Why Obama Won't Be Impeached and Why He Could Be

Normally, Democrats are totally dismissive of everything Sarah Palin says or stands for.  After all, she's one of those wacko Tea Party people and a former losing V.P. candidate of John McCain's.  So, it was interesting that, all of  a sudden, the Democrats and the White House are taking her seriously when she said Obama should be impeached. The only reason that her words have resonated with Democrats is because they think that her they can be used as a campaign and fund raising tool.  As a result, there is a concerted effort to convince America that Palin, is somehow, speaking for all Republicans.  What better way to get Democrats out to vote in the fall, or to stimulate fund raising to defeat the Republicans in November, than to make them think Republicans are poised to impeach their beloved President?

Of course, all this talk is just that: Talk.  There is no way that the Republicans are going to put themselves on record as attempting to impeach the country's first Black President.  That is the very reason that Boehner is trying to sue the President instead. Further, America doesn't want Obama impeached.  A recent poll by ORC/CNN revealed that only about a third of those questioned believe he should be impeached.  Not anywhere close to a majority.  This is despite the fact that 45% thought this he has exceeded his powers.  But again, most said, not enough for that extreme action.

What could result in this President's impeachment is if Democrats start calling for it.  Only then should Republicans even think about proceeding.  This could happen "if" there is a substantial loss for the Democrats in the Fall and "if" they, in general, believe that Obama could seriously hurt them or their next Presidential candidate in 2016.  But, these "if's" have about as much of a chance of happening as  lighting striking thrice; not just twice.


References:

Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/08/Exclusive-Sarah-Palin-Time-to-Impeach-President-Obama

Poll: One-third Say Obama Should Be Impeached: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-impeach-obama-support-33-percent-109369.html

Dems pump up impeachment talk in appeal for support, campaign bucks: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/28/dems-pump-up-impeachment-talk-in-appeal-for-support-campaign-bucks/

We All Should Have Some Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

Recently, an author, Joe McGinniss, who is busily writing a book about Sarah Palin, moved his ugly rear end into the house next door to the Palin's in Wasilla, Alaska. This is just outrageous. While Sarah Palin is a public person involved in political issues, her family isn't. I find the next-door scrutiny as disgusting as any other "stalker" activity in our society. I don't think that paparazzi should have a right to chase down celebrities and their families by any means; including by telephoto lenses from adjacent properties. I also don't believe that the SEIU has the right to trample over someone's private property as in the recent case of a mob of picketers who swarmed over a Bank of America executive's front lawn; all the way up to the windows and front door. Also, I don't think that a group like the West Borough Baptist Church should be allowed to shout out disgusting remarks and carry signs at private funerals of slain soldiers because of their twisted religious viewpoints. Finally, the same goes for those who would disturbingly picket Abortion Clinics; an attitude and practice that may well have cost many lives as a result of associated bombings and shootings. There are other ways to fight an issue without this type of behavior.

In all of the above cases, a citizen's goal of attaining "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is being grossly violated. Every American should have some reasonable expectation of personal space. Violating someone's privacy in their homes, at a funeral or gathering, or by constantly flashing cameras in someone's face while they are trying to enjoy a public environment should be as punishable as any other violation of peeping-tom laws and, while not carrying the same level of punishment as a physical attack, I believe it should be considered a form of assault. As a society, our lust for "snooping" on public persons and the "up-close harassment of people we don't agree with" has gotten completely out of control. It's time that we change the laws to protect everyone or things will continue to intensify, and too many innocent people will be hurt in the process. Just my opinion.

On Sarah Palin, The Political Left Tells the Right: We're Looking Out For You!

In the last month or so -- ever since Sarah Palin's book reached a pre-sale rank of number one -- almost every left wing pundit and liberal news person in America has managed to come out of the woodwork and either taken to the airways or write an opinion piece to warn America (and, especially the GOP ) that Sarah Palin is just some kind of kook and that she shouldn't be taken seriously. On Monday, David Corn -- as left wing as you can get -- wrote an opinion piece that was titled: Why Sarah Palin Is Bad for the GOP. Apparently, David Corn believes that he, personally, should give the GOP a thump on the head and keep them from walking down the political plank with someone as dumb as Sarah Palin.

Isn't it amazing that the liberals are so worried that the GOP and the political right might do something so stupid as to nominate Palin as their presidential candidate in 2012 or even listen to her form of "down home" political crap. Apparently, we have entered a new era of bipartisanship. An era where one political party is so generously looking out for the other. One could almost believe that the political left wants the GOP to win the White House in 2012 and is absolutely concerned that Sarah Palin might jeopardize that fact.

Oh, yes. Love is truly in the air!

Obama's Thuggery Tactic Of Calling People Out

If you haven't noticed yet, Obama seems to be using the following tactic to disparage his detractors or certain people or groups that he doesn't like.

First, he publicly calls them out by name. It could be Rush Limbaugh; or, greedy Wall street; or, AIG; or the selfish bondholders at GM; or, most recently, the Fox News Channel.

Then, in doing so he attempts to demonize them and turn public opinion against the named entity. In the case of AIG, the SEIU union members and ACORN followed his lead and actually picketed executive's homes to push public opinion against those people. That stunt was the equivalent of a public flogging.

When Joe the Plumber criticized his higher tax plan, Joe got the "flogging" treatment from every left wing entity in America; including the American media. Similarly, Sarah Palin was compared to a "pig with lipstick" and the left wingers, like Letterman, have continued to attack her, even as of today, in a lemming-like fashion; all for their anointed one, Barack Obama.

In the last week Obama has heavily gone after Fox News. In an interview with Bloomberg, he said that a certain news channel spent all their time criticizing him. During last night's Radio and Television Correspondence Association dinner, he again singled out Fox by saying that he, like Oprah, gave everybody a car company. But, for Fox, he said he gave them AIG. In that joke, he attacked two groups: Fox and AIG.

In the case of Fox, Obama cannot tolerate any dissent. It is sort of like saying: "Though shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." On top of the calling out of Fox News, he has pulled back his Administration and staff from being interviewed by Fox. The purpose of this kind of behavior by Obama is to force Fox to get in line. And, if they don't, there won't be anymore interviews. Apparently, this thug, Obama, doesn't consider himself the President of all the people. Just the ones he likes.

Obama doesn't just use this tactic on Americans and American entities that he has no use for, he uses it against other countries and their leaders. Recently, he purposely and publicly rejected a dinner invitation with the French President, Nicholas Sarkozy (See Full Story). This was an intentional snub and was done in retaliation to comments that Sarkozy made within the last few weeks.

Obama is devotee' of Saul Alinsky: the founder of Community Organizing groups like ACORN. When it came to opponents he espoused the following serious tactics:

1. Isolate your opponent or detractor by publicly identifying them.
2. Demonize them in the process to create public opinion against them.
3. Then, crush them into submission.

ACORN used this very tactic quite well in getting Banks across America to give out risky loans to low income and minority applicants. They would picket Bank lobbies and store fronts and use the Community Reinvestment Act as their hammer to demonize that bank. They would get the local media involved. And, ultimately, the Bank would give in by issuing more high risk loans. Similarly, Jesse Jackson has used this tactic for years to get money out of Corporations for his Rainbow Coalition and to get companies to hire more minorities.

Make no mistake, Obama is using Chicago-style thuggery politics. He is using ACORN and Saul Alinksy tactics. In doing so, he is stomping all over the freedom of speech in this country. In essence, he is a 'Thug'!

That, to me, makes him less presidential and, probably, the most petty President we have ever had. In support of this pettiness, think about this. Fox News, at best, gets about 3 to 3-1/2 million viewers for any given time slot during the day. This is only 1 percent of all the people in this country. Combined, the Obama networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC get over 15 million viewers each night while they are hyping their new god, Barack. Fox, like Rush Limbaugh, are not big players on the media stage of this country. That's why Barack's attacks are truly petty. It is like fretting over a single leaf that has fallen from a tree! I think Barry would better serve himself by worrying about the increasing loss of job approval points among those Republicans and Independents who might have voted for him. Also, he should start to worry about those previously dedicated Democrats who are now openly criticizing him like Bill Maher, Camille Paglia, Whoopie Goldberg, and so many others.

And What About A-Rod?

Amid all the flap over Letterman's comments about Sarah Palin and her two daughters, something seems to be missing. Where's the outrage that A-Rod was slammed, too, by Letterman? In effect, Letterman's dumb joke also implied that A-Rod had sex with an underage Palin daughter.

In this case, Letterman is the loser --- all the way around. It appears the only way that Letterman can get higher ratings than the competing Tonight Show --- either with or without Leno --- is to create controversy. I guess we now have the late-night equivalent of another liberal dumb-ass: Rosie O'Donnell. Actually, I think, based on this particular controversy, Rosie might have the upper hand in both class and humor over Letterman. Over the years, Letterman's Top Ten was the only thing that has been remotely funny about his show. His ratings have been dismal against Leno. Now, he can't even do that without class or humor. Now, the Top Ten can be simply seen as the vehicle to promote his own political agenda. Like most liberals without the brains to compete intelligently against political figures that they disagree with, Letterman has jumped into the cesspool of base humor by using typical adolescent jokes and slanderous comments to try and defeat those that weaken their own political viewpoint.

In reality, that Letterman Top Ten against Palin was used out of the fear that she is gaining political strength. He's decided to use degrading humor as his means of a liberal counter attack. The power of using humor to weaken political figures is obvious when you look at the fact that not one TV comedian is willing to denigrate Obama with a joke. That's because, to do so, might weaken him in the eyes of America. Something that they could hardly refrain themselves from while Bush was in office.

On Ethics Charges: Palin Slays the Democratic Dragons

No headlines. No fanfare.

However, Sarah Palin has successfully defended herself against the onslaught of ethics allegations that the Democrats attempted to use to slander this popular Republican. In 14 cases, Sarah Palin has won all fourteen and put the Democrat's dirty-tricks of politics back into their well-worn boxes (See Full Story).

Now, who has the ethics problem? It certainly ain't Sarah!

Personal Responsibility

In the recent V.P. debate, Sarah Palin made a comment about personal responsibility that was so profound that it definitely needs repeating:

We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don't live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility through all of this.

In those simple words, she had summed up the entire crisis that we now have at hand.

As a country, we have literally become a "buy now and worry about it later" society. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal following the Crash of 1929 and the Depression, we have become a society who increasingly believes that the Federal government will pull our butts out of the fire whenever we find ourselves in trouble. That attitude was even further fostered by President Johnson's Great Society. We don't save for our retirement anymore. We expect the Social Security System to take care of us. Half of the people who have credit card debt in this country have credit balances that are in excess of $15,000 and that is, in a lot of cases, more than half their annual salaries. The subprime loan crisis clearly reflects the lack of any personal responsibility; especially in the making a major purchase like a home.

Personal responsibility starts with education. Education is something that, ultimately, only the student can achieve on their own. While it is true that some students need personalized assistance or extra time to learn a specific curriculum, it still comes down to the desire to learn; and, this is where the parents and good teachers need to take charge and nurture that desire. At a time when nearly half the high school students in our major city school systems across this country fail to graduate, it is no wonder we are in the economic mess we now find ourselves in. Too many people in our society can't read or understand the math behind taking out a loan. Our schools don't teach the basic business education for our citizens to survive in an increasingly complex economic society.

Maybe all of those Community Organizers out there would better serve their communities by focusing on education instead of getting people into loans they can't afford.

Just my opinion.

Afghanistan is not Iraq

Whenever there is widespread poverty in a country, you can just bet that radical forms of government will gain control. This is also especially true in countries were any wealth is concentrated into the hands of a few ruling elite. We have seen that happen throughout the history of mankind. We have seen it in Russia and in China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and most recently in Venezuela and other South America countries. So, it was no wonder that Afghanistan, a country of hardly any wealth, fell to the Taliban following Russia's abandonment of that country. Most of the population in that country survive on less than $2 a day.

Obviously, our military was able to quickly evict the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2002. But, maintaining that status on the ground has been difficult. Today we are still struggling to keep the Taliban from returning and regaining control.

In the V.P. Debate, the subject of a troop surge in Afghanistan was broached by Joe Biden. Joe Biden tried to use the words of our general in Afghanistan, McKiernan, to say the surge, as used in Iraq, would not work in Afghanistan. But Biden neglected to completely quote McKiernan. McKiernan basically said that Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different entities. He went on to say: ” The country's mountainous terrain and rural population, its poverty and illiteracy, its 400 major tribal networks and history of civil war all make for unique challenges..." (See Full Story).

We can achieve both a military and political victories in Iraq that will allow us, at some point in time, to remove the bulk of our troops. This is simply due to the wealth and literacy that can be found in Iraq. However, Afghanistan is a totally different story. We will never leave until we can create a stable political environment and until we create an economic base that is something other than a "poppy" growing agricultural society. As long as Afghanistan remains so poor, our military power will simply be a permanent, never-able-to-leave, stop-gap measure. People have to believe that their government will help them in their day-to-day lives in order for that government to survive. Unless and until the Afghan government can prove itself by providing a better life to all its citizens, it is doomed to fail. That is something that pure military victory can never bring to any country.

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.

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.

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!

The Ugliness of Sandra Bernhard

Hollywood seems hell-bent on trashing Sarah Palin in an effort to buoy their candidate of choice, Barack Obama. But, often, they do more harm than good. Yesterday, I saw this headline on the Drudge Report: "Sandra Bernhardt: Palin would be Gang-Raped by Blacks in Manhattan." (See Full Story).

OK. Is she trying to revive an old stereotype of black men and a white woman in an effort that it will make voters look more favorably on Barack Obama? Is this what she thinks angry black men do to woman that they don't like? Especially, white women! Apparently, Sandra Bernhard thinks very little of black men to make such a comment. She isn't hurting Sarah Palin with such an ugly comment. She is hurting herself and Barack Obama and blacks, everywhere. What a moron!

They Gaffed Until They Couldn't Gaffe No More!

What a week for Team Obama.

It started out with the "lipstick on the pig" remark and Obama was off speed for most of the week (Click to See Video). Whether or not he actually aimed that comment at Sarah Palin and her well known convention speech joke about a pit bull and a hockey mom, it should not have been said. It was a gaffe because it could easily be misconstrued. It was dumb to say and even dumber to continue to defend. As a result, I don't think the women of America were too impressed.

If you happened to be disabled, Team Obama had a gaffe or two for you as well. First, the King of Gaffes, Joe Biden, decided to tell a wheelchair bound State Senator, Chuck Graham, to stand up and take a bow in this video (Click to See Video). I suppose we could cut Biden some slack and just say he was trying out his "faith healing" skills. Right! Then, the Obama Campaign ran this ad that chided John McCain for not being computer literate or even using email (Click to See Video). Of course, the "gaffe" in that ad is that John McCain can't type on a keyboard, or even tie his shoes or comb his hair because of the constant beatings that he sustained as a prisoner of war. Nice, Barack! What next? Challenge John McCain to beach volleyball?

Lastly, Joe Biden, as the VP Candidate, is supposed to fill the role of "attack dog" during the campaign. But, in this video, the attack dog seems to bite his own master by stating that Hillary Clinton might have been the better choice as the VP pick (Click to See Video). Would somebody please call Cesar Millan of Dog Whisperer fame? We have another attack dog out of control!

This is just one week on the campaign trail and so many gaffes. I once heard a TV news commentator say that he had never seen such a disciplined team as that of the Obama campaign. That may have been true then, but now they're looking like a stooge act.

Obama Is Being Im-Palin-ed

If you haven't noticed it, Barack Obama's campaign for the Presidency is starting to look a little like a beginning bike rider who's taking his first ride without training wheels. He's wobbling; can't keep a straight course; and, looks like he is about to fall off his bike. His poll numbers and his favorability ratings are falling dramatically. He's losing more support from women and Independents. He is spending more time defending "they don't speak for me or my campaign" gaffes and his own dumb comments; and, he is spending less and less time talking about the issues.

Whose fault is this? I think Sarah Palin! He's is literally being im-Palin-ed by this woman!

Since the Palin announcement as McCain's running mate, Team Obama, the Democrats, and the Main Stream Media have been in total disarray. Before that announcement they were sitting back in their easy chairs, picking their teeth with a toothpick or puffing on their cigars and nearly nodding off as they thought McCain would pick Romney or some other white guy and they could just cakewalk to the Presidency.

Well, surprise! surprise! McCain and, especially, Sarah Palin have kicked the soapbox from beneath Obama's feet. So, now, Obama has decided to stop running against George W. Bush and John McCain and, instead, has begun running against Sarah Palin. He has decided to go "mano a mano" with this "lady" and that has made him look less presidential and look both weak and sexist. In a parallel path, the mainstream media has followed the lead of the left-wing bloggers and other blindly biased propagandists by publishing false rumors as news in order to protect their candidate, Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the media has consistently wound up with egg on their face because the rumors that they followd have always been proven wrong. Then, you have moronic anti-Palin Democrats popping up all over the place with comments that can do nothing but make Democrats look sexist and stupid. One such dumb comment, just his week, was from the Democratic Chairperson from South Carolina, Carol Fowler (See Full Story). Her fouler-than-any-Fowler remark was that Sarah Palin was only picked (by McCain) because she didn't have an abortion. This is the wife of the other foul Fowler, Don, who claimed that Hurricane Gustav was sent by God to disrupt the Republican National Convention. You've got to wonder. Who's running the Democratic Party? A bunch of escapees from an insane asylum?

I just think that Team Obama is not ready for prime time. His campaign manager, Axelrod, has never run a successful national campaign. His only claims to fame are wins in Democratic strongholds where Axelrod seems to know what appeals to the left and far left of the Democratic Party. In appealing to Independents and any moderate Republicans, he's totally flatfooted. That was obvious from the run to the center by Obama after being so far left. Being left won Obama the nomination. But, quickly running to the center resulted in people on the left questioning their previous votes for Obama. Further, the Independents and Moderates saw Obama either as a flip-flopper, a phony, or someone who doesn't stand his ground. Apparently, Axelrod has heard that you have to start your candidate out from the left so as to appeal to your base and to win the nomination. Then, you are supposed to move to the center to win Independents and Republican leaners. Unfortunately, for Axelrod and Obama, no one apparently told them to gradually shift to the center over time. I guess that's why Obama almost immediately ran to the center on almost every issue right after clinching the nomination. Since then, Obama's poll numbers have done nothing but weaken.

Obama keeps claiming that he wants to get away from the peronal attacks and get to the issues. But Team Obama just keeps up the personal attacks on Sarah Palin. He make a pig gaffe and, instead of saying he shouldn't have said that, he keeps it up by taking it to the Letterman Show that night. Is this guy dumb or what?

Obama's Juvenile Attacks: Gives Hillary the Finger....Now, Palin's a Pig!

Yesterday, Barack Obama managed a firestorm of criticism by making this "lipstick on a pig" comment that was clearly a double entendre aimed at Sarah Palin (See Video of Barack's Pig remarks). It is obvious that he doesn't even mention Sarah Palin, but it is also obvious that he wants the crowd to make the connection to Sarah Palin and her "What separates a pit bull from hockey mom" joke at the Republican Convention. That's why he makes such a pregnant pause after the word "lipstick" in his comments as he waits for the crowd to respond with laughter. Then, he finishes up his double entendre by relating lipstick with a pig and the crowd obviously gets it by connecting the dots to Sarah Palin by, again, erupting in laughter.

Supporters of Obama say that accusing him of calling Sarah Palin a pig is a stretch. To them, Obama was just using a well-worn political tool that figuratively describes dressing up a bad government program. But, to them, I only have to rewind back to Obama's contest with Hillary Clinton and another attempt to slam his opponent in a similar fashion(See Video). Just like the pig/lipstick comment, he clearly pauses for the crowd to make the connection of his gesture to Hillary Clinton before continuing. I guess that's what they teach you at Harvard Law School!

For the purposes of this blog, I have listened to many of Obama's stump speeches and debates. To my knowledge, he has never used the "lipstick on pig" analogy before. So, it's use now is intentionally new and targeted.

This is so preteen and so teenage from someone who would be our President. This kind of stuff should stay in the "jock locker room" and has no place on the campaign trail. Barack made that gesture about Hillary when "she" was surging with some substantial Primary wins. He made that remark about Palin after seeing his poll numbers go in the toilet. "Barry" (Barack's childhood moniker) is incapable of being gracious when falling behind. Instead of getting smarter and more polished, he falls back to this kind of school yard tactic.

This morning, he defended his remarks by trying to blame the McCain campaign for typical politics. He used his old standby remarks "this is politics as usual" and this is the same old "taking things out of context" from the McCain campaign. Maybe somebody should tell little "Barry" that he should look in the mirror when complaining about "politics as usual" and "taking things out of context." I seem to recall a lot of efforts on his part to distort what McCain has said. He chided McCain on a gaffe about confusing "Sunnis and Shiites" and used that in a TV ad when it was clearly a gaffe and when it had been immediately corrected. He used McCain's failure to answer the question about his homes by stretching that into an "out of touch" message; both on the stump and in a TV commercial. He used the McCain's joke about the rich being a person making "5 million dollars...I don't know" and turning that into a distortion. And, don't forget the distortion of McCain's comment about being in Iraq "for 100 years" in a peace keeping/consulate role. Politics as usual, Barry? The polls, long before the Palin pick and the conventions, were showing that Obama was sliding. It's this kind of two-faced crap that the voters are getting a little tired off.

My guess is that the women of this country will see the "lipstick on the pig" comment for what it intentionally was and is; just like giving Hillary the finger. Barry is just a kid and he thinks he can get away with his childish little caricatures and gestures that he probably got away with as a kid. Would someone please change this guy's diapers!

Biden Who?

Everybody's talking politics. Mostly, they are talking about national political newcomer, Sarah Palin. They are also talking about John McCain and Barack Obama. But, the invisible man in this election has become Joe Biden.

When it came to the convention speeches, Obama, Palin and McCain got over 38 million viewers for their performances. Lowly, Joe? Well, he got 24 million viewers. A good number but almost 50 percent less viewers than the others.

To make things worse. Much of the talk in the media is matching Sarah Palin against Barack Obama and not Joe Biden.

I think all this lack of notice of poor Joe Biden shows what a bad choice he was. It is as if Biden has sucked all the air out of the Obama campaign. Certainly, the polls reflected that when he was announced. He can't even be the "attack dog" that Obama hired him for because the cameras aren't being pointed at him. The one attack statement he was able to get in was when he said that Sarah Palin was good looking. Is he tough or what? At least he didn't use the term "clean" as when he described Barack Obama. Even the Democrats are now disenchanted with him. There is actually talk all over the blogosphere about how Obama has buyer's remorse and some speculation that he will eventually dump Biden for Hillary! Me thinks Bill (Clinton) is spreading that one!

I think a lot of people have concluded that Joe was a dumb choice on the part of Barack. Probably, another example of what little decision making skills this guy (Barry Obama) really has (or hasn't at all)! After all, some "losing" dog catcher's in America probably got more than the 9,000 votes that Joe Biden got in his run for the Presidency this year!

Before Sarah Palin gave her speech at the convention, the Democrats where all ready to eat this Republican ticket alive. Grrrr! They were all saying how Biden will tear Sarah Palin to shreds. Now, since her Convention speech, that talk has become much subdued. In fact, some Democrats are advising Joe Biden to bone-up on his facts and not to be the typical bonehead he has demonstrated in the past. They all know that Joe is good for "digging jokes" but tends to be long winded, sometimes short on facts and substance and logic, and has constant habit of saying a multitude of dumb gaffes. In fact, at the convention, Joe slipped again by saying Barack America instead of Barack Obama. It's a good thing Joe was thinking about this country at the time and not some country like Iran. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has shown how adept she is in inserting the knife with a smile and a little humor. Also, she ain't no political hack dummy like some Joe's we all know.

Joe appears to be the "forgotten man" in this election. I am sure that if Barack Obama loses this election, no one will ever remember who he ran with. On the other hand, if McCain loses, history will always remember who his running mate was. My guess is that history will always think of Joe Biden as: Biden Who?

One last thought. Here's something that might help you remember Joe Biden. His middle name is Robinette. Sounds like some kind of "diner" where birds are the main item on the menu. Probably in China!

A Woman Who Would Threaten Barack Obama

To me, being surrounded by a bunch of radicals and what that says about someone's character is a bigger story and issue than having a daughter who is pregnant out of wedlock. But, the national media thinks the later is the most important issue in this election. In the past, they have pretty much ignored Barack Obama's not-hardly-tangential relationships with Reverand Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Father Pfleger, and Louis Farrakhan. Quite the cast of radicals! To top things off, when John Edwards was running for President, they completely ignored his extramarital affair and his possible love child; despite the rampant rumors about that since 2006.

Now, they are hotly and intensely focused Sarah Palin's family as a means to possibly force her to drop out of the race. It appears the left is legitimately scared of this young mother of five. They have done several front page pieces by attacking the daughter of Sarah Palin, who is pregnant out of wedlock. It is as if we have now come to the point where family members are part of the process of vetting a person qualifications for public office. Additionally, the media is questioning whether or not Sarah is a good mother because she is "leaving" her children alone while putting the office of the Vice President above them. They have even dug up a 20-year old drunk driving arrest against Sarah's husband as if it reflects on her own character. Maybe I'm wrong, but at the time that Sarah's husband was caught drinking and driving, Barack admitted to have done hard, illegal drugs.

It is obvious that the national media is out to do Barack Obama's dirty work. Over the last 4 days, both Barack and Joe Biden have "stated" that family members should be off limits during any campaign. To the voters, this looks like they are taking the high road and "protecting" Sarah Palin. But both Obama and Biden know damn well that the marketing arm of the Democratic party, our national news media, will do what it takes to destroy Sarah Palin on their behalf. So, they don't have to lift a finger of their own to do so. That's why you won't find Biden or Obama actually taking the news media or the bloggers to task over Palin. Instead, they have made their minimally-needed "off limits" comment. By doing so, they can easily bring that up anytime they are asked about the media attacks against Palin. Now, it i9s being reported that Sarah's phone number and social security number has been released by operatives in the Democratic party. This isn't just swift boating. This is organized crime by the Democrats!

Obama and the media might be well advised to worry about the treatment of Sarah Palin; whether directly by the Democrats or indirectly by the news media. There could easily be a serious backlash against him and against the news media in this country. Barack is already weak with women. Many aren't willing to forget how Hillary Clinton was treated by the Barack Campaign and his surrogates. This could shove just enough votes towards McCain/Palin to cost Obama a defeat. And, the media? They have been in trouble for years and this might just be another nail in the coffin that could soon signal their burial.

Image is a screenshot taken of the Drudge Report as of September 2, 9:40 AM. Take note of the headline comments about the New York Times.

McCain's Big Risk?

With Sarah Palin in the race, the focus seems to be totally on her level of experience or inexperience; depending how left someone is in their attacks against her. It is as if she is the only one of either the Republican and the Democratic ticket who hasn't spent years in politics. The comments from the media and the Democratic pundits want you to believe the she is "just a heartbeat away" from being President with absolutely no credentials.

Of course, nobody wants to even mention the fact that one of those "heartbeats" is probably the least capable candidate, based on the size and complexity of our current government, that has ever run for President. That "heartbeat" is Barack Obama. Sure, you can go back to a person like Abraham Lincoln and point to his relative inexperience. However, Abraham Lincoln lived during a time when the United States wasn't hardly the size it is today and was isolated from the world stage. Many of the current states weren't even our union. By no means were we a world military power or even concerned with activities elsewhere in the world. The Federal budget and services of that time wouldn't even match up with the budget and services that are being provided, today, in any "small" city in America. In fact, a Federal income tax didn't even exist prior to Abraham Lincoln's taking office. Barack Obama has only been in politics since 1996 and has spent the last two years literally absent from his Senate responsibilities because he has been running for his next targeted office as the President of the United States. Sarah Palin has be in politics since 1992 (4 years longer than Barack) and has been able to elevate herself from a small city council to mayor and, then, to the level of a state Governor. And, believe me, the management responsibilites of a state Governor are much closer to the Office of the President of the United States than the responsibilities of any United States Senator.

The diversion that is being used from those on the "left" side of politics is to compare Sarah Palin with Joe Biden and, then, to keep silent on the untested inexperience of Barack Obama. Instead, they would prefer to paint Joe Biden with years of experience and Sarah Palin with absolutely no background. If Senate experience is the only thing that counts, then maybe Barack Obama should have picked the 90-year old Senator, Robert Byrd.

Sarah Palin's rise to power in Alaskan politics from a small city council cannot be discounted. Becoming the Governor of Alaska from being a small town mayor is no small feat. On top of it, she has achieved an 80+ percentage favorable approval level from the citizens of Alaska. That level of approval is generally unheard of in politics. As an obscure mayor, she had to literally leap over many of those in the state's legislature who would also be Governor. Sarah Palin is a lot like a select group of people that I have seen in business. They come from nowhere to become a corporate level executives and officers, or even the CEO or Chairman of the Board.

To rise to the office of the Governor, Sarah Palin has to have had a clear grasp of the responsibilities of that office. She apparently knew how to work the politics in her favor and rise above the better-known's of the State Legislature. People must have felt comfortable with what she was saying on the campaign trail because she was able became the Governor. Certainly, she had to overcome the societal deficit of being a woman and wanting the State's highest position.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, is the V.P. pick because of Obama's exposed weakness of both inexperience and his lack of foreign affairs expertise. Joe Biden has been around politics for years but has never achieved anything other than heading up a committee or two. He never made it to the level of a "leader" within his own party or within the Senate. His fellow Senators never saw him as the Majority or Minority leader for their party. He's run for President twice and hardly got any of his own party's recognition. He was forced to drop out of this year's Presidential race because he only managed 9,000 votes. (Sarah Palin dwarfed that number of votes in her own bid for Governor in Alaska and by getting 49% of that vote) Biden has always been in the 2nd tier of candidates for President; just like the Dennis Kucinich's of the world. To some extent, he has been his own party's joke because of his verbosity and continuous habit of making exaggerated claims and major gaffe's.

I wouldn't discount Sarah Palin being matched up against Joe Biden. She seems to be clearly focused in her goals and one of this country's obvious high achievers. She had to be a fast learner to move so quickly from city council to mayor to governor, and to catch the attention of a number of people as well as John McCain. People describe her as tough and I think she just might prove that going up against Joe Biden in their debate. Could she be "the risk" that sinks McCain's campaign? Sure, she could. But, she just might be the risk that wins the White House for him! And, someday, for herself.