through "certain modalities". Transcript of TOP SECRET e-mail follows:

* * * * *

From the Desk Of:
Prof Charles Soludo
Executive Governor (CBN)
IMMEDIATE PAYMENT
REF: CBN/IRD/CBX/021/009
[OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR]

Dear Mr. John McCain:

We have this 2008 received a payment credit instruction from the federal Government of Nigeria to credit your account with your full contract funds from the Nigerian reserve account with our bank in the sum of USD $700,000,000,000.00 (SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS). This is to notify you that you funds has been programmed for immediate release into your nominated account but we can not transfer this funds direct to your nominated bank account, because we are having a little problem with International Monetary Fund (IMF) so our method of payment is by Diplomatic Courier Service Be inform that every arrangement regarding your cash payment through diplomatic services has been made; note that your funds have been package like a consignment.Be informing that the Diplomatic Agency has to move down to your Country in order to deliver the Consignment to your doorstep.

Note that as soon as the Diplomatic arrive to your Country they will give you a call immediately to enable you help them to get (Yellow Tag Paper).You have to help the diplomats to get (yellow Tag Paper) so that the customs and immigration will not stop them in Airport, for security reason you are advice to follow the rules and regulation of the diplomats for easy collection of the consignment, you have to welcome the diplomatic agent, to enable them deliver the Consignment to you immediately, be inform that as soon as the diplomatic obtain the above name certificate they will deliver the Consignment to your door step.To remind you that the diplomats has a transit to united state and finally to arrive at your Country as the last destination on their diplomatic travel route this week,I want you to send your direct mobile phone and your home address to me immediately, so that as soon as the diplomatic arrive in State they will call you immediately to notify you. call me immediately.

Your Full Name: ______________________________
Your Complete Address (Physical Address with Zip Code not
P.O.BOX) : ______________________________
Your Age________________________
Name of City of Residence:_______________________________
Country:____________________________________
Direct Telephone Number:____________________________________
Mobile
Number:____________________________________
Number:___________________________________
Occupation:________________________________
E - Mail______________________________PROFESSOR CHARLES C. SOLUDO,
GOVERNOR, CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (CBN)
NOTE: RESPONSE SHOULD BE MADE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT WILL BE TOO LATE

Where did all the MONEY go?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:05:07 EDT

Another blogger wanted to know where the $700 Billion went in the first place and wanted NAMES of all the people who made money on this Real Estate fiasco.

If you want names, well, add mine to the list.

I bought Real Estate in the early 1990's after the LAST Real Estate meltdown of 1989. Remember that? Houses upside down, foreclosures rampant, Savings and Loans closing. Government Bailout. That was 1989.

Yes, this all happened before, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale. Real Estate TANKED in 1989.

Anyway by 1995, I bought a few properties (4), some at foreclosure, for what I thought was a reasonable amount of money ($38,000 to $210,000). I was a modest investor and was a little scared by the stock market. I wanted something I could put my hands on. And being handy with tools, I could fix up places, repairing plumbing, electrical, sheetrock, etc.

My "smart" friends all told me I was a fool for buying Real Estate, as they all had lost their shirts in 1989.

I asked them what they were investing in now.

"DOT COM STOCKS!" they said, "You'd be a FOOL not to get in on the ground floor on this one, it will be HUGE!"

We all know how that worked out. Greed.

Meanwhile, my "loser" properties were returning small profits (sometimes $20 to $50 a month) and giving me a nice depreciation deduction on my taxes.

I thought that maybe some day I'd sell them and make maybe a hundred grand and be a "player".

The in 2002 or so, weird stuff started happening. The "Dot Com" bubble burst, and my "smart" friends decided to get into Real Estate. Prices went crazy.

I did the math. At the prices they were paying, they were LOSING $200 to $500 a month on each property, even with the depreciation deduction their taxes.

And they used the loan instruments I never heard of. I always borrowed on 30-year fixed terms, with 20% down (my banker rather insisted on this). They were putting nothing down and making "optional payments" on balloon notes and toxic ARMS.

Like with the "DOT COM" boom, they all talked only with folks who thought as they did - that it could only go UP UP UP!

I went along at first, thinking this increase in equity was pretty cool. Suddenly, I discovered that on paper, I was a millionaire. I never dreamed this would happen to me.

But I have always been a nervous investor.

So I started selling off properties in 2004. I got out in time, but a lot of folks did not.

And a lot of homeowners, enticed by the phantom equity, had taken out home loans. They spent the money. So add their names to the list, too.

It was EVERYONE, basically.

Yes, all those folks who took out home equity loans and SPENT THE MONEY also profited off it.

I know a fellow back then who mortgaged his house for every penny and then bought a new Mercedes and a Lexus for the wife.

When the market went south, he was upside down on his house. He owed more than it was worth.

And then the interest rate went UP on his toxic ARM.

And then he lost his job. He had no savings, so the house went into foreclosure quickly.

Multiply his experience by millions and you have an idea where the money went.

Did he "lose" money? Not really. He spent all the equity in his house. He didn't bother to SAVE any money, though, so when times got tough, he lost it all.

(Folks who didn't do that still own their homes).

Yes, other folks made money too. It was a good time to be a mortgage broker, you could make a six figure salary.

And Real Estate agents, title insurance, closing attorneys, appraisers, home inspectors, all made money on these churning sales of homes.

And yes, bankers and investment companies made money buying the loans, repackaging them and reselling them. Some CEOs got tens of millions of dollars in bonuses.

So there is no "one place" where the money went. It went to a lot of folks and most of it got spent, which is why the economy did so well during that period. We were the walking dead and did not realize it. We were spending money we did not have.

Some folks (like me) saw the writing on the wall. I cashed out and paid off my mortgage, anticipating that Bad Things Were Going to Happen. Again, my "smart" friends told me "paying off your mortgage is the dumbest financial move you can make! You should invest more money in the market!"

I've stopped listening to my "smart" friends. They are all clever and broke.

But few did what I did. Most borrowed more and more and lived the high life.

The poor got dinged the least, in some regards. If you bought a house with nothing down, and now have to walk away from it, what did you lose? You put nothing down, right? Folks who were renters and bought at the height of the market and are now renters again are just back where they started. They are not out much.

Some folks complain they "lost" money because the phantom equity in their house disappeared. But since they never sold when the price was high, that money was just on paper. You have to CASH OUT to realize gains. And they felt that theiir property would go UP UP UP even more. Greed again.

If you want my advice, LEARN from this, and the next time someone hypes something as "The NEXT BIG THING!!" realize where it will go.

Real Estate in 1989

Dot Com Stocks in 1995

Real Estate in 2005

It just repeats over and over again. FWIW.

Ralph NADER....AGAIN?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:01:30 EDT

Obama is AHEAD in the POLLS in FLORIDA! Yeaa!

Oh wait, what's RALPH NADER doing there with 3% of the vote?

And 2% in NEVADA, another battleground State.

Funny, Nader has no registerable support anywhere else.

Saaaayyy.... you don't suppose REPUBLICAN OPERATIVES are funding the Nader campaign in Florida?

Why does Nader still run? Even he has admitted he can't win (see his interviews on www.redstateupdate.com)

He cost us the 2000 election, and he could do it again, if Florida is close.

RALPH, do the RIGHT THING and tell your supporters to VOTE OBAMA.

There is a REAL CHOICE between the candidates, and if you allow your vanity campaign to be a spoiler, you will go down in history as the most arrogant, delusional and selfish man of all times!

PLEASE, RALPH, think it over and DO THE RIGHT THING. You KNOW the Republicans are USING YOU!

Let the SWIFTBOATING Begin!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:35:47 EDT

Obama is UP IN THE POLLS! McCain muddles through the debate and Palin stumbles badly during the Couric interview. It's in the BAG, people! Right?

Hey, remember that DAN QUAYLE was a laughingstock, and his running mate still got elected.

Let's not get cocky, here.

The Karl Rove Playbook, chapter 13, verse 666 sayeth, "For lo, hold back thy weakest and vilest attacks until mere days or weeks before ye election, lest thy opponent have opportunity to fight back."

In other words: LET THE SWIFTBOATING BEGIN!

Expect some very vile and untrue attack ads to start airing from a never-been-heard-from-before 527 group about October 15th to 20th, perhaps even later. Long enough before the election to make an impression, but not enough time to respond to.

What exactly will they harp upon? The Muslim thing? Sort of easy to debunk. Rezko? That doesn't seem to have "legs" either, and McCain's "Al Capone" old Chicago Politcs ads don't seem to play to anyone except the faithful anyway.

There is going to be something. Perhaps a video of troops in Iraq, dressed in camo, saying things about Obama "not supporting the troops" by voting agains the war?

With the "fight the smears" team in place, perhaps Obama will not be a repeat of Kerry, whose tepid, milque-toast response to the Swift Boat attacks only made things worse.

Kerry would have won if he had even admitted the attacks were true (which they weren't) and gave a mea culpa. But instead, he decided to "stonewall it, dammit" and that never plays well.

Here's hoping history doesn't repeat itself again.

Why does the media like to blur the facts to make a good story?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:52:49 EDT

The media is a like a small child sometimes. They take a story and blur or distort the facts in order to "sell" the story. Obama has been a victim of this many times over.

But today, CNN is doing a piece slamming McCain, implying that in the middle of a financial crises, he has the insensitivity to sell off his 13-room mansion.

Problem is, the story isn't quite true. And I think this is a potential TRAP for Democrats who try to make an issue of it.

It is NOT the McCain's selling the mansion, but the NEW OWNERS of the home. McCain sold this home years ago (yes, he still has seven others).

All that gaudy furniture and trappings was added by the new owners, not the McCains.

I am an Obama supporter, but I think the way this is being reported is unfair to McCain.

They are doing this video tour and making it sound like all this gaudy junk belongs to the McCains (It is decorated in turn-of-the-millenium new money gaudy).

Other PRINT articles, at least, makes it clear that the NEW OWNERS are selling it (that toxic ARM must have kicked in!) and that it was extensively remodeled by the new owners.

But in the CNN video piece, the reporter walks through the house ooohing and aaaahing about this and that, without making it clear what was orignally McCains and what was added by the new owners. From the look of it, most of the eye candy was very recently added. Only a few pieces (a fountain, for example) are identified as being originally installed by the McCains.

Other media outlets report that the house was "extensively remodeled" since the McCains sold it many years ago. Does this mean the second garage, the lanais, the outdoor fireplaces, the air-conditioned playhouse? Or was that all McCain's stuff? It is not clear, but the CNN report gives the implication that it is all McCain's junk.

Yes, John McCain had a nice house. But the house for sale on the CNN video is not his house now, nor it is in the configuration he had it in. What was added by the new owners is not made clear.

Why does the media try to blur the boundries to make a good story?

Why is this relevant? Because if Democrats RISE TO THE BAIT and try to slam McCain for "selling his mansion" they will in turn be slammed when the inaccuracies of the story are pointed out.

I think we are being BAITED on this one.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:19:25 EDT

Wow.

House REPUBLICANS shoot down THEIR OWN PRESIDENT'S economic bailout plan.

And who is to blame for this?

The Democrats, of course.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

It's 1984 all right.

Time for "Sonny" to go?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:43:13 EDT

"Sonny" Perdue. Even the name evokes memories of "Boss Hogg" from "The Dukes of Hazzard". Or perhaps that guy who sold chickens. I don't know which. What is becoming increasingly clear is that he is the last vestage of good-ol-boy ineffectual governemnt in an increasingly cosmopolitan, industrialized, and developed State. Georgia 2008 needs modern goverment and a modern governor.

Or perhaps "Sonny" is just punishing Atlantans for some reason. Either way, they should not forget that while they are struggling to get gas, the "Guv" is vacationing in Italy. Oh, sorry, "Conference", right? He can probably learn a lot in Italy about governing. Or perhaps the Italians are going to pick his brains? Slim pickin's for sure!

Maybe Georgia is ready for a change?

* * *

ATLANTA -- While other southeastern states were asking for help with gas shortages, Gov. Sonny Perdue waited a week before requesting a waiver freeing up extra gas for Georgia.

Officials in Kentucky asked on Monday, Sept. 15, for a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to lift restrictions requiring special gas. It was granted the following day.

Virginia and Tennessee also asked for similar waivers after Hurricanes Gustav and Ike struck the Gulf Coast, knocking out oil refineries.

On Sept. 22, a week after Kentucky's request, Gov. Perdue sent a letter to the EPA. The agency granted the waiver for Georgia the next day.

The waiver from the EPA lifts restrictions requiring gas stations to sell reformulated gas in metro Atlanta and other areas of Georgia.

Critics said more gas would be flowing into Georgia if Perdue had acted faster.

“By not managing this, by not reacting, not working steadily with the EPA, not having this relationship, not maintaining it, it drags until there’s another crisis and who gets hurt are the working people,” said Rep. Dubose Porter, (D) House Minority Leader.

Distributors Channel 2 talked with said they gave Perdue’s office a heads up three weeks ago that the crisis would likely happen because of a one-two punch from Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. Add to that the fact supplies are normally low this time of year as refineries switch from a summer to winter gas formula.

“This is the same pattern we’ve seen of waiting too long. There’s got to be that leadership whether it’s transportation, education or here in a gas crisis,” said Porter.

“The people who would criticize that, they don’t understand the way we’re working with the EPA. We were talking with them everyday and timing the request so we could get a positive response,” said Perdue’s press secretary Bert Brantley.

Gov. Perdue left Saturday on a week-long economic development mission to Spain, Portugal and Italy.

* * *

Have a nice trip, Gov!

WHITE TRASH in the WHITE HOUSE

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:50:25 EDT

Sarah Palin's daughter is slated to marry her teenage "beau" to make the baby legitimate. It appears that Palin is waiting until next year, so she can have a White House Wedding (in her dreams!). Won't that be sweet? Sort of like Trish Nixon and that Cox boy, except this time, everyone will be wearing snowmobile boots.

White Trash in the White House! That's what it would be. If Palin is VP, it will be worse than when we had Billy Carter hanging around. What an embarassment to the country - that we would have such an unspohisticated, uneducated, ignorant, superstitious person as our Vice President, representing our country at State events all over the world.

Shes a former beauty queen, for crying out loud. An airhead.

We will be a laughing stock.

OK, so call me "elitist." Throw in "sexist" too, while you're at it. But I'm not the one parading around in a swimsuit and sash on, am I? (Trust me, that would blind you).

What's wrong with being elistist? When did our country start to value ignorance and bad manners over sophistication and grooming? When did poverty start to trump wealth? Why is it the movies and TeeVee make out the poor and ignorant to be noble and great, while the wealthy and educated are shown as buffons or worse? Why do we now aim so low?

Why does our culture CHERISH and promote idiocy?

Perhaps we all should try to be a little more upscale in our thoughts and actions. Maybe our country would be a better place for it. Dream no small dreams!

Yes, I prefer good single malt scotch to Jack Daniels, and a dark microbrew Porter to "Lite" beer in a can consumed in mass quantites. And yea, I'm not imtimidated by a bottle of wine.

And when it comes to racing, I prefer cars that steer in BOTH directions, thank you, and are not some faked up "stock" cars which have nothing to do with the showroom rides they are based on, and are little more than marketing vehicles for sponsors and an industry.

NASCAR Sucks. There, I said it.

And yes, I don't think that food you consume in the front seat of your car is "cuisine" and no, I'm not afraid of vegetables, green or otherwise. A diet of meat and potatoes is fine and all, but I'll take a "pass" on the colon cancer.

And yea, when I say I'm "going to the theater" I don't mean I'm heading down to the multiplex to see the latest Bruce Willis explosion movie.

And yes, I don't think a sectional sofa with a built-in recliner and beer cooler is the epitome of fine funiture design. Give me arts and crafts or give me death!

I'm an elitist. So shoot me. I have some taste. Being boorish and crude is just stupid and boring.

I'll take polite applause over "Yee-Haw!" any day.

And no, "loud pipes" do not "save lives" - they are just beligerant and stupid.

Hey, this is not to say I don't enjoy the occasional tractor-pull or demolition derby. And I've washed down many a corn dog at the State fair with a cold Budweiser (althoug if they have that Amber bock, I'd prefer that). But I don't view these things as special treats or the ultimate in entertainment and cuisine. There is a heck of alot more to life than TeeVee, fast food, and cheap beer.

I LIKE being smart. I only wish I was smarter. I don't envy or resent folks who are smarter and wealthier than I am. I don't admire them either. But being dumb does not strike me as something noteworthy or desirable.

In fact, stupidity, ignorance, and the lack of education is one reason our country IS in such trouble today. Smart folks aren't the ones who bought all those overpriced houses in 2004-2005. Heck, we were the ones SELLING them (I made a fortune, thank you).

Even the wealthy in this country are getting dumber! Joe Sic Pack make a couple of bucks in his construction business, and the first thing he does is buy the ugliest, tackiest house he can find, and then over-extends himself financially. When it all goes horribly wrong, he claims to be a 'victim" of the economy, and not his own actions.

Maybe if our culture valued intelligence, we wouldn't BE in the situation we are in. Bush would never be President, for starters. We would not be in IRaq. The "dot com" bubble would never have happened. Monica Lewinsky would just be viewed as the President's mistress - bg deal. And we'd probably have a comprehensive energy policy as well.

(You know, in France, they use nuclear pwoer for 70% of their electricity, and no one caes about their President's sex life. They also have the best food and drink on the planet, and a 35-hour workweek. And yet we make fun of the "frogs" and pretend to look down on them. Are we THAT insecure as a nation? I think the answer is a clear YES).

It is sad but true that most Americans view intelligence as suspect, and celebrate ignorance as if it were a virtue.

And so-called "intellectuals" are not exempt from this phenomenon, either! How many "professor eggheads" do you know, who will proudly boast that they can't fix a computer or their own car, as if technical ignorance was some sort of virtue. These pseudo-intellectuals may have Master's degrees or PhD's in Politcal Science, Communicaions, Psychology, or whatever, but know little of anything outside their narrow field of endeavor. They don't read books, they just watch TeeVee. It's especially sad, as they consider themselves educated.

Some Bubbas in the country similarly take pride in not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites or Iraq and Iran. "Nuke 'em all!" they would say. And to them. Sarah Palin is a "straight talker" even though her kind of talk could get our country into a whole lot (more) trouble.

Yes, it is important to know the difference beteen Iran and Iraq, particulalry when you are invading their country. And perhaps if more Bubbas understood things like the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, they'd understand that Osama Bin Laden was not aided and abetted by Saddam Hussein - and we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

I don't know when intelligence became a vice and ignorance a virtue. But it is not getting better in this country. We celebrate ignorance in the movies, TeeVee and newspapers, all of which talk down to us at a lower level every year. USA Today, for example, is aimed at a 6th grade level or less. Don't confuse us with complex facts, just spoon feed us the baby food, please.

And FOX NEWS, well, that is like those sweet punch drinks little kids like to drink. Fun to drink, but after 3 or 4, hyperactivity sets in.

When I grew up in the 1960's, the space race was on. We were all encouraged to get good grades, study hard, excel in DIFFICULT SUBJECTS like Math and Science - not that literature and the arts took a back seat, mind you. But back then, getting an "A" in AP Calculus was considered a worthwhile achievement.

Today, parents beam with pride if Junior makes the Dean's list in Remedial Math.

And books are someting that are just not read at all - or if they are, they are "best seller" mysteries, romances, or action thrillers (or how-to books, or shallow political tomes).

My great-great-great grandmother was a school teacher in a one-room schoolhouse in Pompey, New York. Her class learned LATIN and GREEK back then, as well as advanced mathematics, history, logic, and debating. Imagine trying to teach those subjects in school today? You are lucky if the "language" department is little more than ESL and maybe Spanish.

"No Child Left Behind" has concentrated instead on "the 3R's" - rote learning, rote learning, and rote learning. Analytic thought is not encouraged or taught.

An educated voter base is key to maintaining Democracy. Some conspiracy theorists might argue that Republicans would LIKE to see us "dumb down" even more, as we would be even easier to lead like children. And perhaps this is true. But Democrats use similar "dumbed down" messages to attract the "stupid vote" as well.

I think a good place to start is to stop bashing folks for being educated, wealthy, or sophisticated. We should stop celebrating the lowest common denominator as the acme of excellence. We should stop PANDERING to the ignornant and poor by pretending to "be one of them". We should reward true excellence and promote real education, arts, and science.

Maybe, we could turn this country around.

It is NO ACCIDENT that the Engineers, Doctors, and other professionals in this country are more and more likely to be recent immigrants from China, India, and other nations where education and excellence are truly valied. The "natives" here don't want the "hassle" of med school or math or science. Even in the arts, it seems, most of our culture is imported. How many popular TeeVee shows are based on British Imports? (Answer: Nearly all of them, from "the office" to "who want's to be a millionaire?")

Maybe, what we need are MORE elitists. Maybe we should celebrate these values and not denigrate them. And no, the word "denigrate" has nothing to do wiith "the N-word." I have to explain that here - that's how ignorant we have become!

Is Obama an "elitist"? Well, I hope so. That's what we NEED in government right now.

Bush kneecapped by his own party

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:32:51 EDT

I think one of the interesting aspects of the Bush administration is not that he was able to run roughshod over the country doing as he pleased (at least not all the time) but that in many instances, he was stymied by his own party.

For example, his immigration reform package was a humanitarian plan which would have saved lives and recognized the need for guest workers and help preserve their human dignity. The real opposition to this plan? Far right Republicans, who cut Bush off at the knees and left him twisting slowly in the wind - the final insult to his failed Presidency.

But perhaps the final insult is in his "bailout plan." The Republicans, apparently lead or abetted by John McCain, have nearly scuttled this bailout, leading to a panic in world Markets. Ordinarily, the Republicans would LOVE to say "it was the Democrats fault" that the bailout failed to work and that "but for" their obstructionist tactics, something would have been done.

But that's clearly not the case. The obstructionists are the Republicans this time around (and maybe, if we look more closely, most times around).

There are, of course, serious questions to ask about this Bailout. Is it really needed? Whose interests are we protecting?

But the Republicans have handed this thing to Obama on a silver platter. He can question the terms of the bailout without being called "obstructionist" as it is the Republicans who are the ones blocking their own President's plan.

This is just too sweet. It makes me wonder if it a trap of some sort. Could it be the Republicans WANT TO LOSE the election? Perhaps they really don't want to be in power during the next 4 years, as the economy will tank even worse.

Or maybe they are just that incompetent. Or maybe they just don't like McCain. Something.....?

Staged Campaign Events

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:07:53 EDT

(This is in reponse to a posting regarding the incident in Colorado where a teenager was asked to leave school when he wore a t-shirt that said "Obama, the terrorist's best friend." For soem reason, this blogsite is crashing when I tried to post a response).

This T-shirt incident did not "just happen" but was carefully orchestrated.

The teenager's father is a conservative activist and virulently anti-Obama.

No doubt, it was Daddy's handwriting on the t-shirt.

The students were supposed to wear T-shirts to class reflecting themes on America, not political beliefs.

The Daddy, seeing an opportunity to cry "censorship" and try to ding the left as "thought police" had his son wear this inappropriate shirt to class.

So, of course, the school veto'ed it, as it was not appropriate to the assignment and also was disruptive in school.

Daddy, of course, calls all the media outlets and trys to fan the flames of discontent.

Unforuntately, the story did not seem to have any legs to it, as everyone quickly figured out it was a staged stunt. Maybe the kid should try wearing "goth makeup" to school. That story got more coverage.

Unfortunately, the campaigns (and affiliated, non-affiliated, and loosely affiliated activists) try to script these events and make people believe they just happened by accident.

Sort of like miraculously (and coincidentally) discovering your Sunday School teacher in a crowd of admirers at the same time your operatives are speading rumors that your opponent is a Muslim. Yea, Hillary went there. Democrats play the game, too.

The key is to see through these things and judge them for the political theater they are.

No substance, just fluff.

Has Sarah Palin been unfairly attacked? By WHO?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:33:20 EDT

Yes, Sarah Palin has been the subject of unfair attacks. But are they all from the Obama campaign?

Some are from individuals, some from the media, and some, perhaps, are from Republican Operatives.

It's an old gag. You set up an "attack" on your own candidate, using anonymous mass-forwarded e-mails or other media, that are impossible to trace. Then you "denouce the unfair attacks" as being inappropiate.

Why would you do this? Well it paints ANY criticism of the candidate as an "unfair attack" and therefore defuses ALL criticsm.

For example: Palin has admitted that she discussed banning books (in general) with the head librarian in her home town. The Librarian agrees that this discussion took place, and that no specific book was mentioned. The Librarian, however was later fired, and she contends this was because of her refusal to consider banning any books.

That is not an "attack" but a genuine issue to be discussed. But as a Republican campaign operative, how do you defuse this potentially deadly bomb?

Simple: Send out an obviously false mass-email, that purports to be from an Obama supporter, with a list of "200 Books Sarah Palin has banned". Then let the media do the rest FOR YOU.

CNN with its "FACT CHECK" dutifully reports that no, Sarah Palin did not ban 200 books, and many of the books on the list were, in fact, published after she was mayor. So the message is, the "attack" is false an unfair. Sarah Palin is no book banner!

But the underlying story, which is TRUE, is also washed away. Sarah Palin didn't ban books! That's all anyone remembers. A potential BOMB goes Pfffft!

The same is true of other Palin issues. Divert attention away from her REAL record as Mayor and Governor by planting "attacks" on her family and even motherhood. Net result? ANY attack on her record is perceived as "one of those unfair attacks by the media!"

It's a great system. And it works with the Plebes.

The "Rathergate" fiasco did the same thing for Bush. The documents were obvious forgeries (in 1970, we did not have MS-WORD) and so the message becomes: any criticism of Bush's National Guard service is unfounded. This despite some real facts and real documents that raise issues about Bush's National Guard service.

Pretty clever, no? And the media and Mr. & Mrs. Television Viewer swallow it all hook line and sinker!

The really great thing about this strategy is that your opponent's OWN SUPPORTERS are often your BEST FRIEND. Folks on blogsites like this will spread the OBVIOUSLY FALSE rumors for you, as they are such rabid, knee-jerk supporters of Obama. So they forward your forged e-mails and say "hey, look at this, Sarah Palin faked having a baby when it was her daughter's!" wihich, of course is physically impossible (they were both pregnant at the same time).

So, Obama supporters, THINK BEFORE YOU FORWARD. You may be doing Karl Rove's work FOR HIM when you spread a rumor about an Obama opponent. If the rumor is easily debunked, it serves to cloak the opponent in the mantle of legitimacy.

CRISES! SUSPEND THE CAMPAIGN!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:58:38 EDT

Recent events have occurred that dictate that every patriotic American sit down and think about the consequenes of what will happen in the next few months.

McCain is right, how can be have something as trivial as a PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN when events of HISTORIC PROPORTIONS are taking place?

I am, of course, referring to the recent revelations that Clay Aikin is....Gay.

Wow. Didn't see that coming. Amazing. I'm flabbergasted.

A special session of Congress should be called. Congressional hearings are needed.

We need to know WHO KNEW and WHEN THEY KNEW IT. Did the folks at "America's Idol" know?

This blows Palin's "Troopergate" right out of the water!

Americans want answers, and they want them now!

Some things are more important than trivial matters like electing the leader of the free world.

Marching in LOCK STEP!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:17:59 EDT

Some folks on this blogsite have given me a HARD TIME because I do not agree with EVERYTHING Barack Obama says. Too Bad. Only idiots say things like "Mega-Dittos, Rush!" Are you one of those, or do you THINK FOR YOURSELF?

Some folks like to march in LOCK STEP with the words of their leader. And leaders like Hitler and Stalin used people like that to their advantage. THINK FOR YOURSELF, don't just swallow every campaign advert and party line without contemplating what they really mean.

If you think blindly following Barack Obama without analyzing and criticising his actions carefully is what being a Democrat or a Liberal is all about, well, you are sadly mistaken. Leave the Ditto-heads to Rush. Democrats are supposed to THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

That sort of thinking is little more than rooting for a sports team. "Yea for our side! We win!"

That is NOT deep political thought.

Obama has made some serious mis-steps in recent days with his "class warfare" attacks on John McCain, in my opinion.

The only good thing for Obama is that McCain has made even worse mis-steps.

Obama didn't need to "go there" to win. He could win in a walk, if he plays his cards right.

If he tries to pit the middle class against the lower class, however, he will lose. The middle class votes and has money. You need them to win.

That's how I see it. And I don't march in LOCK STEP to anyone's drum beat but my own.

And no, please don't call me a "Maverick." That was one crappy car!

The CRAMDOWN

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:03:12 EDT

A CRAMDOWN in the financial world is a strategy used by some debtors to force banks to renegotiate the terms of a loan in their favor. Probably one of the most famous CRAMDOWNS was done by Donald Trump back in the late 1980's when he faced Bankruptcy. Yes, that Donald. Bankrupt.

He argued that his debt load made him "too big to fail" as if he went down, so would the financial institutions that lent money to him. And he was right. In exchange for taking equity shares in his projects, he was able to renegotiate the terms of this debt and emerge a winner later on.

If you have a vacation home or a yacht you can do this too. Yachts depreciate like mad, and they can mysteriously catch fire, sink, or leave the country. Over a barrel? Just hint to the bank that they might not see ANY of their money or collateral every again and the bankers will fall over backwards to renegotiate the terms of your loan, including balance and interst terms. Ditto for your vacation home. All you have to do is threaten bankruptcy. A Bankruptcy judge can re-state the terms of any loan, including balance owed and interest rate.

Of course, your primary residence is different. It has a different type of mortgage, so you can't play this game. Primary Residence Mortgages survive bankruptcy intact. So you little people, don't get any BIG IDEAS, OK? Some Democrats have proposed changing the law to allow folks to cramdown loans, but others argue this would raise interest rates (a valid argument) on primary home loans. Call it either way.

But today, we are faced with the largest CRAMDOWN in history, the so-called "BAILOUT" proffered by President Bush. We are told that this is an EMERGENCY, albeit one seveal years in coming and that we must ACT NOW, WITHOUT DELAY and WITHOUT DEBATE.

Hmmm.... heard that one before. It was right before they voted on the resolution on the Iraq War? How did that work out?

The financial markets will recover from this, and a few weeks or even months debate (until January 20th I 'd say) is not going to make or break us. We should carefully consider our actions rather than let a MANUFACTURED CRISES mentality drive us to opt for a QUICK FIX without understanding what the terms of the deal are.

Sometimes, it is best to let bad institutions fail and let all of those who invested in them (and yes, that probably means you and me) take the hit. Otherwise, by having taxpayers bail out these institutions, we are making people who did NOT MAKE THE BAD DECISIONS pay for the consequences.

The basic poroblem with Wall Street and the Mortage Mess IS AND WAS THIS: People made hugee money taking risks with other people's money, with no actual risk to themselves. So long as we have markets where this happens, we will have the SAME PROBLEMS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Mortgage brokers and banks made huge fees lining up BAD MORTGAGES that they knew would fail. They took a risk with Fannie Mae's money and got paid regardless of outcome. That has to stop.

My local bank lends only to people they know in the community. Their default rate? ZERO PERCENT - because they do the background necessary before lending. Why are they in effect PUNISHED (by not earning the huge fees the irresponsible bankers made in the 1990's) while the others are REWARDED?

Let the bad businesses fail. New, more honest businesses will take their place, and because of the lessons learned, will instittute SAFEGUARDS to prevent this happening again.

I think we are getting the BUM'S RUSH here and McCain is using this as an opportunity to RUN AWAY from a debate he knows he will lose.

NEWSFLASH: McCain admits he can't use Playstation, Blackberry

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:08:07 EDT

In a recent development that is sure to change the course of the election, Presidental Candidate John McCain admitted that he doesn't know how to use a Playstation or Blackberry personal assistant.

"I tried to use the Playstation" he said, "But with my war injuries and pudgy fingers, I can't press the tiny buttons on the controller" he admitted, chuckling, "plus, who has the time for these things?"

The Obama campaign immediately pounced on this admission as another example of how McCain is "out of touch" with the Average American.

"John McCain is not suited to be President of the United States if he can't properly play a video game!" on campaign staffer said, "After all, how can you be in touch with the Average American if you don't know how to play 'Grand Theft Auto IV'?"

Perhaps more startling was the admission that McCain cannot operate a Blackberry personal assistant, a device he invented during his years in the Senate. "My friends, my fingers are too fat and the buttons too small, and frankly, I don't have the time to learn how to use it. As a Sentator, I have a whole staff of people to waste time with electronic gadgets like this."

Further damaging admissions are forthcoming. McCain apparently cannot program an iPod, text message, Instant Message, and also does not know how to skateboard or slam-dunk, all skills critical to the Presidency. He has yet to "friend" anyone on Facebook.

"At least John Kerry knew how to windsurf" one Obama aid noted, "That put him in touch with the all important slacker consitutancy. But McCain? He's out of touch with today's youth and the Average American!

As part of this ongoing "tech war" with the Obama campaign, the candidates have agreed to a competition on the Nintendo Wii in the upcoming debates, with the winner of the contest being awarded the Presidency.

It's NOT YOUR FAULT!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:42:09 EDT

Silly season continues and both candidates are PANDERING to the voters.

Both are sending the message that ANYTHING BAD IN YOUR LIFE is NOT YOUR FAULT!

GAS PRICES? It is NOT YOUR FAULT that Americans bought huge SUVs and drove up consumption! It was those Chinese all buying cars! It was the A-rabs who refuse to hand over the oil which is rightfully ours! It is the greedy oil companies making all that money! Nothing WE DID caused the problem! Right? Right?

HOUSING CRISES? It is NOT YOUR FAULT that Americans refinanced their houses 6 times in 7 years to take out money to buy that big SUV and a plasma screen TV. It is NOT YOUR FAULT that Americans bought huge houses at overinflated prices and then financed them on toxic ARM interest-only payment-optional loans. No, it has to be WALL STREET that did it, or those LENDERS, right? They put a gun to our heads and told us to borrow the money and pay that much for Real Estate. Nothing WE did had anything to do with it!

HEALTH INSURANCE? It's NOT YOUR FAULT that Americans all want FREE HEALTH INSURANCE but want SOMEONE ELSE to pay for it. Oh, and we want the rightt to SUE THE PANTS OFF any doctor that looks at us sideways. And we want to go to the doctor for every ache, pain, and twitch. Got a headache? Get a CAT scan! Need meds? Dr. Feelgood has the answer, and it's all Free! Why is health care so expensive? Must be those GREEDY DOCTORS and INSURANCE COMPANIES! It's not YOUR FAULT! Government-run medicine is obvioulsy the answer. It works so well in Canada and the UK.

THE ECONOMY? It's NOT YOUR FAULT that Americans voted for LOWER TAXES and MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING. No, George Bush did that, right? Because magically, he can pass laws now and dictate to a Democratically controlled congress how much to spend. Right? Congressman Earmark that you voted for is NOT part of the problem! And besides, we all need a Woodstock Museum and a Bridge to Nowhere, right? It must be the fault of those CORRUPT LOBBYISTS, I think. It can't be you and me!

THE TRADE DEFICIT? It's NOT YOUR FAULT that the cost of production in America is 2-3 tims higher than anywhere else in the world and the quality of our products is lacking. No, that's not even true! The canddiates have told us that AMERICAN PRODUCTS ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD, so trade in that Mercedes for a Chevy, the Chevy is a much better car! And restrictive union work rules and wages 2-3 times as high as the national average are not a problem! And the fact you can't fire anyone from a job (union or non-union) even if they are STEALING, without being sued, i isn't part of the problem, either, right? I mean, we all have to have our RIGHTS, here!

That's what the candidates (both of them) are selling and it is all hogwash. We got into this mess because of you and me, not some convient cartoon scapegoat like a "Wall Street Businessman" in a pinstripe suit or some oil-rich Arab Sheikh.

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Pogo.

Perhaps it is time to OWN UP to our own mistakes that have lead us to where we are. We want SOMETHING FOR NOTHING and then WHINE when we can fill our SUVs with CHEAP GAS and get FREE HEALTHCARE and a HIGH PAYING JOB that requires little or no work.

"Democracy fails the moment the plebes realize they can vote themselves a pay raise" -Heinlein

I think we are in serious trouble, not because we are in serious trouble, but because we refuse to accept that the serious trouble is largley OUR FAULT, not some abstract "OTHER GUY'S FAULT".

The first candidate to SAY THIS OUT LOUD wins my respect.

Joe Biden was right!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:16:04 EDT

As a (potential former) OBAMA SUPPORTER, I AGREE with Joe Biden.

I think the election is Obama's to win and whoever is advising him to attack McCain for having 13 cars and not knowing how to use a computer is giving him bad advice.

People (including myself) will start to ask "Why is this window dressing relevant? Is it because Obama doesn't have anything of substance to say?"

That's the message negative campaigning sends. It might work with the illiterate auto workers in Michigan and Ohio, but the younger voters who energized his campaign will be TURNED OFF.

I know I am! Way to go JOE for speaking the truth!

Obama promosed a DIFFERENT KIND OF CAMPAIGN and it turns out to be the same old Karl Rove bullshit.

Barak, I am SO disappointed in you, man! SHAPE UP!

Fairfax County, Virginia

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:45:12 EDT

Fairfax County Virginia has a population greater the State of Vermont. The entire County is "built out" - there is NO LAND left on which to build houses anymore. Older homes are being torn town to build new. It is that crowded.

IN the last Senate election, Jim Webb won the State with only four counties/cities: Richmond, Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria. If you look at the election map, every other county in the State (and there are HUNDREDS) went RED, with only four little blue dots going for Webb.

But the population of those four little blue dots blows away all those sparsely populated rural counties.

Virginia could indeed be a "Swing State" for Obama, if he doesn't blow it. And he's blowing it, big time.

Obama has unfortuately surrounded himself with fringe left liberals, much as McCain has surrounded himself with far-right conservatives. The net result will be a loss of Fairfax County, and thus Virginia, and probably the election.

My friends in Fairfax County are pretty conservative people. There are a few "hippies" and progressives there, but for the most part, it is conservative folk who work for the government or government related agencies or suppliers. Many are in the military or work for defense contractors. It is a naturally conservative base.

But it is also a highly educated base, and the attack ads of McCain and his choice of Sarah Palin will fall flat. It is Obama's election on a platter unless he does something really stupid.

And he has.

The Obama campaign is stepping up its class warfare campaign against McCain, trying to paint him as "rich and out of touch" with America by criticizing him for owning seven houses and 13 (somewhat lame and older) cars. This is not going to resonate well in Mclean, Virginia.

Most folks in Fairfax County are wealthy by national standards. They live in houses that average over a half-million dollars. Many are in million dollar homes. The number of millionaris is staggering. Fairfax County was briefly listed as the richest county in the country - and still falls in the top 10 or 20 every year. These are not poor folks.

The message Obama has with regard to taxes will concern them. He argues that he will only increase taxes on the top 20% by allowing the tax cut to expire. Since I am not in the top 20%, I guess this doesn't concern me. But there is a nagging fear among many that Democrats will "tax and spend" and take all their hard-earned money and give it to undeserving transgender crack addicts with 13 children.

You might argue this PERCEPTION is wrong, but that is the perception they have, and I know this because these folks, my former neighbors, would tell me these things.

The Class Warfare message (McCain has too many houses, cars) will backfire. McCain will raise it at the debates, if Obama doesn't. All McCain has to say is that Obama, too is a millionaire, and is it McCain's fault that he did what every man dreams about (marrying a rich woman)? When the laughter dies down from that quip, the score will be McCain 1, Obama 0.

You see, Mr. & Mrs. Fairfax County will look at this "Class Warfare" argument and see themselves on the McCain side, not the side of hippies or homeless or crack addicts or welfare queens or angry poor people who want to "redistribute the wealth". That is their view.

Obama was successful with the middle class voters because he came across as one of them - educated, smart, and on their side.

Now, the appearance is that he is attacking people who have money. That being successful and having money is somehow wrong or evil. That might sell in Berkeley Califfornia or Ithaca, New York, but those aren't swing States.

Obama, WTF are you thinking? Now is the time to move to the center, not the lunatic fringe.

McCain's Cars - who CARES?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:25:11 EDT

I still am not sure this attacking John McCain on his cars is a good idea.

Let's look at some of the "high end" rides he has in his fleet.

1. 2004 Cadillian CTS. Um, my neighbor's KID drives one of these and he's 17 years old. His parents are hardly welthy. I guess he must be a 17-year-old dot com whiz. NOT! This is a hoary old used GM car at this point. Hardly elitist.

2. GEM (Chrysler) NEV electric car: We have these on the island I live on and they are basically a glorified golf car. Price about $12,000 new, loaded. Sound like a lot of dough? You should see some of the CUSTOMIZED GOLF CARTS the bubbas bring onto the island on vacation every year - 4x4, leopard skin upholstery, build in beer cooler, you name it. And these aren'r rich folk, either, just plumbers an carpenters.

3. 1960 Willys. I have a 1948 myself. Bough it for $2000 on eBay. Paid about $1500 too much for it. Guess I am one of those "elitists" too.

4. 2008 Jeep Wrangler - the cheapest car you can buy in the Jeep lineup, staring at under $20,000.

5. 2005 Volkswagen Cabrio: This is hardly BMW territory, folks, but I'm sure Cindy looks cute in it.

6. 2007 Ford F-150: Once the most popular selling vehicle on the PLANET. John is doing his part to keep the Kansas City assembly plant running, or else he figured out that the rebates on these are so sweet you might as well buy one. I own a 1995 model that I bought new. Still looks showroom.

7. 2001 Honda: This has to be the cleaning lady's car, it is 8 years old. Lots of folks are dinging McCain for "buying foreign" but the Honda Accord is made in Marysville Ohio. Big freakin' deal!

8. 2000 Lincoln Town Car: Just the thing to cruise the Villages. Again, a 9 year old car at this point. Hardly an expensive ride.

9. 2001 GMC Yukon: Again an older car. McCain keeps cars a long time. He probably doesn't drive much (no commuting) so I suspect they are are low milage, like my cars. Is that his fault?

10. 11. 12. 13. - not listed in the Huffington Post, so I am not sure how we get 13 cars here.

The whole thing is silly. Senators are rich. News Alert! If this supises you, you are an idiot.

Attacking McCain for owning cars is going to BACKFIRE IN A BIG WAY.

Americans LOVE THEIR CARS and will take this as an attack on their own car collections. Most Middle Class families have 2, 3, 4 or more cars (one for every one in the family) and many middle class folks have a collector (hobby) car like an old Mustang or a Harley in the garage.

Are we going to attack them as well?

Here's a clue, these are VOTERS you are talking about!

Stick to the ISSUES and leave this CLASS WARFARE BS in the trashcan where it belongs.

Otherwise you risk making people think about which side of the divide they really live on.

Mr. & Mrs. Middle-Class America have more in common with McCain than they do with wacko far lefties and welfare queens. If you want to PANDER to the far left, you will lose that all important center.

FWIW.

Why your opinion and vote may not mean a lot

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:27:47 EDT

I spend the summers in Upstate New York, near Ithaca. Yea, I'm one of those "rich guys" you hate who has more than one home. NOT! Actually, I'm one of the middle class in this country that Obama is going to PISS OFF if he keeps harping on how many homes McCain has or how many cars he drives.

Foks up here are liberal and have strong views and they will all vote Obama.

And it won't make a rat's arse of difference in the election. Period.

Why? Simple. New York will go Democratic, so the vote of one or two or even tens of thousands of New Yorkers is irrelevant. And ditto for their oh-so-important opinions.

Since New York is not a "swing state" the only thing that matters is if they contribute to the campaign. And since New York has been in perpetual recession (we never saw the boom times of the 80's and 90's, just receession, job loss, and high taxes) New Yorkers can rarely afford to contribute to political campaigns.

The votes that make a difference in this campaign are the swing state votes, which will turn the election. SPECIFICALLY, the "undecideds" who will "swing" the swing state votes.

Those of you who are die-hard liberals or conservatives in swing States don't matter. You'll vote how you vote. These close States will be decided by those moronic "undecided" voters who cannot distinguish the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

What criteria do these critical voters who will decide the future of our country use to select a President?

Oh, you know, important stuff. Like campaign theme songs. Which football team the VP candidate roots for. Whether the candidate is "sexy" or not. Information from mass-forwarded e-mails. The catchyness of the campaign theme or slogan. The astrological sign of the candidate.

In other words, this election will be decided by MORONS - the "undecideds" in "swing States" who will make their decision based on fluff, appearances, rumors, whatever - ANYTHING but the real issues that should really decide an election.

Democracy - such a great idea after all? Perhaps our founding fathers had it right - they envisioned a country where only property owners could vote.

Beginning to sound like a good idea to me.

FWIW.

McCain goes ugly - why is Obama doing the same?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:50:42 EDT

As a McCain supporter from 2000, I am disappointed in McCain's williness to go right into the gutter to smear Barack Obama with all sorts of spurious charges. The SNL sketch last night (available on the NBC website for those of us who are post-television) really nailed it.

But my question is this: Why is Obama jumpnig into the pig trough with McCain and wallowing in the sliime and mud as well?

The latest "attack" on McCain is that he has 13 cars. Big deal. The Senante is a millioner's club and his wife has a boatload of money. How many cars did John Kerry have? How much does it cost to pay the electric bill at the Gore mansion each yearh? (Answer: $30,000).

These charges of being "out of touch" could be applied to any Senate Democrat as well. So Obama has ONE car. Big Deal. I'll bet he rarely drives it, if ever. Here's a clue, folks, Senators and Congressmen DO NOT LIVE LIKE WE DO, PERIOD. They have their own free parking at National Airport, their own health insurance and a sweet pension plan. And they have someone drive them everywhere.

There are about 300 million people in the USA and over 330 million cars. Yes, that means there is more than one car per person in this country. I have six myself. All are over 10 years old and rarely driven more than 1000 miles a year. Am I rich? Hardly. If you added up the value of all of them, it wouldn't pay for a new Toytoa. But I prefer a well-maintained low milage car (with a drop top, of course, I have three of those) to monthly car payments and some fancy new wheels.

Does this make me "rich"? Hardly. An "eliitist?" Well I haven't been to a Starbucks in a decade, thank you.

Does it make me a car collector? Bingo. And if you are gonig to castigate me for that, well, then go freak yourself. You'll piss off millions of Americans who love their cars.

That's the problem with these idiotic "attacks" on McCain's houses and cars or necktie or whatever. You risk alienating a group of people with each attack. Keep it up and you've basically pissed off everyone in the USA, eventually.

Let's stick to the ISSUES. How many homes or cars the husband of a Billionare has is not relevant. Where the next President is going to take this country IS.

Obama is risking BLOWING this election with this "silly season" attacks. Let McCain do that nonsense. Go after the REAL MEAT. There is a lot on the bone to be had.

FWIW. Obama HAD the election in the bag. It's his to lose and I'm seeing flop sweat all over the place here.

Great Speeches - but do the candidates MEAN them?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:50:21 EDT

McCain gave a speech last night setting forth his policy agenda. He was less than inspirng as a speaker, but that shouldn't be the issue. The issue is the policies the candidate will enact.

I came away from the speech with the same feeling I got after one of President Bush's "State of the Union" addresses. Nice talk, but does he really mean it?

After all, GW promised to develop alternative energy, start an "Apollo Program" for the hydrogen car, and also promised to cure AIDS in Africa (without sending any condoms, of course).

And we know what happened. Nothing. No electic cars, no alternative energy plans, and little done about ANYTHING in Africa, other than some photo ops. It was all just......talk.

And as for an "Apollo program", Bush can't even get one going in NASA. For the next decade, we will have no way to get to our own space station, other than to try to hitch a ride from the Russians!

I think the same is true of McCain. He talks about developing alternative energy, nuclear power, and also drilling for more oil and burning more coal ("clean coal" if you believe that).

The reality is, once oil drops below $100 a barrel, we will go back to business as usual, as these alternative energy plans will not make economic sense, and drilling for oil in the US won't even make sense if foriegn oil is relatively "cheap". So nothing will change, really.

More of the same-old, same-old!

What was NOT in the speech was that his administration, a Republican Administration, will continue to mismanage the the various government agencies the way the Bush Administration has. So expect more injustice at Justice, and no cleanup at the EPA. This is where Presidents make a real difference, and it is not talked about in any campaign speech.

And expect more Supreme Court nominess who willnot "legislate from the bench" unless such legislation serves a right-wing cause.

And the "no fly" list will contine to expand, with no recourse to anyone who finds themselves on this list (no due process) and of course, more "lists" will be created as the "war on terror" is used as a cudgel to terrorize the population of the USA into submission. Ooops. That probably put me on the list right there...

You can expect all that. But don't hold your breath waiting for the McCain-Bush solar-powered hydrogen car.

Messy business, electing Presidents.

Hollywood for Ugly People

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:04:19 EDT

Hollywood for Ugly People

The latest McCain campaign attack ad goes after Obama for, of all things, being too pretty.

Obama is dinged for being a "celebrity candidate" and the ad is accompanying with, of all things, a flattering picture of Obama.

Now this is new!

Traditionally, attack ads featured unflattering pictures of the opposing candidate, usually from a bad angle, bad lighting, with an odd expression on their face. Make them look ugly, seems to be the formula.

But McCain, realizing that he clearly loses the beauty contest, is taking the opposite approach – vote for me because I'm ugly as sin!

The message is clear: Anyone as good looking as Obama can't have any serious thoughts and is little more than a mannequin. If you want a good President, go for ugly!

And in that regard, McCain wins the reverse beauty contest hands down.

Wags have long dubbed Washington DC as "Hollywood for Ugly People" and there is some merit to the comment. Our national leaders have some of the ugliest mugs on record. Think Nixon. Even folks who come to Washington with a pretty profile end up looking tired and old in short order. Think Teddy Kennedy (poor soul!).

It is an interesting strategy by the McCain campaign, and I am sure they tested this with focus groups and even Psychologists. While we want our celebrities to be pretty, we want our nation's leaders to be seriously ugly.

Perhaps Obama can get a dueling scar or a bad haircut. It's a start....

Or put on 50 lbs. It worked for Bill Clinton!

Is Deficit Spending the same as Taxation?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:53:22 EDT

Is Deficit Spending the same as Taxation?

John McCain is running a new ad campaign, trying to slap the old "tax and spend" label onto Barack Obama.

It is an interesting tactic, but I think it might backfire.

In terms of spending like drunken sailors, the Republicans have taken the mantle of irresponsible government away from the Democrats. If this was an event in Beijing, they'd have a gold medal in the government spending category, with a new world record, to boot.

And this does not even count the cost of the war in Iraq. The add-ons, earmarks, and other pork projects have ballooned under Bush. It seem that "no pork left behind" is his legacy to the nation.

So for McCain to criticize Obama for excessive spending, when his own party has made a mess of the books, well, that is a bit hypocritical.

But what about the tax angle? Will Obama raise taxes? Are the Republicans still the party of low taxes, even if they have clearly abandoned their "small government" and "lower spending" platforms?

Obama has called for eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and most of us will not even notice the increase – and increase back to the bad old days of the Clinton Administration. Remember how rotten that was, when we all had jobs?

But I would suggest that the Republican deficit spending per se amounts to the "largest tax increase" in the history of this country.

There are a number of ways for a government to collect revenue. You can tax incomes, sales, imports, property or whatever.

Or, you can just print more money. Printing more money is what many third world governments have done over the year. It is what the Weimar Republic did after World War II to pay off their foreign reparation debts.

By printing more money, you in effect, balance the books, but you decrease the value of the currency and feed inflation. In effect, you are "taxing" everyone who is holding money by the same percentage amount. It is, in effect, the ultimate "flat tax" program, and requires no IRS or forms or collections to achieve.

The Bush Administration, by driving the country deeper and deeper into debt with record deficit spending has, in effect, taxed us all for this deficit spending. Our money is worth less now and inflation is starting to accelerate alarmingly.

The actual tax rates on the books, of what we "pay" in taxes remain unchanged, but the effect of this spend-and-don't-tax policy is to nick everyone considerably.

So, your tax rates have been cut under Bush, but your money doesn't buy much food anymore and certainly not much gas. Your 401(k) plan is worth less than when Bush took Office, and your house, well, if you are lucky, it is worth more than what you owe on it – although many are not that lucky.

The Republicans can say they have "cut taxes", but if they have ruined the currency, does it really matter? And isn't taking the country further and further into debt really just a way of increasing taxes on us all?

How DO you disguise racism?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:14:07 EDT

I tis so terribly unfashionable to be racist these days. So how does one disguise racism? The answer is to use other arguments or reasons for not voting for Obama, even if you are a liberal democrat (or consider yourself to be one).

I had an interesting trip recently. Some of the folks I met voiced some intersting opinions about Barack Obama. Most of my friends are more liberal than I am (one even called me a Republican, which is funny considering my contributions to the Obama campaign are a matter of public record on the Huffington post).

However, others voiced opinions (if we can call them that) that are a little more scary. One working fellow told me he would never vote for a man who refused to salute the American flag or say the pledge of allegiance. I asked where he got this information and he said he got it from an e-mail forwarded to him (Hillary's e-mails are still bouncing around the Internet!).

I asked him if he believed evertyhing he read in forwarded e-mails.

"For example," I said, "I got a very interesting BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY to receive the SUM OF $TWO MILLIONS USD DOLLARS" from a nice fellow in Nigeria the other day. Should I believe that? Or what about the e-mail about the boy with cancer who is collecting business cards? Or the one that says bad luck will befall me if I do not forward it to all my friends? I am still waiting for my free computer from Microsoft for forwarding the "e-mail tracking software" e-mail. I am sure it is going to be shipped to me soon!"

He got the point. Rumors and allegations and anonymous e-mails are to be taken with a big grain of salt. The "mainstream media" is hardly willing to "suppress" a good story with real information critical of any candidate.

But I am not sure I persuaded him. He does not want a black man to be President, and these e-mails are little more than a post hoc justification of a decision he already made on racial grounds.

Another friend reiterated the whole "Closet Muslim" mantra, and said that she believed he was a backdoor plant from Al Queada and would turn American into an Islamic country once elected. Now bear in mind she is a Democrat, so this is sort of shocking to hear from soemone who says that Bill Clinton was their hero. I mean, I expect that from my "Rush is right!" friends. But from a Democrat? What is going in here?

I suspect a lot of these excuses for opposing Obama are just that. The real reason is racism. They don't like blacks and they don't want a black President. So they grasp at whatever straw they can find, because being racist is politically incorrect, unpopular, unfashionable, and certaingly undemocratic (in the party sense).

So instead of saying "I don't want a black President" which would be a faux pas, they can say these other things (no matter how absurd) and in their own minds congratulate themselves for being progressive and non-racist, and also for their vigilence.

And that is too bad, because stereotypes are just plain wrong. The media has perpetuated the myth of the black man as this sort of uber-macho dangerous urban male, along the lines of Superfly or other blaxslpoitation movies. (Rent the James Bond flick, Live and Let Die sometime, it hits every black stereotype of the 1970's, right down to the "pimp barges", soul food, and long fur-collared leather coats). Many whites buy into this subtle form of racism - secretly beliving balcks to be shiftless welfare recipients, lazy workers, more inclined to riot and lotot, and just basically plain criminals and crack dealers. Even my "liberal" white friends will repeat this sort of thing (once the black folks have left the room, of course). Racism is stll there, it just went underground is all.

To be sure, some black youth (and many more white youth, the real target audience of the rap music industry) have latched upon the "dangerous balck man" stereotype as a role model. And that is too bad. But many more blacks do not fit this mold, and certainly Barack Obama is one of the latter.

To view Obama as a skin color is to overlook a human being with excellent qualities who would make, I believe an excellent President.

I need some of Hillary's stash!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:07:21 EDT

Hillary Clinton = Ralph Nader

Hillary is electing John McCain. It doesn't matter anymore who the Democratic nominee is.

If Obama wins it (which looks more than likely), Hillary has alienated half the democratic party from Obama, and about 30% are pledging to vote for McCain (which makes sense, as Hillary's and McCain's positions on the war and economy are closer than Hillary and Obama).

If Hilary "wins" the nomination by persuading ELECTED delegates to vote against their intial orientation, and/or using other nefarious techniques to get the nomination, a good percentage of Democrats will be disgusted with her and vote McCain (which makes sense, as they are both Republicans anyway, and if the race is between two Republicans, McCain is a better Republican than Hillary).

What Hillary doesn't see is that a large percentage of Ameicans (55% of more) despise her. Forget "winning" the Kentucky primary - that is a DEMOCRATIC primary. In the General election, Kentucky will be McCain country, not the land of the pantsuit lady.

I only which I had access to the apprently excellent mind-altering drugs that Bill and Hillary have. It must be nice to live in a world where fantasy is reality.

Then again, maybe not.

ANGRY WHITE WOMEN!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 19 May 2008 18:13:47 EDT

You will say that the following comments here are sexist, but for years, pundits have opined about the "Angry White Male" and his failings, and no one has faulted them for stereotyping white men.

What I have noticed with regard to Hillary supporters is the preponderance of the "Angry White Woman" syndrome, and if I am the first to coin this term, it is Trademarked and I am owed royalties.

These are woman of a certain age - 40-60 years old, who have a lot of stress and anger in their lives. They have had to work to support their families, while at the same time expected to fulfull their duties as "housewife" - cooking and cleaning. It is like having three jobs. Statistically, more than 2/3 are divorced, and their ex-husbands (a topic I would not bring up with them, trust me) married their secretaries or some younger bimbo (The EX is typically a GW Republican).

They view life as difficult and harsh, in part because it has been (to some extent) for them. It was not a fair ride. While they shuttle the kiddies to soccer practice in the minivan, the Ex-husband takes his new "trophy wife" to a spa in his Corvette. To some extent, they are quite "over" men at this point in their lives (and can you blame them?). It seems that men cause all the trouble in the world, particularly in their own world. Maybe, just maybe, it is time for a WOMAN to be in charge.

They identify with Hillary, as she has been through what they have had to endure (Monica) and she is a working professional, of a certain age, who struggles (as they do) to look good in a pantsuit. It isn't fair, is it? That men should be considered "distinguished" as they get older (McCain obviously excepted) while woman are harshly judged.

And the statistics on remarriage for divorcees of that age group are not encouraging. Men are a sore subject!

THIS is the key demographic that supports Hillary, and Geraldine Ferraro is typical of the genre.

While it is tempting to make fun of these woman, they have in fact suffered, relative to their peers. One can understand their frustration. A man, particularly an attractive man like Barack Obama, well, it is like waving a cat in front of a pit bull.....

There are reasons they HATE Obama. Personal reasons!

Corporate Lagresse

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:49:42 EDT

I just took a tour of the Bluebird Wanderlodge factory in Goergia. They make school buses and motorhomes. It was pleasant as plant tours go. I've taken quite a few of these over the years, and also while working for GM and United Technolgies, I've given more than a few tours. So I know the routine, from both sides of the clipboard.

There is a pretty standard protocol - tours are given at certain times. Large groups have to book in advance. Not all plants allow tours, and tours may be denied at any time for any reason (produciton scheduling, disruption of workflow, etc.). NO PHOTOGRAPHY IS ALLOWEd. Many companies give tours as a goodwill gesture, hoping it will lead to sales. Breweries, Wineries, and Distilleries usually give tours as it promotes product sales.

I have noticed that many candidates have used "plant tours" as a means of creating a "campaign event" - something that will get your name in the paper, hopefully with a picture of the candidate in a hard hat and safety glasses, talking to a worker. It is good, free press, and it can boost a candidate's polling numbers considerably, particularly among union workers and the blue-collar vote.

Having a candidate and attendant entourage troop through a factory, tailed by a phlanx of photographers, journalists, and TV camerman is, to say the least, disruptive. For a company of any size, this could mean disruption of hours of production work, if not an entire production day (making the plant look pretty and clean for all those cameras consumes hours and hours of time!).

Moreover, allowing cameras into a factory is something that is not commonly done, and making this exception for a candidate is extraordinary. A candidate can't just show up and expect to be admitted. You gotta call first....

So, for a company to say "YES" to a candidate in allowing them to hold a campaign event at a factory is a BIG DEAL. It will cost them thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in lost productivity, labor, and other expenses.

Why would any bottom-line oriented manager allow it? Froma production standpoint, it makes no sense. Letting cameras in the plant is really a bad idea, too. Trade secrets and all, you know.

I think the answer is threefold:

1. It generates publicity for the company in that it generates brand awareness. This can backfire, however. If the company hosts an unpopular candidate (HILLARY, for example) then it may be seen as implicity or explicitly endorsing that candidate. And it is, too. You don't just let a candidate you HATE traipse into your shop and make a mess of things, foul up produciton for a day, jam your parking lot, and leave a mess just for the heck of it. You gotta at least like them.

2. Which leads us to the secong part: Endorsement. It has been against the law for corporations to contrinbute to political campaigns for a long time. However, making a contribution "in kind" by hosting one of these "photo op" events for a candidate is apparently legal (or is it?). They provide the candidate with publicity that you can't BUY elsewhere. Just visiting a facility like a car assembly line is enough to merit a mention on the "Nightly News". Meanwhile, the opponent, who just give a speech the regular way, gets no mention. To me, these hosted campaign events amont to little more than a backdoor way of helping a candidate without having to report it as a cash contribution.

3. PAYBACK, BABY! Once a candidate is elected, it certinaly doesn't hurt to call them and remind them of the wonderful "tour" you gave them of your factory. Eventually, your company will need help - with a regulatory matter, with a pending law before Congress, or an earmark for a "Bourbon Museum" or something like that. In business, it pays to have access and influence. So, when candidates come a'knocking, Corporate America rolls out the red carpet.

HILLARY recently toured the Maker's Mark facility in Kentucky, and the people at Maker's Mark are NOT HAPPY I brought this up. They have tried to play this off as something they had no control over ("blame Hilary's schedulers") or that they are imparital ("We would host the other candidates as well") or that somehow they are not affected by the visit ("Well, I'm an Obama supporter anyway").

The comments made by these corporate flacks are disingenuous and typical of Hillary-speak. The point isn't whether some low-level corporate flack is an Obama supporter. The pont is that the company gave a platform, free of charge, to a polarizing poilitical candidate on the eve of a primary election there, boosting her visitbility, increasing her "bubba" factor, and boosting her numbers in the polls. This was aiding and abetting the candidate's campaign, plain and simple.

This is nothing short of a HUGE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.

And please, don't try to derail the discussion with "Well, Obama visited a widget factory in Iowa" or something like that, because THAT'S WRONG TOO!

What is really sad about this whole scenario is that the press plays right along with it (which is why the campaigns do these things). A visit to a widget factory gets in the news. A speech given in a town hall is, well, boring.

Sorry Maker's Mark, you made your bed when you slept with Hillary. Hosting a campaign event days before the Kentucky primary was clearly a move designed to support her campaign. You cannot play this off as "neutral".

Your marketing deparment no doubt knows that your target demographic is not the blue-collar hig-school dropout voter that Hillary seems to attract like flies. No doubt they freaked when they found out about this event. After all that careful marketing and manipulation! Only to be blown away with one ill-timed plant visit. I guess you'll have to go after the Southern Comfort demographic now

Now, that Knob Creek, that's some smooth whiskey, and they don't have to rely on a gimmicky cap to make sales.....

FWIW.

Why did Maker's Mark host a HILLARY campaign event?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 18 May 2008 10:30:08 EDT

It seems odd to me that Maker's Mark offered to let Hillary use their distillery as a platform for a campaign event. I used to like Maker's Mark Whiskey, too.

By providing a backdrop for Hillary, they are in effect giving her a campaign event worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, for free, without reporting it as a campaign contribution.

It seems like a dumb move from a company that sells products to the general public. Aligning your company with a candidate that is popular with less than half of Democrats (that's half of half, or less than a quarter of the population).

Or is Maker's Mark trying to get to that all-important uneducated impoverished white demographic? Seems like a dumb move for a premium bourbon brand. Or maybe they are going downscale.

We had a "Hillary Please Drop Out" party and everyone brought their bottles of Maker's Mark to the party and we all ceremoniously poured it down the drain. Everopne got a free bottle of Knob Creek to take home.

The corproations who allow candiadates to use their facilities as a campaign backdrop are supporting that candidate.

If you support a coprporation that supports Hillary, then you are supporting Hillary.

BOYCOTT MAKER'S MARK.

FWIW. I've had enough of Corproate America trying to schmooze me.

Reduced to Eating Dirt!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:22:28 EDT

CNN.com has been waging a "oh woe is me" war for the last few weeks. We are being slaughtered with stories about "poor americans" who are forced to sell off their precious possessions because of the recession. Most of these stories are bunk.

For example, the 50lb overweight woman who was getting food at a food bank, because she lost her job as a loan writer for a sub-prime lender - and complained that she never "read the fine print" on her sub-prime loan. She can't get food stamps because she is living in a half-million dollar home with granite countertops and new stainless steel appliances. Boo-Hoo! I think Will Rodgers had it right - America is the only country where you can DRIVE to the poor house!

Our "problems" are trivial compared to say, the problems people have in sub-Saharan Africa.

Anyway, here's my "entry" to the CNN I-Report woe-fest. I am curious to see if they publish it, or whether they spot it as sarcasm. This is CNN we are talking about....

The cost of food in this country has gotten so out of hand, I am forced to feed my family dirt. Yes, that's right, dirt.

I drove my Hummer H2 HUT (Utility Truck, they are really cool, you should get one) to the grocery store the other day. It is only 30 miles away, but they have lower prices than the store next to me. I filled my cart with frozen food entrees and headed for the checkout.
I was shocked when the cashier rang it all up. The total, for a family of four, each person eating two "Hungry Man" frozen entrees for each meal. plus snacks, beer, and cigarettes, was over $300! And that's just one week's eatin'!

Well, the problem was, I had gone over my credit limit by tanking up the Hummer on the way over, so they declined my credit card at the checkout. How humiliating! I would have written them a check, but the bank took away my checkbook after I got behind on my paycheck loans and had a few (50) bounced checks.

Well, anyway, I'm glad I topped off the Hummer before I bought food, as at least I can get to work on Monday, provided they don't close the plant (the union has threatened to strike if they close the plant and ship our jobs overseas, that will show them!).

On the way back home, I saw a sign for free mulch, so I stopped and shoveled a whole bunch in the back of the Hummer. I didn't have a shovel, so I used my hands. I was kinda messy when I was done and I went to wipe off my face with my hands and got some of that mulch in my mouth.
And you know, it ain't half bad! I tried some more, and damn, if it ain't downright tasty. Of course, I smoke (just a few packs a day) so maybe my taste buds aren't what they used to be. But you shouldn't knock mulch if you are on a tight food budget.

I got back to the trailer, and told my wife Tiffany about the credit card situation. She was furious with me and asked how we were going to feed little Bubba. I told her about the mulch, and she got even angrier. But I finally got her calmed down and got her to try it, and she said it wasn't half bad. It's even better in the microwave.

Anyway, she played around with it and came up with a receipe to sort of "fix it up a bit" and I thought I would share it with you and your readers.

TIFFANY'S MULCH MAGIC
Ingrediants:
1 cup finely ground bark mlch with dirt
1/2 cup water
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon pepper
(if yuo don't have salt and pepper, you can steal those little packets from the 7-11 by the condiments they have for the hot dogs)
1/2 can stale lite beer.

Mix the mulch and water in a round bowl. Add salt and pepper. Fold in stale beer. Microwave on a paper plate for 2-3 minutes on "high setting". Serves one.

We're getting by, now that we're on to this mulch thing. Tiffany says she's worried they're going to close the plant, and I said, no way, where else can they get quality (and I mean quality) labor like me for only $50 an hour?

And even if the plant closes, we can get by. I'll sell the Harley, the Winnebago, the jet skiis, the above-ground pool, the pool table, the hot tub, the Camaro, and the dirt bike. That is, once I pay off all the loans on them.

Malibu Stacey has a New Hat!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:48:42 EDT

There is an episode of the "Simpsons" where Lisa Simpson develops a new "self-esteem" doll to compete with the vacuous Barbie-like "Malibu Stacey" dolls that Lisa feels are sending girls the wrong message.

Panicked, the Malibu Stacy makers decide to come up with an "all new" Malibu Stacey. It is bascially the same old Malibu Stacey, but with a new hat. When this is pointed out to Malibu Stacey collector Waylon Smithers, he replies "Yes....but she has a NEW HAT!"

I feel the same thing is going on now. Hillary caught in a web of lies - about Bosnia, the pregnant woman story, the $110 million she made (and Bill's "speeches"), and now the Mark Penn firing-that-is-not-a-firing deal.

The response of the media? "Hillary went BOWLING on the ELLEN show! Isn't that GREAT?"

All that "scandal" stuff is "old hat" - last news cycle and all. Hillary is BOWLING now! That's the Story for this week! Ohhh.. and she's going to be on "American Idol!" Whee! Hillary lived in Scranton as a little Girl! Gee!

Malibu Stacey has a New Hat!

Do people really fall for this nonsense? Apparently they do.

BILL IS LOSING IT...and the election too!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:49:30 EDT

From the SF CHRONICLE: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/02/BAVNVU2PJ.DTL

BILL IS LOSING IT!

The Bill Clinton who met privately with California's superdelegates at last weekend's state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to "chill out" over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.

In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.

"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.

According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.

But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.

It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.

"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.

"It was very, very intense," said one attendee. "Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns."

When he finally wound down, Bill was asked what message he wanted the delegates to take away from the meeting.

At that point, a much calmer Clinton outlined his message of party unity.

"It was kind of strange later when he took the stage and told everyone to 'chill out,' " one delegate told us.

"We couldn't help but think he was also talking to himself."

When delegate Binah - still stunned from her encounter with Clinton - got home to Little River (Mendocino County) later in the day - there was a phone message waiting for her from State Party Chairman Art Torres, telling her the former president wanted him to apologize to her on his behalf for what happened.

Still, word of Clinton's blast shot all the way back to the New Mexico state Capitol, where Richardson spokesman Pahl Shipley reiterated Tuesday that his boss had never "promised or guaranteed" Bill and Hillary his endorsement.

Should Hillary Drop out?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:33:35 EDT

Should Hillary Drop Out?

Yes.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5NVhliia8s

Of course, then we won't have mean pants lady to kick around anymore.

Some Inconvenient Truths - Misspoken

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:06:24 EDT

The flap about Hillary's being under sniper fire in Bosnia is nothing new. As you know, she gave this long-winded story in the press about being under fire, and, well, it was a LIE.

For some reason, the media doesn't like to say LIE. They will say "misspoken" or "mis-stated" or "inaccurate" but they never come out and say "Hey, this candidate made up a whole story that wasn't true, so that's LYING!".

For some reason, the word LIE has a taboo with the media.

But a LIE is a LIE, and this is nothing new with Hillary. She is full of "stories" like this that are made up from whole cloth.

We all know about the meeting she had with Sir Edmund Hillary. During that meeting, she told the story about how she was named after him by her Mother, who wanted to inspire the otherwise uninspired Hilary.

Problem is, Sir Edmund Hillary did not climb Everest until 5 years after Hillary was born. When she was named, Edmund Hillary was an obscure beekeeper living in New Zealand. Perhaps Mrs. Rodham wanted to inspire her to keep bees (think of how much agony that would have saved the country!).

Snopes.com has been somewhat generous with Hillary with this story, arguing that she said "her mother TOLD it to her that way" and thus, the story is not a "lie" per se, but rather merely a retelling of an inspirational story by her Mother.

That's what Snopes says, and I respect Snopes.

But there are other stories as well.

One particularly egregious story surrounds 9/11. Trampling on the memories of the real victims of 9/11, Hillary told Katie Couric on the today show that she nearly lost Chelsea in the disaster. As she told it to Katie, Chelsea was jogging in lower Manhatten, around the World Trade Center, when the plane struck. Fortunately for Chelsea, she had ducked into a Starbucks for a Yuppichino Latte, just moments before the explosion took place.

Hillary said thet Chelsea heard and felt the impact of the plane. Katie Couric concludes the piece with a heartfelt look into the camera and some nonsense about Hillary being "more than just a Senator that day, she was a Mom as well".

(Pardon me while I vomit. Perhaps her Sunday School teacher was there as well).

The problem is, the story isn't true. And we know it isn't true because CHELSEA SAYS IT ISN'T TRUE. Chelsea when asked about it, said she was in a friend's apartment at the time, watching it happen on TV.

The media just let that go, too. No one called her out on this story - trying to trade on the memories of the dead to enhance her owm image. It makes one SICK.

It would be interesting of one of those college students were to ask Chelsea about this....

There are other Clinton half-truths, mis-spoken statements, and outright lies. There is a pattern to this.

We had 8 years of Bush lying. Do we need more?

APRIL SURPRISE?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:52:20 EDT

Why does Clinton stay in?

Why does any candidate stay in, even if they have no hope of winning?

Simple.

Well, if your opponent suddenly drops out, is ill, or dies, you become the de facto winnner.

It happened in Minnesota, when Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash, Norm Coleman was able to win his Senate seat. If Wellstone had lived, he would likely be handily re-elected.

(Note: Some snarks out there have conspiracy theories about this plane crash, as well as that of other Democratic leaders. However, it is a sad fact of life that small planes are much more likely to crash than airliners. There was no conspiracy to kill Wellstone, the Big Bopper, and H.J. Heinze).

Given the nefariousness of the Clinton team, one wonders if there is some "surprise" waiting in the wings for Obama in April.

Do they have some devastating "Dirt" they will unleash on the eve of the Pennsylvania Primary (which would distract us from Hillary's tax returns)?

Will a "bimbo" emerge on the cover of the National Enquirer? (They have already done one attack piece on Obama, so making up another is not out of the question).

Or what? I think the Clintons have an April Surprise for us.

I wonder what it will be.

OK, THIS WILL MAKE ME VOTE REPUBLICAN....

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:37:01 EDT

THIS IS ENOUGH TO MAKE ME VOTE REPUBLICAN

"Senate Democrats plan a test vote this coming week on a series of housing proposals. One would let bankruptcy judges reduce the amount owed and interest payments on loans held by distressed borrowers."

Great! I buy a modest home, scrimp and save to put down 20%, learn to live without, drive an 11-year old car. Where's my "bailout"?

My neighbor buys a house he cannot afford, with fancy fixtures, 5 bedrooms, and a pool. He leases a new Lexus and Mercedes. He goes belly up on the whole deal, and now in bankruptcy court, he gets to keep it all, PLUS get the purchase price of the house REDUCED and now has a lower mortgage balance AND lower interest rate than I do!

Gee, That's FAIR!

Oh, right, he "didn't read all that fine print" on his loan application. Yea, funny how that works, him being a lawyer and all.

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., whose state ranks among the top 10 for mortgage foreclosures, according to the research firm RealtyTrac, Inc., said he had high turnout for two foreclosure seminars he held in his district over the break. But he added that Congress should be cautious about federal intervention.

"The bottom line is we don't think the government should get in using taxpayers' dollars to bail a large number of people out for decisions that they made on their own and contracts that they signed," Walberg said.

This guy has it right. Common sense at last.

LOSING YOUR HOME TO FORCLOSURE IS NOT LIKE LOSING A KIDNEY! IT IS NOT THE END OF THE FREAKING WORLD! Life does go on.

The people who made BAD ECONOMIC DECISIONS should learn to live with it. They can find alternative housing. They will likely be BETTER OFF getting out from under the huge mortgage anyway. They can go back to renting (which many were, not long before this housing boom).

LET THE MORTGAGE LENDERS TAKE THE HIT. Let housing prices find their own natural level.

SINCE THEY PUT NOTHING DOWN ON THEIR HOMES ANYWAY, THEY ARE NOT LOSING A PENNY!

If we subsidize their bad economic decisions, we are basically GIVING THEM FREE EQUITY IN THEIR HOMES.

NO BAILOUTS!

P.S. - before some smart arse points out that investnment properties, vacation homes and yacht mortgages can be subject to a "cram-down" in bankuptcy court, note that all of these properties have MUCH HIGHER INTEREST RATES to compensate for the possibility of a cram-down. Lenders fix interest rates based on RISK. If we allow this cramdown on primary homes, we are changing the rules in the middle of the game.

It's like the delegate thing - the rules are the rules, and everyone knew it going into the deal. Either play by the rules OR DON'T PLAY. Don't "pull a Hillary" and ask for the rules to be changed in your favor after the fact.

P.P.S. - the odds of this bill passing the House and Senate and not being veto'ed by Bush are ZERO. I suspect the whole point of the exercise is to paint the Republicans as "mean evil people who care more about money than human beings" blah blah blah blah. More divisiveness and polarization that we don't need. Rather than float this canard, how about REAL SOLUTIONS?

THE CANDIDATE DECISION MATRIX

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:29:19 EDT

THE CANDIDATE DECISION MATRIX

If you look at the decision matrix that voters have to make this Fall, it appears John McCain comes out ahead, no matter who the Democrats nominate.

McCain is a LIBERAL Republican, so there is very little different in his positions and the REAL positions of Hillary (Hillary is a neo-con, no matter what she says. She is a hawk!).

If it comes down to McCain versus Hillary, then it is a choice of two Republicans (or a liberal Republican and a Conservative Democrat, if you want to get technical, but what's the difference?).

If the choice is between two Republicans, then by all means, vote for the better Republican of the two - McCain, in this instance. He might not agree with you on the issues, but neither does Hillary, and he is the more HONEST of the two.

Similarly, the Hillary supporters, being very conservative, will vote for McCain if Hillary is not nominated, as his positions on the issues are closer to Hillary's REAL positions (not her stated ones as of late).

If you look at it that way, the Democratic Primaries and Convention are MOOT at this point, as McCain will be the better choice for Obama and Hillary Supporters, if their candidate is not nominated.

VOTER GROUP DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE WHO THEY WILL VOTE FOR
REPUBLICANS: HILLARY MCCAIN
REPUBLICANS: OBAMA MCCAIN
HILLARY SUPPORTERS: HILLARY HILLARY
HILLARY SUPPORTERS: OBAMA MCCAIN
OBAMA SUPPORTERS: OBAMA OBAMA
OBAMA SUPPORTERS: HILLARY MCCAIN

Granted, this is an over-simplification for illustration purposes. Some Democrats are dumb enough to vote "the party line" even if Hitler was on the ballot. Some Republicans are intrigued by Obama.

And of course, independents vote any whichaway.

However, recent POLL data backs up this concept. About 1/3 of Hillary or Obama supporters will vote for McCain if their candidate is not nominated.

Given that about HALF the country is REPUBLICAN and HALF is DEMOCRATIC, and that the DEMOCRATIC supporters are divided roughly in HALF, this means that McCAIN gets 1/2 plus 1/6th the vote (2/3), and the Democratic Nominee (whoever) gets 1/2 minus 1/6 the vote (1/3).

McCain wins, not matter how you slice it. Blame Hillary. She demonized Obama and his supporters and polarized the Democratic Party. If she had never run, it would be a Democratic landslide.

My analysis, anyway.

WHAT"S UP WITH CNN?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:25:23 EDT

What's Up With CNN?

CNN has been running a series lately, "Americans in their owns words" or some such nonsense, in which readers are invited to "Send in their own stories" about their financial hardships "in these hard times" (cue depression-era old-timey music and vintage footage of breadlines, please).

The results would have been laughable, if it weren't for the fact that the people sending these in really believe that they have it bad (compared to the rest of the world) and that people commenting on the stories believe it, too. We are treated to "hardship stories" such as:

1. An overweight woman "forced" to go to a food bank to get free food, so she can keep her $500,000 house, complete with granite countertops and stainless steel appliances. She lost her job as a loan officer for a sub-prime lender. Wow, she never saw THAT one coming, eh?

2. A man who is "struggling" with high fuel costs, because it now costs him $65 a week to fuel his full-time four wheel drive 10 mpg SUV. Ironically, he works in a Hyundai factory (Gee, don't those get like 30 mph?). Ever thought of Carpooling? Moving closer to work? Moped? Hello?

3. A man who "cashed in half his 401(k)" - at age 40 to pay off part of his credit card debt. He had only $20K in the 401(k) at age 40. Ouch. He is hoping that someone will take over the LEASE on his BMW....

The common denomnator on these stories is that the people involved are all rich by world standards, and fairly well off even by US standards, if not in fact rich (BMW lease? Hello?). The other common denominator is that these folks are all reaping the results of their own BAD ECONOMIC DECISIONS and yet we are supposed to feel they are "victims" of circumstances beyond their control.

The stories go on ad nauseum, and CNN has been playing the violin for a long time (Remember the story a year ago about the couple living "paycheck to paycheck," barely able to afford their three rental properties and HORSE? Wow, times are tough for them!)

What is going on here? Why is CNN (and other outlets) banging the drumbeat of economic recession? Does it sell newspapers? Do people like to feel sorry for themselves? (Yes and Yes).

Granted, the economy is down, but it is hardly 1929 just yet. Outside of the sub-prime finance sector, people are still working and business is getting done. While speculators and fools who paid too much for real estate and signed up for bad loans ("I never read the fine print" is the cry) are getting stung, the majority of Americans still have equity in their homes and have loans on reasonable terms.

So who benefits from the gloom and doom?

Recall that in 1992, the mantra for the Clinton team was "It's the economy, Stupid!". Back then, we were supposedly in a recession as well (yea, I lost it all in the great recession of 1992. No, wait, that didn't happen, did it?).

The focus was diverted from national affairs, foreign affairs, and larger issues (such as the Clintons finances) to "who is going to fix this BROKEN economy?"

Bill Clinton posited himself as the savior of the little man, who would "send us all back to school" to be retrained as IT professionals or some such. That never really happened, though. The laid off low-skilled factory workers ended up as greeters at Wal-Mart (another Clinton supporter).

The reality is, the recession ended (they all do, you know, and ths one will, too) and the economy rebounded, just in time for the first term of the Clinton administration (so he could take credit for it).

MANY PEOPLE are saying the same thing now - we need a "Clinton" in the Whitehouse to "fix" the economy. I mean, after all, it worked last time, right? (Confusing correlation with causation).

The blogs are rife now with Clinton plants making this statement - that Hillary will somehow "fix" the economy. This is the message that Hillary will no doubt harp on in the next few weeks and months:

1. Things are BAD BAD BAD and everyone is "suffering."

2. Only HILLARY can save the day.

CNN (Clinton News Network) seems to be doing their part to sell the Gloom-and-Doom part of the story.

BTW, in case you are worried about the economy, RELAX! What we NEED right now is for housing prices to drop further. How much further? I'll tell you EXACTLY WHEN THE RECESSION WILL END.

WHEN THE PRICE OF HOUSING DROPS ENOUGH so that RENTING is MORE EXPENSIVE than OWNING a property, then the bottom will have been reached, and we will rebound. The last time this happened was in 1995-1997.

Trying to forestall this much needed adjustment by tinkering with interest rates or by bailing out lenders or homeowners will just prolong the agony.

Once housing prices drop, people will buy again, jobs will be created, and people, being able to afford a place to live, can afford to work at a reasonable wage, and employers will start hiring.

If we interfere with this process, housing will remain expensive and wages will remain high, new job growth will flatten, and inflation will take off.

Trying to "fix" the economy is like trying to "fix" a Hurricane. Sometimes you just have to let it blow over and then rebuild.

FWIW.

DEAR HILLY, PLEASE RENEW MY FCC LICENSES

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:46:27 EDT

DEAR HILLY,

PLEASE RENEW MY FCC LICENSES

Here is $12 Million to pay for a re-vote in Michigan,

With Love and Hugs,

Fred Eychaner

Haim Saban

Media Mougels

P.S. - that Obama fellow doesn't know how to PLAY BALL!

See:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/0930/400096.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Saban

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-20-mich-letter.pdf

DEAR HILLY, PLEASE TORPEDO TORT REFORM

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:42:33 EDT

DEAR HILLY,

PLEASE TORPEDO TORT REFORM.

Here is $12 Million to pay for a re-vote in Michigan,

With Love and Hugs,

Calvin C. Fayard, Jr.

John Eddie Williams

Peter Angelos

Trial Lawyers

See:

http://www.angeloslaw.com/

http://www.lawyers.com/Louisiana/Denham-Springs/Calvin-C.-Fayard,-Jr.-592135-a.html

http://www.williamskherkher.com/attorney_john_eddie_williams.aspx

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-20-mich-letter.pdf

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:37:34 EDT

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND WHY ARE THEY GIVING MILLIONS TO THE CLINTONS AND OFFERING UP TO 12 MILLION TO PAY FOR A REVOTE IN MICHIGAN?

See:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-20-mich-letter.pdf

WHAT DO THEY EXPECT IN RETURN?

NAMES PLEASE!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:35:49 EDT

END RUN ON CAMPAIGN DONATION LIMITS - how to be a FOB without anyone knowing.....

ABC News' Rick Klein and Eloise Harper Report: Former president Bill Clinton said Thursday that he will not reveal the names of donors to the Clinton Presidential Library unless he is required to by law, rebuffing pressure from his wife's rivals for more disclosure.

"We don't believe in one set of rules for us and another set for everybody else," the former president said at a news conference in New York. "The people that have already given me money, I don't think I should disclose it unless there is some conflict of which I am aware -- and there is not -- because a lot of people gave me money with the understanding that they could give anonymously. And if they gave publicly they would be the target for every other politician in America."

NAMES PLEASE!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:32:32 EDT

NAMES PLEASE!

"The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported Thursday that the 20 Clinton donors who signed the letter to Pelosi had collectively contributed nearly $24 million to Democratic candidates and committees over the last decade, including more than $500,000 to Clinton's senate and presidential campaigns and leadership PAC. They have collectively donated less than a tenth of that amount to Obama."

Where can I find a LIST OF THE NAMES OF THESE 20 PEOPLE?

WHY IS THE MEDIA NOT LISTING THEIR NAMES?

We are just told that Nacy Pelosi got a "letter" signed by "20 donors".

MY NAME is available on the HUFFINGTON site which lists all donors to Democratic causes.

Why is MY NAME PUBLISHED for my $250 contribution, but these Billionaires remain nameless?

NAMES PLEASE!

Disgusted with Democrats

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:55:36 EDT

The latest on the CNN wire:

"The fundraisers, who reminded Pelosi in the letter they have been strong contributors to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee..."

The Democratic Party is the BEST PARTY MONEY CAN BUY!

This is the fundamental difference between Obama and Hillary.

Hillary made $12 million last year. Bill made at least $20 million.

Obama made a measly 1.5 mil, and most of that was book royalties.

The fight that is "tearing apart" the democratic party is the fight between the corrupt oldschool wing of the democratic party, where a few well-heeled "donors" decide what goes on and who gets elected.

These same money people are trying to tell US, the voters, who we should be the next candidate for President - because they want a candidate that can be BOUGHT.

And that ain't Obama.

It is time for a revolution to smash, once and for all, the old-time money ties, including the MAFIA and UNION ties to the Democratic Party.

That or abolish the party entirely.

Say it ain't so!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:22:36 EST

After tonight's lovefest debate, pundits are floating the idea of a Hillary/Obama ticket.

I don't think that was the strategy of the Obama campaign, but one never knows these days.

Say it ain't so!

(Perhaps the idea was "floated" by Hillary operatives in a move to castrate Obama before Super-Tuesday)

Here's the deal: A Hillary/Obama ticket is a Hillary ticket.

Dick Cheney notwithstanding, the Vice Presidency is a ceremonial post, and if Hillary were elected, the VP slot would return to its historic roots.

There would be little or no point in supporting Obama if he were just to end up as a VP.

But then again, maybe that is EXACTLY the reason Hillary operatives would spread such a rumor.

If Hillary is the nominee, I'd vote for McCain, the better of the two Republicans.

People bought Edsels, too.

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:21:15 EST

You have to wonder about the Edwards supporters.

I mean, who in their right mind would support this guy?

He made Millions (and I don't mean 2 or 3) suing doctors for malpractice. Did he help patients? Maybe. Did he help HIMSELF? You bet! He want from Dirt Poor to Filthy Rich in a few short years by suing doctors.

Only in America. I wonder how he would use that experience to reform our health care system - sue everybody?

Now he says he wants to "help the peepul" and that he is a populist. The millionaire populist - can you believe this? I can't.

And a lot of his supporters were paid volunteers. There is a great video on Redstateupdate where they interview Edwards banner-wavers at the Nevada debates. All ofthem were paid campain workers. Dunlap asks to speak to a volunteer, and one worker says, "where is THE volunteer?"

When she finds out she is the only volunteer in the group, you can visibly see her re-thinking her support!

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2byrZ9JRS1I at 2:01

His candidacy was funded in large part by the Trial Lawyers Association - whose one and only goal is to make sure that the largest transfer of wealth in the history of this nation continues unabated.

In short, they want tort reform OFF the agenda.

Trial Lawyers can make tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars suing doctors, hospitals, companies, and individuals over torts, product safety, medical malpriactice, accidnet injury, and the big payoff - the class action suit.

In theory, these lawsuits help the "victims" of these cases. But in many cases, the lawyers make more off the case than the victim does, and after "expenses" the victim often gets little.

And increasingly, the "victims" are being manufactured - particularly with regard to class-action suits.

Edwards talked a lot about helping the poor and other populist social issues. But I never believed for one nanosecond that he really meant any of it. He wanted to get elected, period, and he felt the populist message would work.

It didn't help that he couldn't get re-elected in his own State, or that he is viewed largely as an empty-headed $400 haircut.

So why would people be Edwards supporters?

Well, some folks actually went out and bought Edsels, you know. Not a lot, but quite a few.

They still pulled the plug on that assembly line.

The 2008 Edwards is no longer available. Not even as a special order!

Have you driven an Obama lately?

Good News for Obama!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:53:52 EST

Edwards dropping out in advance of "Super Tuesday" is a good thing. Too bad he didn't do it earlier!

If he stayed in "for the long haul" he would have been the spoiler - drawing votes away from Obama and giving Hillary more opportunity to lead in some States.

It could have ended up as a delegate tie (neither Obama or Clinton with enough delegates to win the nomination) in which case Edwards could have played "kingmaker" at the convention, throwing his delegates to whichever candidate offered him more goodies (the vice-Presidency, torpedoing tort reform, and oh yes, ha-ha, helping the poor.).

But now it is down to two candidates, and let the best person win. No spoilers, no kingmakers.

Now, if old Ralph Nader would just get a reality check....

He's half-WHITE, too!

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:47:26 EST

I was listening to "Ttalk Of The Nation" on NPR today, and some ya-hoo called in, claiming to represent "the average white Southern Democrat." He said he would vote for Hillary but not Obama, in part because he (and his friends) "are not ready for a Black President".

This got me to thinking. He's half-WHITE as well as half-BLACK, you know.

In this country, racism is probably best reflected in this dichotomy of race categorization.

If you are WHITE and have all WHITE ancestors, you are considered WHITE.

If you are BLACK and have all BLACK ancestors, you are considered BLACK.

BUT, if you have even a small percentage of "black blood" in your ancestry, that makes you no longer WHITE. You are now BLACK, even if half or more of your ancestry is WHITE.

Funny, how that works, isn't it?

If you are Black, but have one white grandparent, that does not put you into the "caucasion" category. But if you are White and have one Black grandparent, well, that makes you "African-American". It is not a two-way street!

Why doesn't this race-thing work both ways? Couldn't Obama be said to be WHITE since he is half-white? Why is he immediately categorized as "Black"? Why is there a need to classify him at all?

Why are we still obsessed with skin color? And race?

And this categorization goes back to slave times, too. Back then, intricate calculations were used to categorize blacks by their percentage of blackness. Terms like "Mulatto" and "Octaroon" (1/8th black) were used. Regardless of the categorization, however, you were still black - and still a slave or still discriminated against.

Such terminologoy and categorization was OFFENSIVE THEN and it is OFFENSIVE NOW.

I think the Clinton campaign doesn't realize what a pile of dog-doo they stepped in by trying to categorize Obama as the "Black Candidate". By doing so, they are perpetuating the same old racial stereotypes that date back to before the Civil War.

The Clintons have shown their hand here - they want to pidgeonhole and categorize voters on the basis of race or other external indicia, instead of by the content of their character - what they believe and what they aspire to.

This is the classic "Old School" Democratic values that we have to move beyond if we are ever to live in a "post-racial" America.

If we truly are to treat people as equals, we need to treat them equally - and this means not pandering to people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation stereotypes. And this means not treating people as categories to be processed in bulk.

I would hope that one thing President Obama would do in office, is instruct all government agencies to forbid the use of "race" categorizations on government forms and documents. We should not be forced to check off a box indicating skin color, unless it is needed for identification purposes (like hair and eye color).

FWIW.

Does Bill want Hillary to lose? Has Hillary vetted Obama?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:25:35 EST

Maybe Bill doesn't want to be upstaged by his wife? Suppose she ends up being a better President than him? He looks like a fool.

Suppose she is far worse (as many people expect)? Then the entire Clinton legacy is tarnished.

Or, more precisely, more tarnish is added to an already tarnished legacy.

Either way, if Hillary wins, it is a no-win situation for Bill. Perhaps subconciously he is sabatoging his wife's candidacy.

The problem with the Hillary Campaign "attacks" is that they are so weak.

If the worst thing you can say about a guy is that he maybe said Ronald Reagan was a nice guy (he was, wasn't he?) and that he voted "present" a few times on bills that would have passed or failed without him, then that's not a lot of "dirt" on old Mr. Obama.

I mean, is Hillary holding back the big guns? No real skeletons in Obama's closet? Is THAT the best the Hillary camp can come up with? If so, Obama has been "vetted" by Hillary - he comes up CLEAN.

The Clintons, on the other hand, well, boy-howdy do they have a paper trail. Google Clinton and Dubai, for example.

Are old people racist?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:51:04 EST

One of the interesting aspects of the South Carolina primary is that Obama won nearly half of the younger white voters, but only 25% of the white vote overall - meaning that of folks over 65, maybe 10% voted for Obama.

What's up with that? Are old people racist?

Yes and No.

Everyone has issues with race, class, or culture to some extent. We are often not confortable with people not of our own culture, as we do not understand the subtle communication cues of another culture, race, generation, nationality, or religion.

It actually takes an active effort to suppress these disconforts to break through these barriers and accept others. It is not easy to do. And if you'v enever had contact with people of another race, almost impossible to do.

Younger people today I think are more exposed to other cultures and races. While your average high school might self-segregate in the lunchroom cafeteria, the young people still communicate and study in the same classrooms with each other. For them, people of other races are not "those people" who are on the other side of town, unseen and unheard, and thus easy to stereotype.

This is a great hope for this country - that the next generation is more accepting of racial and cultural differences.

For the over-65 set, it is much harder barrier to break. These are folks who grew up during the era of segretation, of separate water fountains, seperate bathrooms, and sit at the back of the bus, if you please! Their racial views are molded by their parent's views, and can be hard to overcome - not that some did not try.

My own Mother (now deceased) always lauded the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, and talked the talk about racial equality. Of course, the only Black people she ever knew in her life were maids and servants in her parent's house, and later our own. She never had any Black friends or acquaintances for the simple reason that in our small New York town, there were no Blacks present (and no Jews, either, thanks to an informal arrangment among the local Real Estate agents).

Her mother was from the deep South and harbored deep suspicions about both Blacks and Mexicans. "They'll CUT you," she once told me, "They carry knives and razors!" Shades of bad, bad Leroy Brown, I guess.

Oddly enough, her attitude towards Blacks and Mexicans softened with time. In her final days at the rest home, it was mostly Black and Hispanic attendants who cared for her. "You know," she said, "These are the nicest people, once you get to know them."

The source of her attitudes are not hard to decipher. Her Grandfather owned slaves.

Today it is CULTURE not necessarily RACE that divides our country. A lot of attributes attributed to Black culture (violence, rap, gang and drug culture, ghetto culture) are copied by young white youth, for whom the role model of the urban "gangsta" is them what the "college hippiie" was to us in the early 1970's. Kids want to emulate the culture of rebellion. More than half of all "hard core rap" albums are sold to middle-class white suburban teen wanna-bes.

The majority of Black people, of course, do not fit into this sterotype, of course.

But it is that stereotype that scares many white voters - particularly older whites, who view the inner city black population with suspicion.

Barack Obama hardly can be said to come from the urban ghetto culture - he hardly fits the stereotypes of urban blacks, and in fact has been criticized for not being "black enough".

And there is, in fact, a dichotomy between "African-Americans" (meaning Blacks born in America) and Americans from Africa (recent immigrants, such as Obama's Father).

I worked once for an African gentleman who would spout racial epithets regarding Amercan Blacks. Yes, he used the "N-word". I asked him about this - wasn't it hypocritcal to call Blacks by derogatory names when he himself was Black?

He nearly hit me in the face. "I am NOT one of those people!" he said, "I am AFRICAN!".

Since then, I have met other Africans (including one friend who is a tribal chief). Their life experience has little in common with that of American Blacks. They grew up in a country where race was not an issue (although tribalism might have been). Many were educted overseas and represent the upper class of their country. They do not view themselves as a disadvantaged minority, and thus whem coming to America, they do not identify with the politics of the black population. And perhaps the Black population in America does not identify with Africans very well.

Obama, being second generation, seems to have overcome this barrier.

However, it appears to be the campaign strategy of the Clinton campaign to paint Obama as an inner-city urban Black, as a means of driving away white voters.

The e-mail campaign of the Clintons now highlights a web page from Obama's church that mentions black unity prominently. The message is clear - Obama is some sort of Al Sharpton on steriods.

And of course Bill Clinton played the race card to the hilt, implying that "those people" will "Vote for one of their own".

If they can pigeonhole Barack Obama as the "black candidate" for blacks only, then they can get more of his white crossover voters. Perhaps.

What disgusts me about this is that the Clintons are supposed to be Democrats, and supposedly Democrats are not supposed to do things like this.

If Hillary gets the nomination, it will be a sad day for America - a Democrat who wins by using rumor, innuendo and racial division.

If she becomes President, it will be a national nightmare.

FWIW.

Why is Edwards Staying in the Race?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:13:07 EST

Why is Edwards staying in the race? People hate lawyers, particularly ambulance-chasing personal injury lawyers with a $400 haircut and a permanent smirk.

He is staying in the race so he can be kingmaker at the convetion.

Well, maybe not him per se, but the Trial Lawyers Association of America who is backing him.

The modern lawsuit, including personal injury, medical malpractice, and of course, the spurious class action suit, have resulted in the largest transfer of wealth ever seen in this nation, from corporations and individuals to a select group of powerful attorneys. John Edwards is a classic example.

The Trial Lawyers will do everything in their power to insure that "tort reform" fails, and that lawsuits are long, protracted, and expensive, so that companies have an interest to "settle" them by giving millions to the attorneys involved.

This is the entire imputus behind the Edwards campaign. The "I'm helping the little peepul" rhetoric is just a ruse.

Why no one reports on this story is beyond me.

Edwards will throw his support behind whatever candidate (Hillary, Obama) promises to support the trial lawyers.

I am guessing Obama did not go along with this scheme, as Edwards is now attacking him.

It is also strategic for HILLARY to have Edwards in the race.

As illustrated in South Carolina, there are white guys who will not vote for a woman, but will vote for Johnny Haircut. When Edwards throws those delegates to Hillary, she will win the nomination.

The Internet Changes Campaigning.

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:13:13 EST

The Internet Changes Everything!

People today are used to getting e-mails that are phishing expeditions or are from a FRIEND IN NIGERIA WHO WANTS TO WIRE THE SUM OF $2 MILLION USD....

We know what LIES are and how to spot them. So mass-forwarded e-mails saying Obama is a Muslim Radical just don't stick.

Similarly, the LIES that the Clintons are spreading that Obama is some closet Reagan wanna-be are easy to check up on using the Internet.

The Clintons are using the "OLD SCHOOL" campaign tactic of waiting a couple of "News cycles" to spread lies, as no one (back then) had the resources to go back and see what someone actually said (and the news broadcasts were too lazy to do so).

But with the INTERNET, we can CHECK, and when you CHECK, you can spot the LIES.

CLINTON LIES! NO MORE LIARS IN THE WHITEHOUSE!

It's that simple.

Interesting Posting on CNN.Com

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:01:23 EST

"Matt" posted this message on CNN.com today, in response to an article about Hillary pulling her outlandish negative attack ad saying Obama is having Reagan's Love Child.

I don't know who Matt is, but he really gets it. Very insighful! I hope he does not mind me re-posting this here.

* * * * *

Coming out of Iowa and heading into New Hampshire, the party, the country, and even the world for that matter, was filled with great optimism and hope that we were on the verge of turning the page on a very ugly chapter in our history – one that has brought us a war, a divided country, and an ugly divisive form of politics. Mr. Obama promised to move us in a new direction and offered us the possibility that a united America could indeed be great again.

But now that promise looks a little dimmer. Surprisingly, the Clintons and their political machine are on a mission to destroy a person whom they should consider a Democratic ally in Mr. Obama. They spread muck, distortions, and half-truths daily. Who loses from such politics of personal destruction? We all do! If Hillary becomes the nominee, how will she possibly rally Reagan Democrats, Independents, and Obama supporters, whom she continues to alienate daily, in the fall against the likes of John McCain? Not only is it increasingly looking will Barack may not be the nominee, but it’s looking like we could have another 8 years of a Republican in the White House.

And if Hillary does win, what will another Clinton White House look like? As we watch Bill and Hillary seek to obliterate Obama and his message, we can only imagine what they’re going to do to members of the other side of the isle once they become president. They both have made many enemies, and will no doubt continue to have axes to grind once in the White House again. A divided congress and a divided nation would undoubtedly be the result.

I thought we lived in a democracy. Isn’t it time for the dynastic Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton flip-flop to end? We’ve already had 20 years of this; do we really need 8 more? Shouldn’t we give new voices and new leaders the opportunity to move our country and our world in a new direction? Barack does not carry all the baggage of the past, and offers all of us the chance for a new beginning and the opportunity to let America be America again.

Do you mind if I post this here?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:05:10 EST

We were having a spirited discussion on the Hillary site - or at least trying to.

Problem is, the Admin keeps deleteing blogs there if they think they are against Hillary. Actually, the original poster was FOR HILLARY, but they don't get that.

It was just getting interesting, but then it was deleted three times. Sort of silly. What is Hillary afraid of, discussion?

This was posted before, but got deleted...

Hillary's campaign is doing something Obama is not happy about - exposing his own record. And why? Because the media does not seem to care to do their job. In this ad, now airing on radios across SC, Hillary shows that Obama contradicts himself when convenient, just as she did when she compared video footage of him promoting single payer health care, and then on stage at the debate, claiming he never supported it.

Here is the ad info.:

The spot highlights a portion of his recent interview with the Reno Journal-Gazette in which the Illinois senator said in part, "The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years."

"Really? Arent those the ideas that got us into the economic mess were in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street," the ad's narrator asks.. "Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obamas talking about?"

And, if Obama thinks this is tough - wait till the Republicans get a hold of him. Anyone wanna say "filp-flop" or "I was for it before I was against it"?

Posted by wasGOPnowInd Jan 23, 2008 5:39 PM EST · Report Abuse 4 Comments

How is that statement "bad"?

Republicans are going to criticize Obama for saying they were the party of ideas for 10-15 years?

(What was the rest of that quote? "...but now they are pretty played out")

Hillary will NEED some Republican cross-over voters in order to get elected.

Demonizing Republicans is a bad strategy move.

Distorting what someone says can backfire.

More of the same old, same old. Just like the last election.

Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth" rides again! by robertplattbell Jan 23, 2008 5:46 PM · Edit · Report Abuse

As you can see from my blog ID, I was until a few years ago, a proud member of the GOP. I also was a fan of Ronald Reagan.

Hillary wins here however. I have read the full text, and seen it on video. Deny it all you want, but he walked into a field mine here. His inexperience is showing.

Hillary had it right - he never stands behind anything he says! by wasGOPnowInd Jan 23, 2008 5:49 PM · Report Abuse

as from the debate... this add is an extension of Hillary's distortion of statements and taken out of context. The Republicans were running the show for most of the 80's and early 90's. HMM.... Seems like a desperate shot in the dark. by jimmychuck Jan 23, 2008 5:56 PM · Report Abuse

Here is a FACTUAL analysis of the comments Obama made.

As you can see, Hillary is LYING:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html It is not suprising that a "former" Republican would support Hillary, because she IS a Republican, really. * She was president of COLLEGE REPUBLICANS at Wellsely * She turned DEMOCRAT only after her husband ran for office * She has voted FOR almost every program Bush has asked for * She was FOR the war in Iraq. * She has voted FOR every weapons system presented to the arms appropriates committee - even the ones the Bush administration didn't want! If it comes down to HILLARY versus McCAIN, it will be a race between two Republicans. I think McCain is the better qualified Republican.

John McCain is a good man.

factcheck.org

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:30:29 EST

FactCehck.org is run by the Annenberg foundation.

They checked the facts about some recent claims made by the candidates.

Quite interesting. But not unexpected.

See:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.htm

Bill Yelling at Reporters AGAIN?

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:55:09 EST

Yelling at reporters AGAIN? Bill, you need an anger-management class!

Maybe the reason he gets "mad" (probably scripted) is that he doesn't have a REAL ANSWER to the question.

So, if you don't want to answer the question, get "mad" at the reporter.

Funny, but the Clinton's excuse for everything over the years was that the "press was out to get them" or it was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" or whatever.

They were never culpable, never at fault, never to blame, even when they clearly messed up.

To this day, Bill Clinton is hardly been contrite about the mistakes he has made - mostly because he does not view them as mistakes.

This sort of behavior makes me re-examine the Clinton years in a new light.

Hillary Finally Makes a Smart Move...

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:02:17 EST

This campaign is all about getting enough delegates to win.

Going into the campaign, Hillary thought and said she was the "presumtive nominee" (dumb move) as she had lined up all the superdelgates and was leading in the fundraising, albeit by taking money from some dubious sources (dumb move).

She campaigned like George Bush (dumb move) by scripting events, screening audience members, and providing questions for audience members to ask (dumb, dumb, dumb!).

And when her position in the polls stated to drop, she went into attack-dog mode, using e-mails, and 3rd parties (including Bill) to spread rumors about "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" and his suppposed ties to Muslim terrorists and drug dealers (dumb! dumb! dumb!).

Keep your eye on the BALL, Hillary! It's all about DELEGATES.

The KEY to this election is DELEGATES, and John Edwards, with his matching smirk, is staying in the race to be the power broker. Hillary and Obama are TIED in the elected delegates deparment, and could be similarly TIED after "Super Tuesday".

However, it is clear that Edwards does not stand a chance to win.

BUT, whoever Edwards throws his delegates to WILL WIN.

So the KEY to this election is WHO WILL GET EDWARDS' DELEGATES?

A few weeks ago, I would have said Obama, as Edwards was criticising Hillary and it seemed he was on the same side of the political spectrum as Obama.

Now, Edwards is criticizing Obama and this small item appears on the news ticker. A personal-injury attorney being an opportunist? Naw! It could never happen!

But Hillary is making a SMART MOVE for a change if she is courting Edwards....

* * * * *

MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina (CNN) What were they talking about?

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards met privately backstage following a very contentious Democratic presidential debate in this coastal city, sources with both campaigns confirm to CNN.

The meeting took place in the Edwards campaign green room.

One of the sources said the meeting happened by chance and the conversation consisted of light chatter. The source added that Clinton did jokingly take a jab at Edwards about his beating up on her during the debate. In fact, the real fireworks were between Clinton and Barack Obama.

An Edwards source noted that it was not surprising the two senators met backstage.

"That happens back there, said the source, who said it has happened more often with Obama. Its tight quarters were all on top of each other.

The question is with only two weeks before Super Tuesday what else was discussed?

Hillary Hates Republicans! Or not...

Robert from Jekyll Island, GA — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:40:18 EST

In the SC debate, Hillary said she "Has been fighting Repuiblcans all her life!"

Two problems with this statement:

1. First, you need Republican votes to get elected in this country. If you expect to be elected, you will need some "crossover" voters, and if you go around characterizing Republicans as the "enemy" then it will backfire by turning off voters.

2. Second (surpirse, surprise!) it ain't true. Not only was Hillary a Republican she was head of the College Republicans at Wellesley. From Wikipedia:

Raised in a politically conservative family,[3] she volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the United States presidential election of 1964.[4] Her parents encouraged her to pursue the career of her choice.[5]

In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College. She became active in politics and served as the president of the Wellesley College Chapter of the College Republicans.

[b]So now we hear this made-up smear that Obama is a Republcian lover who wants to have Ronald Reagan's baby or something. Meanwhile, Hillary has an actual Goldwater skeleton in her closet.[/b]

Some people will say ANYTHING to get elected. Don't be surprised when they lie to you once they are in power. That's how it works.