News on Obama’s Competition
This is the latest article about the ongoing investigations about who accessed Joe Wurzelbacher’s (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber) government records following the final Presidential Debate where Wurzelbacher was made the center-of-attention. Wurzelbacher is probably most responsible for McCain’s recent momentum by coaxing out Obama’s “spread the wealth around” answer to a question about tax policy. Immediately after the final debate, the Obama campaign and the press went on the attack on Wurzelbacher, a private citizen who was in his own driveway when Obama approached him and made himself available to questions. While Biden and Obama were mocking Wurzelbacher, the press was working diligently to assassinate Wurzelbacher’s character by reporting that he did not have a current plumber’s license, he owed back taxes, even calling into question if he was registered to vote. This should make every voter irate with Obama and his attempts to personally smear a common citizen whose only crime was taking the time to ask Obama a legitimate question.
Since Wurzelbacher’s introduction to the nation by both campaigns, it has come to light that Ohio state and municipal government officials illegally accessed Wurzelbacher’s records. It is very suspicious that the officials ultimately responsible for ordering the record checks seem to all be Obama supporters. Now voters are being told that there is no connection between the illegal checks and the Obama campaign? That’s hard to believe since both the Obama-infatuated press and the Obama campaign simultaniously went on the attack with the same information discovered from the checks. Sadly, nothing will probably be done because the elected officials in charge of investigating these manners are Democrat and Obama supporters.
The link below is the latest update to the events that are unfolding. Remember, if Obama will advocate these actions during the campaign, imagine what he would do if he was the top executive in charge of the country. At no time has Obama condemned the illegal searches and at no time has Obama apologized to the common man he has trashed on several national media outlets. These are not actions of a “new politician” who truly cares about average Americans as Obama claims. In fact, this story just adds more illustration to Obama’s famous comments he gave in San Francisco where he said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them… And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” I guess Wurzelbacher is just trying to bitterly cling to his dream of buying a business and not having Obama tax it out of existence.
Finally, here’s the link I promised before getting carried away:
Tito the builder came along after Joe the Plumber. No one can help but to love this guy.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
This week Obama is really showing how much he is counting on the ignorance of the American electorate. The San Francisco Chronicle’s website reports from Las Vegas, that Obama gave his unquestioning supporters these instructions, “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” He went even further telling his supporters to tell their unsuspecting victims that Obama supports the Second Amendment and that he is going to lower their taxes. Notice how he doesn’t mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? In light of the recent Fannie Mae (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation known as Freddie Mac (FHLMC) government bailouts, Obama knows that the last thing his supporters need to concentrate on is who is responsible for the government subsidized entities (GSE) failures that were the largest taxpayer liability of the financial institutions to fall. Nancy Pelosi was sure to come out Monday when the market exploded to explain to TheHill.com that she and her fellow Democrats had nothing to do with the mortgage giants’ collapse and the economic ramifications of their failure. Pelosi was taking every opportunity to blame George Bush for the problem and essentially further the same cause that has driven the Congress she presides over to a 9% approval rating. Barack Obama was out pointing his fingers at George Bush and claiming that John McCain would only extend the policies that brought Fannie and Freddie to their collapse. Obama would be much better off not mentioning the situation, lest he is prepared to answer for his actions and the actions of his party.
Obama has been in the US Senate since 2005. In these three short years, Obama has managed to clinch the third-ranking of politicians receiving the most campaign funds from Fannie and Freddie’s PAC’s and individual employees since 1989. OpenSecrets.com published a list of the top benefactors of the mortgage giants’ political donations which showed since 2005, Obama received $105,849. Ahead of Obama was only Connecticut Democrat Senator Chris Dodd, who has received $133,900, followed by John Kerry, the Democrat Senator from Massachusetts and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, who collected $111,000. Where’s John McCain? He didn’t even make the list of top 25. McCain has taken $20,000 from these companies’ employees and PAC’s over a 20-year period. So, while Obama has taken an average of $35,283 a year, McCain has received just less than 3% of Obama’s annual haul. While Obama is telling audiences that John McCain’s whole campaign staff is made of lobbyists, he is taking over $35,000 a year from these companies while his party has consistently turned its back on any reform that would have stemmed the taxpayer liability to their meltdown.
The situation that has lead to the breakdown of Fannie and Freddie has been evident for years now. In 2003, Freddie was found to have an ethics lapse concerning their accounting methods. The following year, 2004, Fannie was also accused of unethical accounting practices which led to an earnings overstatement along with an understatement of risk as far as their subprime exposure was concerned. After an SEC investigation, the accusations at Fannie were proven true which resulted in an $11 billion earnings restatement and the resignation of several top executives. Recent past executives have included Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae CEO, who Obama hired as part of his VP Search Committee and Franklin Raines, another former Fannie Mae CEO who was forced to resign after the 2004 SEC investigation and who also made close to $50 million off of the erroneous earnings statements. Obama hired Raines as an economic advisor for his campaign. Both Johnson and Raines have also bundled very significant amounts of campaign funds for Obama. Yet, Obama was still on the campaign trail the week claiming that John McCain’s whole campaign is run by corrupt Washington lobbyists, even despite his own on-going deep connections, with two men whose greed greatly led to the disaster for which taxpayers will now end up footing the bill. No wonder Obama needs to raise taxes, he is fully aware of just how much his own advisors have wrecked this economy.
In 2005, John McCain spoke from the Senate Floor about the reforms that were needed in order to avoid a taxpayer-funded bailout of Fannie and Freddie. The blog, HotAir.com posted McCain’s remarks from that speech that included these prophetical remarks, “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” The bill McCain was cosponsoring would have put a new regulatory body over the GSE’s with a purpose of managing the level of risk they took on in their portfolios. A few of the other tasks of the new regulatory body would also place requirements on minimum critical capital levels, provide a risk-based capital test, and also keep an eye on golden parachutes so Obama’s current advisors wouldn’t be able to waltz in, manipulate earnings to increase their own bonuses, place the company in financial ruin, and walk away with more money than most CEO’s in non-government subsidized companies. What happened to this legislation? HotAir.com reports that Chris Dodd (number one of the list of politicians receiving contributions from Fannie and Freddie), who chairs the Senate Banking Committee buried it where it never got out of his committee. It has also been discovered that Dodd was also receiving preferential loan treatment from Country Wide Financial, another mortgage giant that was taking advantage of the cheap-credit situation.
In the June 20, 2005 issue of Backgrounder published by The Heritage Foundation titled Time to Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D. explained that both GSE’s have greatly outlived their purposes and neither have a current significant impact in providing a secondary market to increase funds available in the mortgage market with the purpose of increasing homeownership rates through assisting to provide lower rates that would not be available through nongovernment subsidized private lenders. Fannie and Freddie purchase mortgages from different lenders and repackage them into mortgage-backed securities (MBS’s) that they sell in the securities markets. GSE’s have a line of credit from the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve is allowed to purchase their debt as part of the Federal Reserve’s open market activities. With this backing from the government, Fannie and Freddie’s MBS’s are considered by investors just as risk-free as US Treasury debt because they’re perceived to be backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. With the increase in sub-prime mortgages, Fannie and Freddie purchased many sub-prime debts and packaged these mortgages in with regular mortgages in the construction of their MBS’s. Recently, the foreclosure rates for sub-prime borrowers have increased dramatically which cause many of the mortgages composing Fannie and Freddie’s MBS’s to default, thus prompting the need for a taxpayer bailout. All of this could have been greatly curtailed had regulations been in place such as those McCain cosponsored to limit the amount of exposure in the two GSE’s portfolios.
One of the biggest opponents of making such changes was in the House of Representatives, through Massachusetts Representative, Democrat Barney Frank. Frank is another root of the problem that is out condemning the Bush Administration for the problems derived from key Democrats’ opposition, such as Frank and Dobbs, to limiting the exposure Fannie and Freddie would be allowed to have from MBS’s. Frank has been especially forgetful of his past cheerleading for these companies while out finger-pointing blame in the press. In fact, The Wall Street Journal ran a piece on September 17 discussing how Frank along with his other Democrat “friends of Fran and Fred” opposed any effort to limit the size of the GSE’s portfolios along with opposing any attempts to establish a regulatory body to closely monitor the assets and running of the companies. In fact, the piece points out that, “Mr. Frank was publically arguing for an increase in the size of their combined $1.4 trillion portfolios right up to the day they were bailed out.” The Journal piece even goes further saying that he is still against the Treasury’s planned reduction in the portfolios in 2010. When asked about it during the week of the collapse, Frank apparently told a newspaper, “Good luck on that.”
Frank and his GSE-supporting Democrat brethren argued for increasing the GSE’s portfolios in the name of affordable housing, yet as Dr. Utt found in his piece for the Heritage Foundation, Fannie and Freddie only provide marginal benefits to first-time minority homebuyers. In fact, Dr. Utt cites a release of anti-homeownership materiel targeting minorities and moderate-income buyers that was put out by a Fannie Mae-assisted advocacy group which came a month before the Department of Housing and Urban Development released a new rule requiring Fannie and Freddie to improve mortgage availability to minority and moderate-income buyers, as the GSE’s were established to do. The anti-homeownership literature discussed advantages of renting, public housing and other options and had a clear intent on discouraging those they were being ordered to help. It’s apparent that Fannie and Freddie were more concerned with leveraging their government subsidized status to enrich the profits for shareholders and executives rather than providing the affordable housing Democrats such as Frank were claiming justified the huge mortgage exposure with little regulatory oversight that left a potentially huge liability to the US taxpayers.
In light of the economic turmoil caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with current campaign ties to two former CEO’s that played a key role in bringing Fannie Mae to its knees, where is Obama getting the gall to accuse John McCain of not being in touch with the economy? Just because McCain is not looking for advice from and providing a paycheck to the sources of the current economic strife, shouldn’t mean that Obama has the upper hand on the situation. In fact, where do Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank find any justification to place the blame for these disasters solely at President Bush and the Republicans’ feet? After all of their on-the-record remarks only furthering the same corporate governance that led to these huge economic problems, how are Democrats able to ask American voters to trust them with solving these problems that John McCain was predicting in 2005? The meltdown of these GSE’s and the huge burden this puts on the tax payers proves that the Democrats’ uncompromising conviction lead to this problem. Through his choices of placing two former Fannie Mae CEO’s in advisory roles, Obama provides just another example of his lack of judgment concerning those he places trust in and looks to for advice.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
This is an article from the Washinton Times. Obama supporters will only dismiss this because of the editorial content of the newspaper, however, as shown through examples on this blog, most news sources are committed heavily to covering for Obama’s short-comings. Despite Obama’s claim throughout the entire election that he is the non-partisan uniter, while McCain is mearly a Bush Administration mouthpiece, the article shows how John McCain partnered 55% of the time with Democrats to produce solutions to tough issues such as campaign finance reform. Obama, on the other hand, partnered with Republicans 13% of the time in Congress and he addressed such serious issues as dedicating a US postage stamp to Rosa Parks. (As if that issue was a party-divided vote.) This is just further proof that an Obama presidency will only work for those on the extreme left who agree with him. There will be absolutely no consideration for anyone outside of Obama’s political beliefs.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The headline says it all, “Palin tries to defend qualifications in interview.” Sarah Palin’s experience is being subjected to a level of scrutiny that Obama could never live up to. In fact, they question Palin like this but this article was posted Thursday night after the first part of Sarah Palin’s ABC World News Tonight interview with Charles Gibson. How can any part of this article be considered unbiased? This is from the Associated Press, which is supposed to be a legitimate news source. The article is also listed under news articles, not opinions, so a reader is supposed to believe they are being given the facts about the interview. Instead readers that expect a news story get the opinions of the reporter, both about Sarah Palin and her performance in the interview.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Obama himself came out and publically stated that none of his staff was responsible for the political low-blows being thrown at Sarah Palin about her parenting skills when many started attacking Palin as a bad mother. He further went on to say that he has informed his staff that if they are out talking about Sarah Palin’s family that they will be fired. Well, it’s time for Obama to live up to his word.
Laura Ingraham had Howard Gutman, one of Barack Obama’s advisors, on her show Friday where Gutman criticized Palin as a bad mother for her candidacy. The conversation is transcribed below. The last anyone has heard, Gutman is still one of Obama’s advisors, another case of Barack Obama not keeping his word on an issue that he, supposedly, took a stand on.
Howard Gutman: “If my daughter had just come at 17 years old and said, “Mom, Dad, I’m pregnant, we have a family problem,” I wouldn’t say, “You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to take this private family problem and some people in the town will know it, but we’re going to work through as a family. And you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to go on the international stage and broadcast it to the world, and we’ll deal with this…”
Laura Ingraham: “That’s not your choice.”
Howard Gutman: “…We’ll deal with this in December.”
Laura Ingraham: “That’s not your choice, though.”
Howard Gutman: “Well, what I’m saying is, this wasn’t a working mother issue. This was a parent issue.”
(As transcribed from Fox News report on 9/7/2008.)
So what was the Obama campaign’s response? Fox News reports that the Obama Campaign claims Gutman does not speak for the campaign and his views are not Obama’s views. There are two major problems with this response. First, when Gutman went on the Laura Ingraham Show as an advisor to Barack Obama, then yes he does speak for the Obama campaign. Otherwise, why would the Obama campaign send him to do the interview? None of the appearances on news shows and political forums happen without precise planning of who is going to appear on that show and what their message will bring. It is obvious that Gutman is doing the dirty work of the Obama campaign, even though Obama is acting as if he is throwing Gutman under the bus for his remarks. This is a method for Obama to drive home the accusations of Palin being a bad mother without having to take responsibility for the attacks. If Obama really felt strongly that Palin’s family was off limits and he meant it then he would be sticking to his word now. Instead though, he’s just showing his true colors.
The second major problem with Obama’s response is that he is the candidate who claims that his 20-year membership in an anti-American church has no basis in this campaign, along with his long-time relationship with William Ayers who happens to be an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist. He claims bringing up these associations are dirty politics that no voter should consider about him. Obama also was livid when his wife became a campaign issue when she claimed she had never been proud of her country until now. Even though she made these comments while campaigning for Obama, Obama claimed they had nothing to do with his campaign. Obama claims that all of these are hateful smears and attacks when anyone brings them up, yet one of his advisors goes on a national talk radio show and attacks Sarah Palin’s parenting skills and Obama does nothing to the guilty advisor. By not firing Gutman, Obama is only helping to convince voters that he is low enough to attack a successful mother’s parenting skills. Could anyone image what might happen if Michelle Obama was asked how she could possibly be a good mother while keeping a successful career with two daughters at home and a husband always out campaigning?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Obama’s campaign is making blatant lies about the content of John McCain’s acceptance speech. Last night on CNN’s Larry King live, King interviewed Obama supporters about the effectiveness of McCain’s speech that vowed to take on entrenched politicians on both sides of the aisle to fix the problems not only in Washington but also for the American People. Robert Gibbs, a senior Obama advisor responded to King’s question about the effectiveness with this outright lie about what he just got done watching, “But, you know, Larry, I think a lot of people like me watched this speech, a lot of people sitting in houses and homes in Youngstown, Ohio and Scranton, Pennsylvania, wondering whether John McCain was going to outline for them a plan to get this economy moving again, to make health care more affordable, to break the grip of special interests and break our dependence on foreign oil. And I think, like me, a lot of those people are sitting around wondering why they didn’t hear any of that tonight.” What speech did he just finish watching? I guess he missed when John McCain gave the plan to not just sink government funds into keeping outdated jobs that are not going to be around but to rather use community colleges to train American workers for new, higher skilled jobs relating to new, developing technologies and industries that hold the jobs of the future. Gibbs must have been out getting a snack when McCain also said he would provide them assistance to make up for lower salaries while workers train for new careers. Gibbs must have been out, taking a phone call when McCain discussed the private sector solutions he would seek to the health insurance problems facing some Americans. Now that I am out of excuses for Gibbs, I can only say that he must just be outright lying about not hearing McCain’s plan to use every resource available to break the addiction to foreign oil. McCain said the US would count on developing wind, clean coal, nuclear power, and domestic drilling. How can this be interpreted as not even mentioning a plan to get off of foreign oil? Not only did McCain give real solutions to the issues Obama and his supporters refuse to address, McCain gave solutions that are more than just a plan to tax and spend. In every one of his solutions, Obama found a way to grow government and only discuss solutions centered on increased government spending.
McCain’s energy plan was more than just spending $150 billion dollars to develop alternative sources of energy. However, this plan was enough for Obama and his supporters to hang their hat on as being the energy solution with no further details. No one is even questioning how Obama arrives at the idea that the outlay of $150 billion over ten years will result the creation of 5 million more jobs. Obama does have a record of supporting alternative bio fuels, which has resulted in ethanol companies and large corporate farms, especially in his home state of Illinois and the battleground state of Iowa, receiving billions of dollars in federal money. Not to mention the added revenue from driving corn futures through the roof from ethanol’s effect of tying energy prices to food prices. Every year since coming to Washington, Obama has increased the government mandated ethanol requirements along with the special income tax credits for ethanol producers and the subsidies for ethanol production, processing, and distribution. These subsidies continue to grow each year with Obama’s support. He has supported ethanol despite the horrible inefficiencies, as David Freddoso cites in The Case Against Barack Obama, “America’s entire 6.5 billion gallon of ethanol production created the net energy equivalent of 2.2 days worth of American gasoline consumption.” Freddoso also says that ethanol production is so inefficient that government subsidized corn ethanol production was like spending $9.00 to create a gallon of gasoline, and doing it 853 million times. Also, Obama only seems to care about high futures prices in the oil market. You never hear him mention one word about the skyrocketing prices of corn which have led to food shortages around the developing world and caused many countries to experience food riots. The food riots have made, once huge ethanol supporter, Democrat US Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin reassess his long-time support for ethanol. Food shortages and huge proven inefficiencies haven’t swayed Obama on his ethanol support. High futures market prices are apparently only a problem in the oil markets. Would he have the same problem with the high oil futures if Illinois had oil fields? And while Obama is claiming John McCain is just another version of George Bush who will act in the interest of big oil, Obama should remember that he voted yes on July 29, 2005 to a bill that gave tax breaks and incentives to encourage oil and gas companies to increase exploration and come up with innovative ways to reduce energy dependence. When Obama throws stones at McCain’s record, perhaps he should first look up whether he also voted in support of the same issue.
I actually heard an Obama supporter on Fox News Friday claim that McCain did not address the area of education. All I could think was, is this really the best person the Obama campaign could provide? She had better not be the cream of the crop or else Obama will have to call in sick to every debate. The idea that McCain did not have a plan to improve education is outrageous. Not only did McCain address education, he called it the civil rights issue of our time. Obama, apparently gave an in-depth plan in his acceptance speech when he said, “I’ll recruit an army of new teachers and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I’ll ask for higher standards and more accountability.” Sounds like Obama, wanting to just throw more tax money at the problem and hope if fixes itself. Anyone who watched McCain’s speech with the sound actually turned on heard his plan to provide American families with the ability to choose what they think is the best method of educating their children. American parents would be able to choose between vouchers, charter schools, home schools, and even better public schools. While Obama gives more consideration to appeasing the teachers’ unions by offering six-figure salaries and pledging to let them decide on the criteria for merit-based pay systems, he is viciously opposed to giving parents any other choice on their children’s educations outside of the public school systems. (For Obama’s record on school reform, see previous post in Anti-Obamassiah Refuge, Change we Can’t Accept for Education.)
In these public school systems, Obama has worked harder for the teachers than students. He in no way supports average working parents being given the same choice he and his wife have made for their children by sending them to expensive private schools. However, to Obama’s credit, if I had as much inside information about how many concessions have been made to the teachers and how they are not held accountable whatsoever for failing to educate students, I probably wouldn’t send my children to them either. McCain, on the other hand, did speak of taking down barriers to recruiting the best educators and increase their pay to retain them. Unlike Obama’s plan, McCain also pledged to remove bad, ineffective teachers from the classroom. Obama will never support any of McCain’s plans which favor putting the control of children’s educations in the hands of parents instead of teachers’ unions and bureaucrats.
Unlike Obama’s energy plan that he claims will end up magically creating 5 million new jobs. McCain gives an energy plan to guarantee new job creation. While he gave no estimate of how many jobs in his speech, simple logic tells us that jobs will be created with his plan. This is through his pledge to begin building new nuclear power plants, exponentially increasing offshore drilling, and the development of clean coal energy sources. All of McCain’s energy solutions are guaranteed to create jobs at all levels. This is more than just doling out more government money to many of the same recipients Obama has funneled money to over the years. By promising the building of new power plants nationwide, McCain is calling for specific projects that will give many employment opportunities through the construction of the facilities and even more careers throughout the life of them. Another great aspect of the jobs created by McCain’s energy plan is that none of them will be additions to the government payrolls. Instead they will be jobs that will increase the tax base and contribute to the GDP of the United States. While providing more private-sector employment, McCain’s new energy sources will work to lower energy prices for all American energy consumers. This is a solution with real results, rather than just spending $15 billion a year to existing companies to develop ideas that won’t be implemented widely for a decade. Sure we have to encourage the development of these new energy sources but we also have to a solution to decrease foreign oil dependence in the interim. The US cannot afford to maintain the status quo while we hope for a solution.
In his books, as written in previous posts on the Anti-Obamassiah Refuge, Obama has declared when referring to the unions that support his campaigns, “I owe those unions.” Whether he is discussing fixing schools or addressing the unemployment rate, Obama bases all of his proposals on the idea that he has an obligation to the unions who support him. When Obama claims he has a better plan for addressing unemployment and keeping jobs here instead of shipping them overseas, it is obvious that he lets the obligation he feels towards the unions interfere with addressing the real problem in solving unemployment. John McCain spoke directly to the American worker who is facing losing his job because it’s either being outsourced overseas or the company is in a dying industry. Even though the Obama team doesn’t acknowledge he spoke about unemployment, they very well know that McCain not only mentioned the problem but he blew Obama’s solution out of the water. McCain’s plan cuts directly to the underlying cause of most jobs that are disappearing in the United States. The global economy rewards the most efficient firms. The American workforce is the most high-skilled and high-paid labor force in the world when compared workers in developing countries. In his plan, McCain said that the solution is not to decrease participation in the global economy by mandating old jobs in dying industries stay where they are. The solution is to retrain the American worker for new jobs in the new industries that are growing instead of dying. He plans on using the community colleges to train workers and he also had a plan to supplement workers who have to take a pay cut to train and start a new career. This is a real solution to a complex problem that cannot be solved by appeasing all of the union heads. Obama’s plan to keep jobs here is undoubtedly full of the decades-old union talking points of trade barriers and restrictive tariffs. Although Obama did not give any specifics as to how he would keep companies from outsourcing overseas, it is apparent that he is talking about placing trade restrictions with the markets that jobs are outsourced to. Protectionism will not help Obama grow the economy one bit. Only free markets and free trade grow economies and that is what McCain focuses on. McCain also discussed how making US businesses more competitive on the foreign market will only increase demand for US good and services and is the best way to allow companies to hire more workers. This cannot be accomplished by following Obama’s trade restrictive, protectionist policies he has supported in the past such as Obama’s voted against Senate Bill 1307 on June 30, 2005. The bill would have established a free trade zone between America and Central American countries. Obama voted against the legislation which was also not supported by American unions. While protectionist policies are a good way to garner support from America’s union heads, it is not a realistic way to solve the nation’s future employment needs. From looking at the employment policies Obama supports and the ones that he claims John McCain did not make, we see the solution that has the country’s economy and American worker’s as the top priority rather than Obama’s plan that seems to have in mind the unions which he feels an obligation. Obama’s plan is not to develop future industries and promote the retraining of America’s workforce for jobs that will be around for the long haul, instead, Obama would rather just use the government payrolls to subsidize dying industries and use government money to keep workers pigeon-holed in dying industries and in jobs that are no longer needed or as profitable in today’s economy.
It is perfectly expected for Obama and his supporters to debate his proposed solutions as opposed to John McCain’s. But to just claim that John McCain hasn’t proposed any solutions is a flat-out lie. Perhaps though, that is the only way Obama can argue McCain’s policies. Rather than debate the merits which is a debate Obama would lose, he would rather insult the American voters’ intelligence by claiming his opponent offered no solutions when anyone who watched McCain’s acceptance speech knows otherwise. However, Obama has not debated McCain on the issues during this whole campaign. Now that Obama realizes the cult of personality his campaign has been based on will not win the election, he is trying to advance his claim that McCain has not even mentioned the nation’s problems and instead only wants to talk about personality traits. The American voter is not stupid and they do not appreciate being told what is and what is not in their best interest. Obama is feeling a hit in the poles after John McCain’s acceptance speech. Over the 60 days left before the election, Obama will continue to lose support as McCain shows that we can solve the nation’s problems without increasing every American’s tax burden.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Anyone who missed Fred Thompon’s speech at the Republican Convention should at least read the transcript of his words. It was a powerful speech about the character of John McCain and contained words and ideas that no one even came close to saying about Barack Obama in the Democratic Convention.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )