ObamaCare Lacks Competition In Order to Keep Premiums Low

Just a few days ago, on August 18th, I wrote a blog titled "ObamaCare: Will the Last Insurer Leaving Turn Off the Lights?".  When I posted that, I fully expected it to take a few more years for the reality of that prediction to actually start happening.  However, the following day, the New York Times published an article called "Obamacare Options? In Many Parts of Country, Only One Insurer Will Remain" It pointed out that 17% of Americans eligible for ObamaCare will have only one insurer to chose from.

Then, on August 25th, Senator John McCain of Arizona wrote an opinion piece for Fox News in which he complained that in Pinal County Arizona, 10,000 residents lost their ObamaCare insurance because no insurer (carrier) would cover that particular county anymore.  Also, just two days after his piece, the Washington Post published an article titled: "Health-care exchange sign-ups fall far short of forecasts".  That article explains that enrollments are less than half of what the White House had originally forecast.  Most importantly, 1 in 4 counties in this country will have only one insurer to choose from when signing up for ObamaCare.  As the "Post" so noted, this certainly flies in the face of President Obama's 2009 prediction when he said:

"This exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health-care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that’s best for you and your family. You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package.”

The bottom line here is simple.  ObamaCare is imploding with too few people signing up and little to no competition.  Let's stop the charade and dump this horribly crafted law.

References:

Cutting through the Fog:  ObamaCare: Will the Last Insurer Leaving Turn Off the Lights?: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2016/08/obamacare-will-last-insurer-leaving.html

Obamacare Options? In Many Parts of Country, Only One Insurer Will Remain: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/upshot/obamacare-options-in-many-parts-of-country-only-one-insurer-will-remain.html?_r=0

Sen. John McCain: ObamaCare nightmare may leave 10,000 Arizonans with no insurance options: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/25/sen-john-mccain-obamacare-nightmare-may-leave-10000-americans-with-no-insurance-options.html

Health-care exchange sign-ups fall far short of forecasts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/health-care-exchange-sign-ups-fall-far-short-of-forecasts/2016/08/27/3d93f602-6895-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html

pb

A 2016 Challenge For Both Political Parties. Especially Republicans!

There are a lot of right leaning media types who believe, like Senator Ted Cruz, that the next Republican nominee for president should be solidly conservative and not center right;  otherwise they will lose in 2016.  In support of that argument, they point to the past losses by moderates such as John McCain and Mitt Romney.  But, this chart from Gallup says that the country is becoming more and more moderate:

Since the late 80's,  Republican party affiliation has fallen from 34% to just 25% in 2013.  The Democrats, too, have lost members; falling from 36% to 31%, but that is only a fraction of the Republican losses.  The big class winner in all of this has been the people who now call themselves Independents; rising from 34% to today's 42%.   Obviously, moderate Democrats and Republicans are leaving their respective parties and, in doing so, they are saying that they reject some of their party's ideals and platforms.

The chart above represents the averages for each given year.  What Gallup found by taking 2013 in isolation follows in this remarkable chart:

In just one year, nearly half of all American voters have identified themselves as moderates.  At the same time, this means that the remaining membership of both parties have become more extreme in their ideologies; having lost the moderates.

Because of this, each party will have to appeal to the middle in 2016.  While, at the same time, not offend its remaining base which may not come out to vote if the party platform is too moderate. That's quite the challenge for any politician.

The worst thing that Republicans could do is to try to appeal to their ever marginalized and more extreme base while ignoring the growing number of Independents.  For that reason, I think the conservative media types are wrong with their assessment that the next nominee for the Republican party should be staunchly conservative. 

References: 

Gallup: Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

Ted Cruz in South Carolina: Nominate a conservative in 2016, or Democrats will win: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/19/ted-cruz-south-carolina-nominate-conservative-2016/?
 
pb

A Story Of Two Black Women Who Would Be Secretary Of State

When Senators McCain and Graham said they didn't consider Susan Rice a qualified candidate to be Secretary of State, the Democrats circled the wagons to protect Rice.  The women of the Congressional Black Caucus concluded that the McCain/Graham objections could only have been made on the basis of racism because no one is more qualified than Rice to hold the State Department's highest office.  After all she was a Rhodes Scholar.

Well, how easily those same women of the Congressional Black Caucus forget that another black woman by the name of Rice, Condoleezza, was similarly treated by the Senate Democrats when George Bush nominated her to be Secretary of State.  In fact, it wasn't just two senators who objected to Condoleeza's nomination. It was 13.  And, as far as being qualified, she was not only the youngest Provost at the prestigious Stanford University; she was the first minority in a world dominated by men.

So, you have to ask yourself why it is racist to potentially block Susan Rice's nomination when, in fact, no one made that same claim when Condoleezza was being nominated to that very same position?  Once again, with Democrats, racism is just another political tool.  If they were truly anti-racist, they would have afforded Condoleezza Rice the same arguments of racial protection that they are now affording Susan Rice.

You Can't Criticize Susan Rice Because She's Black

As soon as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticized the U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, for trotting out an obvious lie about the Benghazi attacks on that following Sunday's talk show circuit, it was clear that the left would ultimately use calls of racism to defend her.  Apparently, no black individual n this country can be criticized.  Not for lying.  Not for bad judgement. Not for anything.  In a 2009 blog entry, I wrote this:

"When a person on the political left digs down into their bag of arguments and the only thing they can come up with is a handful of air, then its time for them to use their tired, old, if-all-else-fails tactic of calling someone a racist..."

One has to wonder why Rice, not connected in any way to U.S. consulate operations, was sent out to explain the cause behind the Benghazi attacks.  Was it because the President and his Administration knew that Ms. Rice's lies would be protected by the color of her skin?  Obviously, the President made a choice to send Rice out to tell the story when, in fact, it should have be done by those more intimately involved with the Benghazi situation; like Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, or General Petraeus.  Yet the President "used" Rice.  And, "used" is probably the operative word.

References:

---  Congresswomen: Criticizing Susan Rice For Giving Incorrect Information Is Sexist And Racist: http://nation.foxnews.com/congressional-black-caucus/2012/11/17/congresswomen-criticizing-susan-rice-giving-incorrect-information-sexist-and-racist

--- Clyburg: Republicans Use Racial 'Code Words' To Attack Susan Rice:  http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/clyburn-republicans-using-racial-code-words-

Dianne Feinstein: The Leaker Who's Upset With Other Leakers

This week, the big Capital Hill flap is over security leaks regarding specific details about secret operations such as those associated with the Bin Laden killing; Obama's drone "Kill List"; and, the Stuxnet virus that threw Iran's nuclear program into disarray. On the political right, Senators John McCain and Saxby Chamblis are leading the charge for an investigation. On the left -- interestingly enough -- it is Senator Dianne Feinstein who is upset over the leaks. I suppose its good that there are calls for an investigation on a bi-partisan basis. But, at the same time, I find it a bit laughable that Dianne Feinstein seems so irate over the leaking of national security information.

Back in 2009, she shocked the U.S. intelligence community when she took it upon herself to release to the press the fact that the United States was conducting drone strikes originating out of Pakistan air bases: Dianne Feinstein Leaks Classified Info About Pakistan Drone. Prior to that, back in 1995, Feinstein -- as the then-Mayor of San Francisco -- stood before live TV cameras and completely disclosed intentionally withheld information about the famed Night Stalker serial killer case. Her release of that information may have actually delayed the eventual arrest of Richard Ramirez, by forcing him to move back to Los Angeles where he was able to kill again. I guess when it comes to confidential and secret information being leaked, it takes a leaker to know a leaker. And, for that, Feinstein is probably more qualified than anyone else to head up an investigation into the current spate of national security leaks.

Election Day Thoughts

Well, I voted, and I sincerely hope you voted too. Hopefully, just once. The last thing we need is a repeat of The Night of the Living Dead on election day. Of course that may be the case in Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago. In fact, every time I heard him ask his supporters to vote early, that old Chicago saying of "vote early and often" would come to mind. On Chicago election days, "I see dead people" is more than just a tag line from a movie.

It seems like this was the longest campaign ever. Now there will be no more talk and only our votes will determine the winner. All indications are that we will have the first black man as our President. That will be historically significant. But, win or lose, let's not forget that for Barack Obama to even get to this point is, by itself, historically significant. Sarah Palin brings history with her too, in being the first woman V.P. pick for the Republicans. My guess is that Sarah Palin, herself, may have a future shot at the top office.

Whoever wins, that person will be "our" President. It doesn't matter if you agree or don't agree with his policies. Every four years, the policies of the current President are always going to be at least somewhat disagreeable to nearly half of the population. But we should always keep in mind,
that if we don't like what is happening, it is our votes, in two short years, that can address those issues. You can easily send the current President a message by voting out his affiliated Congress members. Then, that President and his political party will understand. It happened when Bush lost Republican control of this last Congress.

If Barack Obama wins, I expect to be a voice of opposition to the policies of his that I disagree with. Everyone can be that voice by telling their elected representatives what they think on specific issues. Even if McCain wins, I expect to be in opposition to some of his policies as well. Some of his past efforts were not worthy of anyone's glowing praise. McCain/Feingold comes to mind as one example.

Regardless of the outcome. I don't see myself writing in this blog as often, but, we'll have to see. Personally, I am glad this process is over. I would hope that campaign funding gets re-addressed so that we don't have this kind of lopsided spending by one candidate over another and over his/her primary opponents. Between McCain and Obama, nearly a billion dollars will have been spent on this endeavor, with nearly two-thirds having been spent by one candidate. That is just too much money. There's got to be a fairer way to run an election.

So today commemorates an ending, and at the same time, a new beginning. Either way it promises to be an interesting next 4 years.

Obama's Push For Early Voting

Not a single campaign rally goes by where Barack Obama doesn't tell his crowds to "vote early" and get their neighbors to vote early too. Certainly, whether you vote now or whether you vote on election day, your vote would be counted the same either way. So then, why the big Obama push to vote early?

I really think the reason is because the Obama campaign is worried. He knows that once you vote you can't take it back. The Obama people are worried that if you wait until election day, you might just change your mind. We have seen in the polls that there is movement towards McCain ever since Joe "The Plumber" hit the scene. Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to "Joe" and the release of an earlier taped interview with a Chicago radio station that appears to say the same thing, is taking a toll. If you discount those silly, double-digit polls by the left-wing mainstream media, like Time, Newsweek, the New York Times and Washington Post, and just focus on the real tracking polls by real polling organizations like Rasmussen, Zogby, GWU/battleground, IBD/Tipp, and Gallup, it appears that Obama's lead is about 3.4 percent with a 2.6 percent margin of error. I am also sure that the Obama Campaign is seeing the same or even worse in their own internal paid-polling.

Barack Obama has always had a problem, as many have said, in closing the deal. In his various primary election duels with Hillary Clinton, all too often, his leads fell apart or completely dissipated on voting day. In case after case, the polls were just plain wrong. Some by as much as 10 or 11 percent.

McCain looks to be losing on paper if you look at the state-by-state polls that can affect the results of the electoral college voting. But those infrequent state polls tend to lag behind what is actually happening in the more-current national polls. For that reason, the state polls might just be overstating an Obama win. The national polls, which can expose possible trends for the state polls, show that there are a lot of undecided voters right now. McCain has a chance to win if he could woo those people in these last few days or "IF" more game-changing information comes out about Barack Obama. There is one other factor, too. When some weakly committed voters are alone in that voting booth, they just might have second thoughts about voting for someone like Barack Obama, who carries so much unfavorable baggage, and who has made so many questionable promises.

With the way things look right now, I really think this election will be won on a razor's edge. It may actually spend days in our courts before being resolved because of all the ACORN crap. I may be wrong but, I don't see a blowout for Obama as his cheerleaders, like the mainstream media, would have you believe. Obama's own words about voting early are, I think, proof of that.

For Once, I Agree With Joe Biden (Somewhat)

In April, I wrote a piece titled: "Are We Ready for the Mistakes of JFK, Again?" (See Full Story). As I explained in that essay, it was Kennedy's own perceived weakness that caused Russia to move missiles into Cuba. It absolutely wasn't out of any perceived strength in his character. I went on to compare Obama to Kennedy and how his policies, especially talks without preconditions, can be easily perceived as weakness. I hinted that Obama could be tested by the likes of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. I think you could easily add to that list the likes of Al Qaeda/Taliban, Hamas/Hezbollah, Syria, and, especially, North Korea.

Now, Joe Biden has predicted the same (See Full Story). Of what Joe said, the following is the most important statement: "Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." Of his statement, "a generated crisis, to test the mettle" seems to say it all. It will be "generated" because of what all those foreign entities. as noted above, see as weakness in Barack Obama. It will assuredly be done "to test his mettle" and to see how much they can get away with, with this "new kid" (and, I mean new 'kid') on the block. If Barack stumbles in his response, expect more and more of the same.

One can only ask what we are getting ourselves into with Barack Obama as President. One could, if not a biased Democrat and a believer in Joe Biden's words, say that a vote for Obama is to vote for an international crisis. Not once in Biden's thesis and prognostication did he mention that the same would happen if McCain were elected. In essence, Joe is saying that an international crisis will be "generated" because of Barack Obama becoming President.

Let's not forget that we have a new axis of evil to deal with at this time in history. That "axis" is already made up of Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. All these countries' leaders have been busy working with each other. Chavez, specifically, has traveled to Russia, North Korea, and Iran. They have been exchanging information on nukes and talking down the United States. Russia, Iran, and North Korea have flexed their muscles by conducting missiles tests as if to say "watch out" and to imply that they are coming after us. And, as for Venezuela not having missiles to test, I don't think it is out of the realm to assume that Venezuela becomes the new Cuban missile crisis by agreeing to allow Russian nuclear missiles on their soil. That is one possible test for Obama to confront.

Joe seems to think that Obama will do well in this crisis; although, with "tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions..." This is were I differ from Joe. Obama has a history of avoiding tough decisions. In the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 130 times to avoid taking a specific stand and to avoid voting either "yea" or "nay" on tough issues. When that call comes in at three in the morning, are we going to get a tough answer or, as usual, are we simply going to get a "present" declaration from a President Obama? My guess is that the "axis of evil" is betting on the latter response and that's why they all think that he should be "tested" when he takes office. Just like Joe said in his prophecy, I, too, can say: "Mark my words!"

One final comment. We may actually see something happen shortly before Obama takes office. This would be a time where Bush would be in a very limited position to define a response and at a time where Obama has barely assembled an Administration that could respond to any international crisis. Late December and early January could be a very tenuous time for this country.

Dewey Wins?

In the history of this country, there is one election, Truman vs. Dewey, where the underdog truly became the come-back-kid. By that election day, the final Gallup polling had Dewey 5 full points ahead of Truman. The whole country thought that Truman was doomed to lose. In fact, one of the most famous pictures in political history is Truman holding a copy of the "Chicago Daily Tribune" that was erroneously published and declares: "Dewey Defeats Truman" (Click to see this historical Associated Press photo).

Early last week, John McCain aptly declared himself the underdog. Certainly, the polls reflect that fact with Barack Obama leading by as much as 14 points, nationally. Some projected Electoral Map calculations show Obama with over 300 electoralvotes, with only 270 needed to win. Even I, just a couple of weeks ago, said that this economic disaster may have given Obama the win.

However, there is a possibility that John McCain, like Truman, may win this.

The Obama campaign has targeted the "youth" voters from day one. But, the younger voter is the most historically unpredictable. If Obama has a significant lead, these less dedicated "youths" might just skip going to the polls. If enough think that way, it could swing this in John McCain's direction. Actually, some might not go to the polls no matter what is happening in the polling.

Through the most recent polling results, we know that the "undecided" voters are between 7 and 16 percent; depending on the polling source you look at. If, for some reason, John McCain can sway those votes in the final hours, it could spell a win. Usually, though, this group of voters tends to follow the general polling. But, there are so many open issues about Obama and his past that the undecided's might not feel comfortable with that uncertainty. Some might not be comfortable with "completely" turning over all of the reins of government to the Democrats. Others might be concerned about the effects of being too liberal in an economic crisis. A two or three percent swing of the undecideds McCain's way could really change the results of this election. It should be noted that independents have been somewhat moving away from Obama in the last few days.

Then, of course, there is the possibility of the Bradley Effect. Basically, this is a documented trend by voters saying in polls that they will vote for the black candidate and, then, vote to the contrary when pulling the lever in the hidden confines of the voting booth. The "effect" is generally believed to have resulted from whites not wanting to look like racists when directly confronted by a pollster. Ironically, it can also be some blacks that don't want to appear to be voting against a black person because they might look like an "Uncle Tom". Historians have documented this effect to be as much as 6 percent. If Obama has less than a 6 percent lead over McCain, and this "effect" actually happens, McCain could pull this off.

This election, more than any other, has people looking at one candidate because of his "promises" rather than his past actions. This election has also become a media driven election for a variety of reasons that include making history. However, what happens in the privacy of the voting booth might not be what the polls are saying. It might not be what our mainstream media wants to happen. While it is hard to imagine John McCain wining with such a completely weak outlook according to the Electoral Maps, there is always the possibility of a repeat of the Dewey/Truman contest. But, who really knows? Even Obama, himself, expressed his concern over losing when he said "Don't Underestimate Our Ability to Screw it Up" (See Full Story). During the primaries, time after time, Hillary Clinton had substantially better performances on primary day against Barack Obama than the polls were saying. The same just might happen to Obama against McCain.

I just think this election may be the most interesting in our history, and if McCain does have a shot at winning, it could be a very, very, long night and a very, very, close election. If McCain does win, expect Obama's lawyers to be unleashed across this country like a massive herd of wild mustangs. This election could make Gore v. Bush look like legal amateur night in comparison to what could happen between McCain and Obama.

AP is at it AGAIN!

I love the AP (AssociatedPress) because they never fail to wear their bias on their sleeve. This morning they released their latest election poll data in conjunction with Yahoo. The headline read: "Poll: Voters souring on McCain, Obama stays steady". The article covered a synopsis of their poll data and included this graphic (Click to See Graphic). Throughout the entire article, the AP just kept hammering McCain about his lack of support on the economy, his favorability, etc. (Click to see the full story).

After reading it, you couldn't help but think that Barack Obama had some massive lead in this new polling data. Not once did the AP news story really mention the fact that Obama leads by a mere 2 points, 44 to 42, over McCain. You have to load the PDF file to actually glean that fact out of the data. I guess this fact was a reality that they would have preferred that you really didn't know. Actually, their polling data reveals this to be a virtual dead heat based on their own 5.1 to 6.7 percent margin of error for this poll. As complete Obama backers, AP cherry-picked pieces of data from the poll that would make Obama look fantastic, and show that McCain was "souring" among the voters. My guess is that they are trying to turn-off any McCain-leaning voters. Once again from AP, we get a commentary/op-ed instead of a simple reporting of the news. Welcome to a media-influenced campaign for Barack Obama!

Out of Domestic Disaster Comes a Democratic Win

If you follow the polls, you can clearly see that Barack Obama is gaining strength every day over the last two-and-a-half weeks. As of this writing, he has a 6-percent combined-average lead over John McCain in the Real Clear Politics reporting of all polls. Almost daily, the lead is extending for Obama.

The best thing that could have happened to the Obama campaign was the credit crisis in this country. Conversely, it was a disaster for McCain and it, alone, may have sealed his loss in about a month. Our society is apparently too educationally naive on this subject to understand that this crisis was primarily created out of a socialistic desire by the Democrats and Obama to put unqualified buyers into housing.

Anytime there is a domestic problem of any significance, the party in power gets kicked to the gutter. In many ways, it was the failures of Katrina/Rita that beat the Republicans in 2006 in their various runs for Congress. If Katrina/Rita had occurred just before 2004, I doubt that Bush would be in office. Now, the credit crisis is going to give Obama the win because it happened on George Bush's watch and because McCain is a Republican. While McCain would be the better candidate to handle this crisis over the long haul, he will lose because of the political "R" behind his name.

History, in terms of the Great Depression, has proven that increased government spending during FDR's Administration actually prolonged the depression. Now Obama is ready to take office in the midst of recession with government spending being his only solution to the problem. I personally don't want to even think about the disastrous effect that could have on our economy.

If this crisis had be an international one, like an Al Qaeda attack anywhere in the world or another move by Russia, McCain would have naturally gotten a bump. But, at this late date and because this credit crisis will continue to linger for weeks and months, voters are going to go to the polls with the economy on their minds and Obama will get the win. It is just that simple. I believe the game is truly over. Sarah Palin's performance slowed the fall of McCain in the polls. However, the mainstream media is doing everything it can to downplay that performance.

The only thing that could rescue McCain at this point would be a major misstep by Obama or some new revelation about his past. A major problem on the international stage might be a game changer. However, I don't really think McCain can change the course of his fate at this late hour. Obama has been a product of a media love affair. Sadly and wrongly, the media seems to think that Obama's background, lack of experience, and his views mean nothing in this campaign. They simply want history to be made. Even if our country suffers from it! The last time the media created a Presidency, we got Jimmy Carter. We all know what a foreign and domestic policy disaster that was.

The Great Debate?

Billed as the most anticipated V.P. debate in the history of the United States, I don't think last night's debate quite measured up to the "Thrilla in Manila" status it was given.

Joe Biden had been muzzled by the Obama campaign to make sure that he didn't gaffe all over himself; and, to make sure he didn't put everyone to sleep with his typical over explanation of issues. So, in essence, Biden seemed subdued in contrast to his past debate performances. He was on his best behavior to make sure that he didn't seem condescending or overbearing against his female opponent.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, was allowed to be "the" Sarah Palin of lore and "the" Sarah we saw at the Republican Convention in St. Paul. She was no longer the "mind freaked" and over-handled person that showed up at the Couric interview. She talked to America in her "Dakota" style of down-home dialect and, I think, made America comfortable with her confidence and intelligence. I also think she clearly disarmed those who had expressed concerns about her being "only a heartbeat" away from the Presidency. That's important because, if you listen to the left-wing ads and media, John McCain, with his previous bout of skin cancer, is teetering near death.

Post debate, I think Sarah Palin got applause for her style. Even from "some" liberals. I also think she showed a broad range of knowledge on a variety of issues. However, it was obvious from the remarks made by left-wing commentators that they felt that she didn't demonstrate the "depth of knowledge" of their candidate, Joe Biden. But, to me, Biden's "depth" of knowledge was more like "pull up your pants" kind of B.S. depth. If you fact-checked Mr. Biden's depth-of-knowledge answers, you would have easily found that he, at the very least, was factually incorrect on a dozen or more of his responses. He also played fast and loose with facts to try and make McCain look bad. For example, he referenced a Senate bill for "armor to protect the troops" that McCain voted against. What Biden neglected to tell you is that, buried within that bill, was an attachment that would immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq. Since there is no "line item" voting in the Senate, McCain was literally forced to vote against the "armor" bill because, to do so, would have been a vote for our defeat in Iraq. What's worse, the timing of that withdrawal would have been in the very midst of the surge. A surge that we all know, now, was a brilliant success. (Just one of the many attempts by the Democrats to have us fail in Iraq!)

Additionally, some of Biden's answers could be construed as being in conflict with Obama's positions. However, in Biden's defense, that is because Barack Obama has been "flipping" on those very issues. For example, Biden said that he and Obama were against gay marriage. While Obama has clearly stated that he is for civil unions, when it was important for him to garner the independent vote, he is clearly on record in stating his opposition to the pending voter initiative that would "ban" the currently approved gay marriage activity in California. One gaffe that Biden gave the world last night was to call the people of Bosnia by the name Bosniacs. All I could think of when he said that was: "What do you call a Bosnian when you cross him with a maniac?"

Certainly, Sarah Palin wasn't without her own moments. She avoided some answers by changing the subject. For example, she failed to rebut Biden's claim that McCain was against the governmental regulation that could have prevented the current economic crisis; even though McCain tried to regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the Senate bill he authored in 2005. She could have easily defended this by saying it was governmental meddling (by regulation) that "forced" the credit industry to give subprime loans to those low income applicants who weren't qualified to have them. Meddling that the Democrats were at fault for by pushing the limits of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and the meddling was exacerbated by the Clinton Administration in 1995 and 1999.

She also gaffed by calling one of our top Generals in Afghanistan by the wrong name. She called him McClellan when his real name is McKiernan. But, she had the facts right, over Biden's typical distortions, about what McKiernan had actually said about an "Iraq style" surge working in Afghanistan. She also stumbled on the question about the V.P. position having responsibilities that are both in the realm of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of our government. However, her answer was closer to the truth than Biden's attempt to use that question to attack Dick Cheney. Sarah also slipped by calling Joe Biden by the name of Obiden.

I suppose, like the Obama/McCain debate, liberals will claim victory for Biden and the conservatives for Palin. Personally, a poor Palin performance could have easily spelled an end to the McCain campaign. However, Palin's performance put a floor back under his campaign. I think she may have stopped the bleeding that was a result of questions about her competency. Now, McCain's challenge is to shake this economic crisis that appears to be hurting his poll numbers.

Gwen Ifill: Advantage McCain Campaign

Alright. The moderator of tonight's debate, Gwen Ifill, is a Democrat and apparently a Barack Obama supporter. I suppose you're really shocked about that! Aren't you? A black journalist from PBS backing Barack Obama? Can you believe it? Like, the Pope isn't Catholic, either!

I think you can readily assume that almost 99.9 percent of the journalists in this country, that could be picked to moderate any political debate, are likely to be political lefties. The good thing about tonight is that Gwen Ifill has been clearly exposed as being an Obama supporter. That's obvious from the glowing book that she has written about Barack and, which is due to be released in January (See Full Story).

The fact that Gwen Ifill's bias has now been exposed will keep her on the straight and the very, very, very narrow during tonight's debate. Anything that would look the least bit biased towards Joe Biden and the Obama campaign or unfairly targeted towards Sarah Palin will be discounted by the watching voters. Even if she isn't really trying to be biased! This, then, gives a lot of advantage to Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign. To some extent, it really disarms any gotcha crap that would normally be pulled by a biased questioner like Charlie Gibson in the first Palin interview.

Right now, McCain is screaming foul over Gwen Ifill. I would hope that he's only doing that because it will tie her hands during the debate. I would also hope that McCain and his campaign are well aware of the advantage they were handed with Gwen Ifill. If anything, it should be the Obama campaign that is asking for a change of moderator. They're the ones that got shot in the foot on this one.

Obama's Forgotten Soldier Moment

I am sure that if you watched Friday night's Debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, you saw the exchange between these two where John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet in the memory of a soldier who died in Iraq. In a "me too" moment, Obama said he, too, was wearing a soldier's bracelet that died in Iraq. Unfortunately, Barack couldn't quite recall the soldier's name so, instead, he fumbled to see the name on the bracelet before he blurted out. What a sincere moment! For reference, that soldier's name was Sergeant Ryan Jopek of Wisconsin.

What's worse about this whole thing is that it is being reported by the father of Ryan Jopek that the Jopek family has asked Barack Obama to stop using Ryan's name in his campaign (See Full Story). However, Barack Obama appears to be ignoring the family's wishes.

Besides the apparent crassness and insincerity of Barack's use of this soldier's name, there are another couple of points that need to be made. If anyone else, like John McCain or Sarah Palin, had failed to remember this soldier's name during a debate or, even, a campaign event, the main stream media would have been all over it. In McCain's case, they would have used it as proof that he was too old. But "no" such chiding of Obama occurred by the mainstream media on the day following the debate. Just like there was no mainstream media coverage or criticism of Barack Obama when he made reference to the visiting 54 our of the 57 states in our country.

Secondly, I think that it obvious that, if a family doesn't want you to use their son's name in your campaign, you should abide by their wishes. However, it has always been about "image" with Barack's campaign. The needs and wishes of the family aren't as important to Mr. Barack Obama than for him to try and project an image that he cares about our soldiers. To me, true caring is being able to instantly recall Ryan's name at any moment's notice! Again, the fact that Obama has been asked to stop referencing Ryan is not being covered by the mainstream media.

The Just OK Debate

Well, the first Presidential Debate is over. To me, it clearly showed a contrast of experience versus inexperience.

Often, the split-screen showed a Barack Obama with mannerisms and facial expressions that clearly showed a more adolescent behavior by shaking his head, raising his eye brows, and, quite often, looking irritated. There was no poker face from Barack. McCain, on the hand, would show a small smile when he knew Barack was either wrong or trying to attack. That was interesting in itself because the press build up to this whole debate was whether or not McCain could hold his temper. It many ways, just the opposite occurred.

On the issue of spending, I clearly saw a Barack Obama who wasn't ready to budge on his plans for spending; despite the current economic crisis. Jim Lehrer went after him on that three times. McCain, too, had less specifics on this same topic. However, he did say clearly that he would go through the spending plans for each government agency and department and cut the fat.

There were no memorable lines or gotcha moments in this debate. Nothing that could be taken back to the water cooler on Monday. On many issues, Obama was at a loss to clearly delineate himself with John McCain. I think he said that he agreed with McCain on 7 or 8 issues. McCain was successful in shooting down Obama's campaign thrust that McCain would be 4 more years of George Bush. He did this several times when he talked about Russia, Somalia, and Lebanon. He clearly outlined his opposition to Bush on the proper prosecution of the war in Iraq; going all the way back to 2003. He did it on a couple of budgetary issues.

I think that the liberals will say Barack won. The conservatives will say the opposite. I am not sure that this debate may have changed a lot of minds in the middle; except that, McCain may have looked a bit stronger.

McCain Bounce Is Gone

A quick review of the national polls clearly indicates that the lead that John McCain had enjoyed after his selection of Sarah Palin and the Republican Conventions is almost completely gone. Obama is back on top as if the none of the VP picks had occurred and as if the Conventions were never held. This time, two months ago, Obama had a Real Clear Politics composite lead of 4.6 percent(Click to See Chart). Now, Real Clear Politics has Obama leading by 4.0.

I guess a McCain optimist could say that McCain still has a gain of 6 tenths-of-one-percent over the poll of two months ago. The only problem with that is that most of the change has been in the last week with Obama getting strong gains.

I think two reasons are responsible for the flip in leads from McCain to Obama.

First, the media's negative attacks on Sarah Palin have taken their toll on the positives that she once brought to the ticket. The media has attacked her experience, her position on guns and abortion, and has attacked her on her flips on things like the "Bridge to Nowhere". There has been no such similar attacks on Joe Biden's policy changes and earmark problems. Further, the media seems to has completely ignored his missteps and gaffes over the last 3 weeks.

Second, the economc crisis has been directed at McCain because, well, Bush is Republican and Bush is at the helm during this crisis. All the ground work of making McCain look like 4 more years of Bush is probably paying off for Obama. Forget about the fact that low income workers inappropriately got loans and this fact, alone, is at the core of our current economic disaster-in-the-making. That's not hardly something a Republican would have pushed for but, it seems the Republicans are getting the blame because Wall Steet is involved. The reality is that this "policy" of low income home ownership can be traced back to Bill Clinton and Democrats like Barney Frank who pushed for changes in the laws to facilitate this totally bad economic policy. Further, the main stream media has failed to connect the dots to groups like ACORN (which Obama once worked for as a community organizer) and their role in pushing home loans for unqualified, loan income workers. With only 39 days left before this election and with the main stream media backing Obama, none of those association will be printed and cost Obama the election. Believe me, if all this could be blamed on Bush and McCain, the Democratically controlled Congress would be holding hearings to expose that fact and tank any chances of McCain and any other Republican getting re-elected or into office. But, as I have said before, there will be no such hearings and that says a lot about who is really at fault on this one.

McCain's only hope, now, is that he and Sarah Palin do well in their respective debates. I think, too, that they should pray that this financial crisis is settled soon so that it doesn't linger until the election. Otherwise, I feel that John McCains chances have probably died with the advent of this economic crisis.

Obama MIA On The Financial Crisis

Throughout Barack Obama's political career, he has had a habit of "not" getting involved when there are tough issues facing our government; whether it be State or Federal. He has a history of voting "present" instead of voting "yes" or "no" on the critical laws. With a financial crises of mammoth proportions facing our country, Barack Obama has decided, this time, that even being "present" isn't necessary. Instead, he wants to stay on the campaign trail while the President, cabinet members, and every other lawmaker is in Washington, including John McCain, are actively working on the problem. Is that what he thinks leadership is all about? Apparently, Mr. Obama never heard of the story of Nero who fiddled while Rome was burning!

Mr. Obama claims that he is the leader who can work across the aisle to get things done. Right now, there is turmoil in Washington as to what should be done to solve this crisis. Is Mr. Obama's absence showing any leadership at all? Is this a demonstration of reaching across the aisle to get things done? Or, as usual, is it another attempt by Barack (Our Nero!) to not get involved? You be the judge!

Populism to the Left of Me and Populism to the Right of Me

Traditionally, populism has been reserved for the political leftists of the world. It's a technique that drives a "wedge" between the rich and poor of a country. Between the workers and the bosses. Between main street and Wall Street. Between business and the people. It's designed to appeal to the poor and average people of a country. That's why you hear a lot of populist messages coming out of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

But, if you listen to John McCain and Sarah Palin, you'd think you were listening to two Democrats with some kind of populist "we'r agin 'em" message. With the credit market crisis, McCain/Palin keep vowing to go after Wall Street companies and corrupt CEO's. They promise regulation so another trillion dollar bailout doesn't ever have to happen again. Any deregulatory, free-market Republican is probably suffering a massive migraine from these two top candidates of their own Republican Party.

But, McCain is a politician who recognizes that government has a role in keeping both businesses and the workers in line to keep this country on an even keel. He knows that when business gets too strong, the people and the workers suffer. He also knows that when the workers are too strong, businesses and the people suffer. And, he knows that when government gets too strong, the people will again suffer. In any case, the people suffer.

John McCain likens himself to President Teddy Roosevelt ("TR") and that's where a lot of this kind of talk is coming from. Teddy Roosevelt, also a Republican, was big on interstate regulation of the railroad industry. He effectively created what is now known as the Food and Drug Administration to regulate meat and medicines in America. Most importantly, he was known as the "trust buster" who went after big corporations such as Standard Oil. He also acted as a mediator between the coal companies and the workers to avert a potentially disastrous strike in 1902 because it would hurt the average citizens of this country. Always putting Americans first. Doesn't that sound a lot like McCain's slogan of "Country First" ?

To me, John McCain is a person that is more interested in "righting wrongs" than being completely beholding to any party affiliation. He is a Republican because he is a conservative when it comes to government spending. In turn, he firmly believes in reducing the tax burden to the American taxpayers. He believes in a strong military for the protection of America and its citizens. I may be wrong, but I believe he thinks, like Roosevelt, that labor unions are fine as long as the overall or general public interest doesn't suffer. That's why he appears to be against unionized teachers structured environment that prevents an emphasis on science and math; and higher pay for those specialized types of teachers. He has bucked his own political party on immigration and on environmental issues. He apparently believes in the control of Global Warming. He is an environmentalist/conservationist without being extreme. That's why he believes in Nuclear Power and in responsible drilling for oil.

To me, McCain and Sarah Palin are populists when they feel that it is the right thing to do for America. They are Republicans on conservative issues that will best benefit this country and its citizens. And, too, they can be Democrats when they believe it will benefit this country. I think this is in stark contrast to Obama/Biden who have been pure party loyalists, never reaching across the aisle, throughout their political careers.

Just my opinion!

Joe Biden: The New Adventures of a Robbing Hood

According to Joe Biden, wealthier Americans should pay higher taxes and, in doing so, they would be patriotic (See Full Story). So, in essence, Mr. Biden is saying that wealthy Americans aren't patriotic unless they pay higher taxes. I looked up the word "patriotic" and, for the life of me, I couldn't find anything about taxes being the primary qualifier for someone's patriotism. In fact, this country had no system of taxation until the Civil War. Absurdly, Joe Biden must think that we didn't have any patriots in this country prior to our civil war.

Let's be real. Currently, the top 10 percent of wage earners (which includes businesses and corporations) in America foot the bill for 80 percent of all our government's operations. The top one percent foot the bill for 38% of all governement activities. The rich also help this country by buying up United States Treasury bonds that support our deficit spending and national debt. To say that those people aren't patriotic is just ridiculous. Personally, I believe that someone who shirks their responsibility in even getting a simple high school degree; can't work because of that; and feeds off every government program that the Democrats can hand them, are the real non-patriots in America. They are the leaches that feed off our government and create no jobs and contribute nothing to society. But, those are the people that the Democrats always want to help the most. Not the rich. Not the people who create jobs or the wealth of this country. To me, a patriot is someone who contributes to the health and well being of America and not someone who uses or extorts what they can from it.

Maybe Joe Biden and Barack Obama envision themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods. Most people think of Robin Hood as an outlaw who made a career out of "robbing from the rich to give to the poor." However, a closer look at Robin Hood would reveal a person who fought the big and corrupt government in the form of the King of England and fought his top IRS agent of that day, the noted law enforcer and tax collector, the Sheriff of Nottingham. "Me thinks" that John McCain is the true Robin Hood in this campaign and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are just a couple of "hoods" that would "rob" from the rich.

From my second paragraph (above), you can see clearly that the rich are already keeping this country afloat. But, if you keep taking money from them in the form of taxes, they won't have any money left for business expansion. Additionally, they won't have any excess money available in terms of venture capital to float any new businesses. The economy will just stop growing. If you take that scenario to the extreme (which I always like to use to prove a point), you could take all their money in the form of taxes and this country could ultimately look like North Korea. A country where half the population are starving. China and Russia are now flourishing because they came out of the depths of a purely socialistic environment. Barack Obama and Joe Biden want this country to move in the direction that China and Russia abandoned. Europe has reduced it's corporate and business taxes and even subsidized some businesses like Airbus so their companies can complete in the world economy. Barack Obama and Joe Biden want to penalize our businesses and corporations so they can't compete; and, they can't expand; and, they can't create new jobs.

If The Fundamentals Weren't Strong....

Yesterday, Barack Obama hit John McCain hard for saying that the fundamentals of this economy are strong (See Full Story). Conversely, that means that Barack Obama must believe that the fundamentals of this economy are weak. After all, doom and gloom is the hallmark of any Democrat's campaign.

If what Barack Obama implied was actually true, I guarantee you that we wouldn't have had any growth in the last quarter or the historically low unemployment rate of 6.1 percent that was just reported. There is liquidity our the banking system which can still provide funding to qualified borrowers. Inflation, other than energy, is not runaway. Given the collapse of the housing and the credit markets and the extremely high prices for automobile and home heating fuels, this country should be in a complete recession or even in a depression. But, it isn't. It isn't because the fundamentals of this economy like unemployment, interest rates, consumer activity, and liquidity are very strong. John McCain is right.

John McCain is also right by not causing fear or panic in the midst of a troubling economic situation that is affecting our banks and our credit firms. Instead, we have Barack Obama who wants to scare the pants off you for a few votes. He would have you completely frightened so you run out and pull all your money out of our banks and banking system. Which, in turn, and if widespread enough, could cause our entire banking system to collapse. Just look at the failed IndyMac bank in California and how that may have been caused by comments made by another Democrat, Senator Chuck Schumer (See Full Story). In an election year, Schumer did what he did for purely political reasons in order to attack Bush and McCain and bolster Obama.

Obama would also frighten you into not spending any money so that our entire economy seizes and so that our nation's businesses start losing sales and profits. Is this the "hope" that Barack Obama is trying to sell?

Barack Obama is being irresponsible in trying to completely downplay our economy so he can win the Fall election. He has a responsibility to this country to try and maintain calm in this economy by showing some semblance of confidence. Instead, he's the guy screaming fire in movie theater. If he were the President, right now, do you really think he should be telling the people of this country to cower in the corner because our economy is fundamentally unsound? I don't think so! Anyway, I would hope not! That would be totally irresponsible and could have serious consequences by creating a psychologically developed panic and a complete economic disaster.

This man, Barack Obama, is not ready to lead!