O'Reilly Spins a Survey

On the O'Reilly Factor last night, Bill offered up his newest survey question on his website, which asks whether the respondent is "rooting for Obama to succeed."  Clearly, this poll is pointed at Bill's conservative listeners, seeking to determine whether they're able to put aside their 'druthers and support the man who won the election.  This is the same wording that Hannity has been using as his cautious support of the POTUS-elect.  That Bill would lift Sean's syntax for his own poll is rather cheap, but the intent of the question is still a worthy one.  But the wording of the question is troublesome, and hinges on the definition of "succeed."  If one were to answer "Yes", does this then mean that the respondent hopes Obama is successful in implementing all of the policies that he put forth as campaign promises.  Even many Democrats would not like to see that, most of them being less Liberal than Obama, by record.  And if one were to answer "No", does that mean that the respondent is an intractible ideologue who can't let go of what shoud've been?  Or worse, unpatriotic for not supporting the President?  While I wouldn't accuse O'Reilly of purposely creating a set-up, he clearly doesn't know a poorly worded question when he creates one, which is quite disappointing for such a veteran investigative reporter.  What did you intend to ask, Bill?

Unqualified Management, Indeed!

The honorable Congressman Dodd went before the Press recently to express his belief that top management of the auto companies do not deserve to keep their positions in light of a rescue package, because they are the people who are responsible for the current dire situation that those companies find themselves in. Yet it was Congress who ruined the Housing industry, by imposing their ideas of who should have mortgages regardless of affordability, which ruined the Credit industry, which the Auto industry is crucially dependent upon -even for the least expensive of their products, which led to the sudden collapse of auto sales and the looming failure of those companies. So Congressman Dodd, along with all who think as he does, is either unbelievably stupid not to see this, or he is flat out corrupt to his bones...or both. Regardless, he is undeniably unqualified to manage even a side-walk lemonade stand, let alone his congressional office or the Auto industry. Do us all and yourself a favor, Congressman, follow the example of Gov. Blago and step down!

A Measure of Greatness

I propose the following unambiguous indicators as a test of Obama's success as POTUS. Feel free to offer up your own. The test is whether he earns a "No" on even just 6 of my 10 questions. If he does, I'll give him a passing grade, eventhough that would only amount to a D.

1. Did my taxes go up even one dime during his tenure? He promised they wouldn't, repeatedly.
2. Did the U.S. get hit by another terrorist attack during his tenure, after he slashes military spending and dismantles our nukes as he promised to do?
3. Is my Retirement account still below its peak value, even including my on-going contributions to it?
4. Are home mortgage rates higher than my current percentage, which I got one year ago, at 6.25%?
5. Do we still have any military presence in Iraq after his second year in offfice? I'm giving him more time than he said he would take.
6. Is the Dollar still weaker than the Euro?
7. Is the National Debt higher than when he took office?
8. Is our Trade Deficit higher than when he took office?
9. Is there still anyone left without Health Care coverage?
10. Is the Coal industry still operating in the U.S.? He promised to bankrupt it.

I threw in a couple easy ones for him, just to give him a jump start.

I'm looking forward to seeing what he does in his second year of office when it dawns on him that there's not any higher office that he needs to start campaigning for, and that he has to actually stick this one out. Talk about historic firsts!

Obama Confusion

Earlier this week, pushing back against the growing impression that he's a Socialist, Obama chided that McCain might next accuse him of being a Communist because he shared his childhood toys with friends. But this "defense" is either a blatant effort to obfuscate, or it's evidence that Obama hasn't a clue about the definition of these terms.

When you freely choose to share your property with others whom you select, that's called Charity. The key is that it's voluntary choosing on your part; choosing whether to share, choosing what to share, and choosing with whom to share. Such is what Christ prescribed.

When a government tells you that you must share your property with others, and you have no say in whether, what and with whom, it is Socialism/Communism. It can in no way be equated with Charity. It is the antithesis of Charity. Such is what Karl Marx prescribed...and Barack Obama.

The Campaign of Irony

First, Obama got a polls bump in the financial debacle, presumably because McCain is part of the failed establishment, while Obama is Mr. Change...which is incredibly ironic because it was Obama's fellow Dems who choreographed this colossal failure and obstructed McCain's (and others') warnings. It's doubly ironic given that Obama provided no leadership to help avert the situation! Yet he's the one who benefits from it.

Now we have more stunning irony. Colin Powell has thrown in with Obama. But wasn't he the one individual most influential in bringing us the Iraq War, by his speech at the U.N.? The very same war Obama says we never should have gotten into in the first place? Now Obama gladly accepts this man's endorsement, returning praise and honor to him for his great service to this country, and a promise to place him into the administration after the inevitable coronation.

Wouldn't Powell be the one most capable of explaining to Obama that the Iraq War and its justifications were not total fabrications of the Bush administration? Wouldn't he be the best person to set history straight again? But just for grins, let's just say that it all really was just a fraud perpetrated on the American people. Wouldn't that then make Powell the lowest of slime for his pivotal part in bringing the war upon us? If it was all just Bush lies, wasn't Powell the chief deliverer of those lies?

Apparently, Powell is forgiven for being satan's mouth-piece, perhaps under the notion that he was sympathetically under the spell of the evil W. And he certainly can't be faulted for being a good soldier and following orders, right? Perhaps such are the very traits that most appeal to Obama: a lack of connection to reality, a willingness to deceive for the team and cause...a willingness to be deceived himself.

At this point, it appears that we will have as Commander-in-Chief a man who could not qualify for a position in the same Secret Service that will be protecting him; has not clarified his own citizenship status; has built his entire campaign on a slogan that is entirely absent from his record; faults his opponent for choosing a running mate having no executive experience, while he himself has actually less than her; is defeating a proven war hero while having a past littered with Marxism.

We are witnessing the most unbelievable and improbable of scenarios.

From the Socialist Horse's Mouth

"It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. ...and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

--Barak Obama, Toledo, Ohio, Oct 12, 2008, speaking to a plumber planning to buy a $250K+ business, and responding to the man's question about being taxed more under the Obama plan

This is admitting that his own plan is indeed a punishment on success, and then him urging you to look at it another way instead. This is redistribution of wealth. This is taking from the successes of others and giving to those who have not likewise succeeded, regardless of why. Will the recipients qualify for these gifts? Will they have to show that they've tried to succeed, and show cause for why they could not? No, they merely need to be less successful. This is a belief that giving people unearned wealth is good, fair and leads to everyone's success. This is anti-Capitalism. This is Socialism. Socialism is that which is promoted and practiced by a Socialist. The cornerstone of Obama's economic plan is Socialism. This is why Obama can honestly and accurately be labeled a Socialist.

This is not attacking Obama. It is not lying or deceiving. It is not a campaign tactic or mere rhetoric. It is not racism. It is not being offensive and devisive. It is merely reporting the factual record, using the candidate's own words.

Thank you Candidate Obama for your honesty, and settling once and for all that you are indeed, and undeniably, a Socialist.

Three Cheers for Washington?

Golly, it sure is a good thing that the House passed the "Rescue" Bill today, cuz who knows how far the market would've fallen had they not. As it is, it ended at 158 points down ...DOWN??!! Wall Street suuuure was glad to see that turd of a legislative package get passed, huh?

...What have they done?!

I suggest you buy stock in wooden arrows, and Samoan businesses. We might also dust off our torches and hayforks, and put on our walking shoes. Time for all of them to go, starting with the esteemed Congressman Frank, choreographer-in-chief of this mess.

The Political Index

Perhaps the brightest lining of this POTUS campaign cloud is that both tickets claim to be the team who will bring change (which allegedly means improvement) to our nation's capitol. So, regardless of who wins, we should at least get change...if either party is good for their word. We should all remember, 4 years from now, these claims for being the better change agents, and judge them at the voting booths in 2012. No improving changes = No 2nd term. Now, what we need is a means for measuring change. We need key indicators, like we have for the stock markets, which boil complex changes down to a single measure that indicates up, down, or flat. We need a Political Index, that factors in things like our war status, our nat'l debt, our trade balance, our energy independence, and a few other key factors. Then, when it comes time to decide whether to keep the rascals in or toss 'em, we look to the Political Index.

Honesty will get you disqualified

There's a very sad and ruinous Catch-22 going on in our politics these days...though it perhaps has always been there. No one candidate (or even their entire team of advisors) can have an answer (especially the right answer) to all questions/issues/problems they are or will be confronted with. But that certainly doesn't keep all of them from pretending to. Indeed, some supporters expect this of their candidate, and even more so of the candidates they don't support. So, if a candidate attempts to take the honest and lonesome path and admits to not having enough knowledge on a given subject, or just flat out doesn't know an answer, they are immediately judged as insufficiently experienced and therefore completely unqualified for the office they seek. Seeing this as political suicide, the candidates instead pretend to know everything about everything, which of course makes them look foolish to the observers who choose to stay connected to reality. The trick is to make yourself look more informed and honest than ignorant and dishonest. This is what we've fallen to. How do we climb back out of this to a higher ground? ...Can we?

The Sleeper President

Here's a wacky idea for an intrigue novel or movie...

A radical-religion terrorist organization with sleeper-cells in the U.S. selects, preens, and successfully supports one of their own to run for POTUS, under the guise of being a nice, eloquent, educated Christian. Against all odds, and with a rather shrouded and somewhat suspicious upbringing, he is able to climb his way up through elite higher education, then oddly veers away from the highly lucrative careers that such credentials are used for. Instead, our intrepid character moves into local, then state and eventually federal office to enjoy a short term as Senator before launching into his presidential campaign. Having a complete lack of executive experience, or any real political experience to speak of, he covers for that by simply being a minority, which wins him significant unwaivering support from those who see that as an over-riding benefit in itself. Once he secures the Oval Office, he then unleashes his sleeper initiatives, covertly and with deniabily of course. With the power of the Office and his supporters behind him, he brings down disabling havoc on the country's financial, energy, military and other critical systems, thereby setting it up for his overseas co-horts to come and have their way with the U.S. --the Great Satan.

Fortunately, this is total fiction, and could never actually be pulled off. ...Right?

Candidate Clinton: Independent

Prediction, June 3, 2008:
Faced with the likelihood that Hillary will not be able to sway sifficient delegates over to her, driven by her all-consuming hunger to take the Oval Office she will choose to leave the Democratic ticket and take up the fight as an Independent, striking a pose as the Moderate candidate.

Regardless, McCain will win the election.

McClelland: Hero or Hack?

Scott McClelland's tell-all book, What Happened, according to its author, is an attempt to change Washington politics for the better. The argument goes that the partisan bickering and undercutting must stop so that we can return to the way our capital should be run, and hopefully this book will contribute, even in some small way, towards that end. Some conclusions must be drawn from this posturing:

1. In the author's estimations, it will be well worth all the massive damage inflicted on the still sitting war-time president, by his enemies around the world using this fresh ammunition against Bush and the administration, if in the end his book helps even just a little bit to reverse some of our political divisions.
2. The author would have us believe that it is merely coincidental that the book is released in the very midst of a pivotal national election campaign. A time in which the absolute last thing any engaged member desires is reconciliation with the other side...let alone any within the same side.
3. He would have us believe that the sliver-thin difference between his precise wordings, and the accusations they are easily turned into by the other side, are unfortunate misinterpretations.
4. The author believes our political divisions are unhealthy, and need to be repaired, and that such a goal can actually be achieved and measured.
5. The book focuses on poor-judgement decisions made by the president and his advisers, and that those mistakes need to be rehashed and analyzed so as to properly learn and avoid them next time.

One must conclude that Mr. McClelland is incredibly naive, or uncontrollably altruistic, or shamelessly greedy, or unfaithful to his allegiances, or possessed of inconceivably poor judgement himself, or incapable of seeing the danger of his Monday-morning observations. I must conclude, after seeing his explanations on live TV this evening, that he is all of these at once, and that his strongest justifications are in reality none at all. This book is a colossal case of bad judgement itself. Not only will it not lead to improved relations between the political factions, but it will actual contribute significantly in the opposite direction. The political damage will have been made, the book will be tossed aside, and the author will have been forgotten by both enemy and former friend. The very best we can additionaly hope for is that the publisher will find itself stuck with a warehouse of books that nobody wants to buy. To that end, I pledge my part.

Obama the Great Unifier?

Candidate Obama claims to be the one and only who will be able to re-unite our fractured country. Assuming for the moment that we're actually in need of a national reunion, where's the evidence of his ability to do this? Has he accomplished this even within his own fractured political party? No? Well, how about then just the disunity between himself and his sole Democrat opponent. No? Even when the two disagree about so little in the first place?! Odd.

Rather than serve as a unifier, has he not actually chosen to be a divider? Has he not chosen to fabricate or exaggerate distinctions with his opponent, for the hope of political advantage? What would make you think that he, or anyone, would not resort to this same tactic once ensconced in the Oval Office. where the demand for it may only be greater?

Great Unifier? Just more Madison Ave polish.

Barak Hussein Obama, U.S. President?

Though it's now 6+ years ago since 9/11, our nation is still recovering from that event, and perhaps the largest wound yet to heal is our suspicion of all things Muslim...even things Muslim-like. At this point, Barak Hussein Obama has a real shot at garnering the Democratic nomination for president, if not the Oval Office itself. Mr. Obama professes to be Christian, and I have no reason to doubt his claim, yet his Muslim-like name remains, and surely there will be some who prefer to doubt his affiliation.

So, what would happen if the U.S. were to elect as president, in these suspicious-of-all-things-Muslim times, a man who bears such a Muslim-like name? (If our suspicion doesn't make that an impossibility in the first place.) And let's say that he follows through with his promises to get us out of Iraq in the first days of his presidency. How would xenophobic ultra-cons deal with that? Might one of the more extreme among them decide that it's time to complete the image of Obama being the next JFK?

Or, what if in taking office Mr. Obama realizes that such a withdrawal really isn't the right thing to do after all? How would the Islamic world take to the idea of a "Muslim-like" guy being our new commander-in chief, and he's choosing to continue the war against their people rather than end it? Could that turn even more of them against us?

The rising cost of...TV

People might tell you how technology has simplified -and even reduced the cost of- living. While that might bear true in many instances, it surely isn't holding true for our TV lives. ...Not our lives on TV, but our lives with TV. Have you shopped for a TV lately?! For many years, TV set prices have been steadily falling, if not in actual ticket prices, then at least in terms of bang-for-the-buck. But now, any serious shopper is foregoing the tube-TV units and is choosing among the various LCD and Plasma flat-panel units, which tend to start at twice the price of an equivalent old-school set. And bigger units (i.e., 42"+) tend to be the more popular choices. And if you do the right thing, and hold out for a full-HD unit (i.e., 1080P), then you're looking at an $1800 pill, likely more. Now, since you went top-drawer on the set, you can't then just settle for the integral speakers that it comes with, and you surely can't waste your time watching broadcast signals on it. You've got to pony up for a worthy home entertainment system, including high-end speakers and an HD DVD player. But do you go with BlueRay, or HD? And of course your analog cable subscription won't do either. You'll need to upgrade to digital service, at greater monthly cost. Or perhaps even switch over to satellite. And don't forget costs that you might incur in getting rid of those perfectly functional analog sets you probably have, as nobody will likely be interested in taking those off your hands, given the analog-to-digital change-over that's coming in '09...just to further frustrate the situation. After all is said and done, you could easily be looking at a $3K investment for your new TV outfit...per room, with monthly fees higher than what you're dealing with now! Do any of your believe that these system costs will ever come down to the sub-$750 range. ...Fuhgetaboutit.

Hmm...giving it all up and going back to radio is looking pretty good. ...But then there's XM vs. Sirius subscriptions, and HD-Radio units. Arg!

Books!...yeah, books...good ol' cheap, paper-back books. That's the way to go!

Be thankful for Paper Tigers

Is anyone else out there frightened by the unlimited willingness on the part of the presidential candidates to take on any and every cause from the Oval Office? I can't believe the degree of power that these candidates, and their followers, expect to exert once taking the helm. Mitt agrees to address our nation's pet population. Richardson will replace all of our incandescent light bulbs. Obama will bring the entire nation together in one accord, on everything. Perhaps the most confused one is Hillary, who promises as President to implement things that only Congress has direct decision over; things which she has not been successful in achieving as a Senator. ??!

I can't help wonder if these people haven't gotten confused with the holiday season, thinking that they're actually running for the job of Santa Claus, rather than President! "And what would you like for Election Day, little Johnny? ...Well sure, I can give you that!!"

The only thing more frightening than what these people expect to do from the White House would be someone who actually did have that much consolidated power.