America is feeling blue

So somewhere in the time frame of the primaries when the election was basically between McCain, Clinton and Obama I decided to sign up for all three candidate's mailing lists. Now that Clinton is out of the picture my subscription has changed to being registered for HillPac.com. This is fine, as I still find this kind of news interesting. The purpose of this new site is to try to help publicize and fundraise for state elections where Democrats may be taking over Senate seats previously held by Republicans. I thought this was an worth cause for the ex-candidate, and have enjoyed the e-mails. However, as I'm sure others have seen the Democrats are poised to just explode their majority in both the Senate and the House. Some are even saying they may have a 60% majority meaning they can essentially do whatever it is that they want.

Is this a good thing?

I'm a registered Democrat so don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'll agree with the majority of the things they end up doing, but is this a good thing for Democracy? Checks and blanaces are important, but it seems like having that much of a majority and having a Democratic President just tosses some of our checks and balances out the window. I wasn't previously planning on donating any money to any elections, but I'm starting to think I should donate to the GOP. This seemingly inevitable situation is a BAD thing and could possibly tarnish Obama's presidency if they're not careful.

Nothing like a shopping spree to take care of campaign woes

OK so this is probably an odd topic to decide to make a post about seeing as how I have made so few posts lately, but...

The Associated Press has reported that McCain's campaign is spending "$150,000 in clothes, hair styling and accessories."

But that isn't even what pisses me off (although its close)...

McCain also said that Barack Obama's money advantage is probably why one Florida poll shows the Democrat doing well in the state. A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday showed Obama up 5 percentage points overall in Florida, which went Republican in the last two presidential elections.

Seriously? You're spending six figures on pumps (what ever the hell pumps are) and you're complaining he has more money that you? Nice priorities. I'm sure there are a few financial conservatives out there who just switched their votes on that one.

What if...

So I had a though recently.

We currently stand in the middle of a financial crisis and we have the choice of two presidential candidates who have no significant economic experience. It made me think, what if Romney had been the GOP nominee? In this crumbling economy that will no doubt still be issue one on November 4th, would Obama stood any chance against a man who's entire campaign had been centered around the economy?

Personally, I believe Romney would have been pulling landslide numbers in the polls right now if things had been different during the primaries. This reminds me of a quote from Jon Stewart, and while I can't find the direct quote it went something like this: During the primaries, everyone wanted an everyman to be president someone they could have a beer with, someone on their level. Boy, wouldn't it have been nice to have the smarty pants running for office now?!

The Blair War Interview

I have never felt smarter from watching comedy! This is an absolutely amazingly insightful interview from Jon Stewart. Take a look!

It’s amazing we have to look overseas to get a politician to come and talk to us about politics.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185185&title=tony-blair-pt.-1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185186&title=tony-blair-pt.-2

Obama on Education

I found this associated press article scrolling through my news feed this morning:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NEXT_PRESIDENT_EDUCATION?SITE=MNWIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I have long since ignored my discovery from last November regarding Obama's Innovation Schools education reform plan as being just too bad to still be true. However, in this article Obama  is quoted as saying "Charter schools that are successful will get the support they need to grow [...] And charters that aren't will get shut down. I want experimentation, but I also want accountability."

As I have previously stated, in 2005 Obama gave his, "Teaching Our Kids in a 21st Century Economy" speech in at the Center for American Progress in DC. See link below:

http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2005/10/b593305ct1519467.html

In this speech Obama details this aspect of his plan as:

So here’s what I’m proposing: the creation of what I call Innovation Districts. School districts from around the country that want to become seedbeds of reform would apply and we’d select the twenty with the best plans to put effective, supported teachers in all classrooms and increase achievement for all students. We’d offer these districts substantial new resources to do this, but in return, we’d ask them to try systemic new reforms. Above all, we’d require results.

[...]hold schools and teachers accountable for the results of all these reforms, Innovation Districts would be asked to support schools that succeed and shut down those that don’t.

So not only is he opening up schools to be shut down for participating in an "experiment," but his entire plan is volunatry. I can't imagine many schools would like to volunteer to be a guinea pig for the chance to have their school shut down. I agree this does enforce responsibility, but this gives no benefit for participation.

This is flat out a terrible plan and the one thing that everyday keeps me from writing a check to the Obama camp and keeps me hoping that McCain will somehow reasonably explain his 90% voting record to support President Bush.

Interesting visual on Tax Cuts

So while I continue to struggle to find the time for this blog I started I found an interesting graphic that seems to help support the NYTimes article I posted last week. It breaks up both McCain's and Obama's tax plans by family income. Perhaps you'd like to see where you'll stand.

What do I think about Sarah Palin

In my opinion, Palin was a TERRIBLE pick as VP. She brings on thing to this ticket at that is she's actually an honest Social Conservative. What does this give McCain? I don't think it gives him anything. No social conservatives, gun rights activists, anti-abortionists, were going to vote for Obama anyways. 

However, some people have got to look at the fact that McCain is damn near a dead man if he gets elected. I remember seeing pictures of Clinton and Bush before and after their presidency and seeing the accelerated aging that has taken place. All I can think is if you look at side by side before and after shots of Clinton and W. Bush and then do an artist representation of the after shot of McCain he'd draw a tomb stone. To be it seemed like one of the most important things McCain had to consider when he picked a VP was he needed to consider picking a successor. Palin's lack of experience is certainly fearful. It also undercuts McCain's argument that Obama is too young and inexperienced. It shows he has some faith in youthful enthusiasm. However, one key difference between Obama's inexperience and Palin's is that Obama had the ambition and foresight to try and use his "noobishness" as a pedestal to bring change, he sees it as an advantage. Palin herself said she didn't thing she was qualified to be VP before she was picked (couldn't find a video of the quote) and there is certainly something to be said for foresight. 

In my mind, Romney (although I, like everyone else in my state, now hates the guy) was the perfect VP on paper. McCain needed help with the party's religious base and this was Romney's main base in the Primary. This is also something Obama was trying to steal away from McCain with the Biden pick (which he played up a lot during his DNC speech). The other place where McCain was lacking was in his Economy knowledge. He's getting killed by his own confessed money ignorance, and stating the economy is sound. Although Romney isn't the best economist out there, he certainly has experience dealing with green paper and budgets. 

They say she is a opponent of the oil companies, but that is easily debunked. I mean she was just suing to stop Polar Bears from being an endangered species so they don't interfere with oil drilling. Thats a pretty serious slice of evidence to say that she is in their pocket. I personally don't buy it. You see, the thing is it doesn't really have anything to do with the animal, its that they suspect the Endangered Species Activists (animal activists not oil activists) MIGHT use it to stop oil drilling. If that is there only reason they have to not let them be considered endangered then they are basically endangered, they are just stopping the protective label. If the ESA does do this, and they aren't founded in doing so then they should make that case in court, not stop them from being protected elsewhere. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwZNwdowa4

Lastly, I CAN'T WAIT for the VP debate. Biden will eat her alive.