Policy, Not Race

Here's an article by Ross Balano in the KC Star which outlines my thoughts on voting for Obama.

So the race card has been played again this election; nothing new about that either. Democrats do it every election cycle. But I thought Obama was supposed to transcend race.

Now again, if you aren’t liberal, you must be some kind of racist, right? After all, there’s no other reason why anyone would not vote for Obama, correct?

So let me get this straight. With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

If you don’t want higher taxes, you might be a racist.

If you think we should drill for more domestic oil, you could be a racist.

If you believe we should secure the borders, you might be a racist.

If you believe in the right to keep and bear arms, the sanctity of life or winning the war on terror, you just might be a racist.

Heck, if you don’t vote for Obama, you must be a racist.

I, for one, am tired of this old routine.

Let me be very clear: The problems with Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin. Rather, it has to do with positions, beliefs and associations and the lack of any substantial experience that would qualify him to be president.

As I've mentioned before, my objection to voting for Obama comes clearly from not agreeing with his policies and nothing else. I happen to think he's the epitome of Cool.

Although I've seen several articles on a national scale posit the belief that if you don't vote for Obama, it MUST be because you're racist and worse, watch out if he loses. All hell will break loose, because it must have been stolen from him...Bullshit. I don't vote for Buddhists, because they're Buddhists. I don't vote for Texans, because they're Texan. I don't vote for whites, because they're white and I don't withhold my vote just because a candidate is not white. I'm tired of hearing this nonsense. There will be Crackers out there who will not vote for Obama just because he's black, but also there will be others who DO vote for him just because he IS black. All of these people are ill informed and ignorant.

I feel fortunate to have friends on both sides who are not so shallow. We've had discussions on this topic and I'm glad to say we've all moved to a better place where color is not a factor to judging a person's merit.

Please, be informed and vote on merit. If America wants to vote in a Dem, then let it happen. We'll survive (although God help us if both the President AND Congress are Dems . . .). Obama is a good man, just not my cup o' tea.

Peace.

Debate 092608

OK, I'm back...

I've refrained from blogging during the lonnnnng political season because it's been just that, lonnnnng. How I wish we were limited to no more than six months of campaigning. I'm a political junky but man, this has been tiring. And we're not even going to bring up the Sarah Palin issue. (maybe later!)

So I watched the debate. I came in thinking McCain was going to be in trouble. He's old... He's a curmudgeon. Yet, he held himself together without blowing up. I think he scored points on the economy by pointing out Obama's earmarks. I'm still wondering how Obama is going to cut taxes on 95% of America, those under 250K while increasing spending by billions of dollars. Does he expect 5% of America to pay for all that? Quite frankly, I don't believe him.

I've heard how the middle-class has been shrinking for the past 10 yrs. Has no one thought that it's shrinking because to "upper-class" has increased? From what I've read, the lower class has shrunk along with the middle class. So, where do these people go....

Back to the debate. I think Obama shows he's a bright man. He's in charge of the facts and a very good 'debater'. McCain's strength is his experience, especially in foreign policy and military issues. Obama's very personable while McCain is not.

As I've discussed with friends, I'd be honored to vote for Obama if I shared his beliefs. I think he's a good man, but I've studied him and truly believe he's not for me. Being a Libertarian, I feel he's for increasing Government's intrusion into our lives. McCain at least shows an inclination to get Government off our backs.

I don't think I'll have a candidate I'll be truly satisfied for years to come...

Now, a bit about the post debate discussion - I normally watch MSNBC and Fox. I applaud MSNBC's move of getting Olberman off as the face of these programs. I watched him on both conventions as truly was revolted. While I do think Fox is more on the conservative side, besides their 'opinion' talking heads, I think they can be some what objective. During this 'silly' season, MSNBC has shown me that they really are on the left. Olberman has tried to portray himself as next Edward R. Murrow but he's so in the pocket for the Dems that I have to disregard anything he says, just like Hannity. But at least Hannity doesn't try to portray himself as a 'newsman'...

Anyway, the post script on MSNBC has been mixed. Matthews has been a bit harsh, repeatedly leading on how McCain didn't look at Obama. how troll like McCain was and bringing up a load of 'talking points' that Obama missed. On Fox, the scooped MSNBC by having Bidden on right after the debate. Wallace tried to 'get' him on the experience issue but Bidden adroitly deflected the issue. I just can't wait for Maddow...not!! I can tell you how she's going to spin it... wanna bet?

Overall, I think McCain has to consider this a victory since he came in as an 'underdog' when it comes to debating. He scored some points while not blowing up. Obama scored some point by his knowledge and his skill.

Man, I can't wait for this to be over...

Financial Bailout

As I've mentioned before, I have little or no sympathy for those who've mortgaged their lives for a better house while those of us who have sacrificed with smaller dwellings saved and worked for a better life. While I've always questioned the massive payout clauses to departing CEOs, I've never begrudged them anymore than I would a sports athlete or movie celebrity. It's what the market pays out. Shareholders are ultimately responsible for those golden parachutes just as fans are responsible for the sport salaries.

I do scoff at the political gamesmanship currently en vogue in Washington. Democrats are aghast at what's happened even though their leadership was in charge of 'oversight' while the present administration's laissez faire only contributed to the nod-nod-wink-wink of the money shell game. All are culpable and yet we are left holding the bag.

I still don't know how I feel about bailing out the financial crisis. Being a Libertairian, I feel failure is the best medicine. We don't have a significant debt since we've made a conscious effort to live within our means, but we'd still feel the pain caused by those frivolous buffoons. And yet...I'd be willing to suffer if it righted the ship.

Below is an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson, pls enjoy:

Dr. Frankenstein's Wall Street

By Victor Davis Hanson

When the mortgage bubble burst, Americans were "shocked" at how many Wall Street buccaneers had been gambling in a vast pyramid scheme with someone else's money. Paper fortunes were made buying and selling questionable sub-prime mortgages on the silly assumption that such gargantuan inside profiting would always expand -- even as the number of homebuyers able to buy overpriced properties was shrinking.

Now after the recent crash in sub-prime mortgages and the stock of several investment firms, a trillion dollars in "assets" could be nearly worthless. An already indebted American government must restore some sort of trust to banks and markets by either printing money or borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign creditors to guarantee loans.

All that remains of this Ponzi scheme is the election-year blame game. Republicans charge that important financial firewalls were dismantled by the Clinton administration while insider liberal senators got shady campaign donations in exchange for aiding Wall Street. Democrats counter that the laissez-faire capitalism espoused by Republicans for two decades encouraged financial piracy while tax policy favored the rich speculator over the middle-class wage earner.

But no one dares to ask what really drove the wheeler-dealer portfolio managers. Who re-elected these shady politicians of both parties? Who fostered the cash-in culture in which both Wall Street profit mongering and Washington lobbying are nourished and thrive? We citizens did -- red-state conservatives and blue-state liberals, Republicans and Democrats, alike. We may be victims of Wall Street greed -- but not quite innocent victims.

Let me explain. The profiteering was not just the result of a few thousand scoundrels on Wall Street or in Washington, as greedy and as bonus-hungry as many of them no doubt were. Look at the housing market as a sort of musical chairs in which everyone profited as long he grabbed a seat when the music stopped. Then those left standing -- with high-priced loans and negative equity when the crash came -- defaulted and stuck taxpayers with debt in the billions of dollars. But until then, most owners who had sold homes cashed out beyond their wildest dreams.

Thousands of dollars in past profits are still in sellers' bank accounts or were spent on their own consumption. If the shaky buyer at the bottom of the pyramid should not have borrowed to buy an overpriced house, then the luckier seller higher up hardly worried that the cash-strapped fool was paying him way too much with unsecured borrowed money.

We created the cultural climate for this shared madness. Television shows advised how to "flip" a house after putting in cosmetic improvements. Real-estate seminars and popular videos convinced us that homes were not places to live in and raise a family but rather no different from piles of chips on a Vegas table.

We created the phony populist creed that everyone deserved to own a house. So lawmakers got the message to relax lending standards in service to "fairness." But Americans forgot that historically nearly four in 10 of us aren't ever ready, or able, to sacrifice for a down payment, monthly mortgage bills, home maintenance and yearly taxes -- and so should stick to renting.

The problem went way beyond real-estate fantasies. Five-percent interest as a return on our money was once considered pretty good -- especially inasmuch as a factory or farm on the other side of the banking equation could not really stay in business paying 10 percent in interest to banks for its necessary borrowing.

But soon retirement-account holders and institutional investors began to expect as a given 7, 10 -- and even 20 -- percent "return" on their portfolios. Wage earners and professionals alike compared the glossy brochures that appeared in the mail, and then jumped to this 401(k) investment or that mutual fund to "maximize" retirement portfolio earnings.

How Wall Street managers, eager for more multimillion-dollar bonuses, planned to deliver on their promised sky-high returns no one asked. But it often proved to be more by hook-and-crook shell games than by financing new productive businesses or by extending credit for the production of real goods in vital plants.

In a larger sense, this zeal for quick profits and easy money reflected an oblivious too-good-to-be-true culture in which we drove larger cars but demanded more oil drilling from everyone except ourselves. We expected both expanded government entitlements and lower taxes.

Our government borrowed ever more money from foreign creditors, because it was a collective reflection of our own profligate financial habits. Of course, we should reform Wall Street and Washington -- and punish severely the crooks in both places. But Americans should remember that Frankenstein was not the name of the monster but of its creator.