I am not experienced or sage or exceedingly wise, but I do know that the measure of a person is determined based on how well they stick to their bedrock principles when times get tough. Today, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter have shown the people and the nation that they purport to care about how utterly spineless and worthless they truly are. The bill they “compromised” on tonight will cast an anchor around the neck of our nation far longer than either of these politicians will live. It is my generation and that of my children that will be forced to clean up the mess made by these two spineless moderates.
We conservatives expected a tough road after the election and we knew that compromises would be made. What we didn’t expect was to be broadsided by two turncoat senators who were too worried about appearing to obstruct a popular president from ramming a massive and, by all reasonable accounts, inefficient and ineffective stimulus bill down America’s throat. When big things like this come up, we expected our Republicans in Congress to stand in the way and shout “NO!” When this matter was taken up by the house, every Republican and even eleven members of President Obama’s own party stood up and shouted “NO!” and yet when the matter came before the body with the power to stop the bill, two cowards whimpered “yes”.
In Specter’s case, it can be attributed to his re-election campaign and his need to not appear to be standing in the way of the president, who is very popular in his home state. This is no excuse for abandoning his party and his country. I can only hope someone with a backbone and a sense of what’s right can knock the capitulating senator out in the primary.
Senator Collins has no excuse. She was just re-elected in the face of overwhelming Democratic victories in her region. She would have had 6 years and a presidential election cycle to explain her no vote to the people of Maine. Even if we grant that Specter needed to worry about an impending election (which I do not), this is not an option for explaining Susan Collins. Both of these senators are truly penny wise and dollar foolish.
President Reagan told us never to speak ill of a fellow Republican. I have to take issue with the great communicator, even if today is his birthday. A political party is nothing more than a collection of people who like the name if there are no fundamental principles that all members share at their core. Although the Republican Party has gotten lost in the woods in recent years, I still believe that there is a core of conservatism and fiscal restraint engrained at the very center of what it means to be a Republican. If these two senators can’t seem to get a grip on that when the big issues come up, who really cares if they side with the Republican caucus to stop the small stuff? Once you run the ship into the shore, who really cares if you move the rudder? In short, why do we allow these people the right to call themselves Republicans if they will abandon ship the moment it looks like they would be standing in the way of a popular president and a hysterical media feeding exaggerations and false comparisons to the Great Depression?
Those of you who know me understand that I am not anything close to a party line hack, but this is no ordinary bill and we are not in ordinary times. If each terrible part of this godforsaken bill were separate, I would have no issue with certain items passing in compromise. But this is an all or nothing monolith of government intervention and power grabbing. This is a defining moment for our nation and the Republican Party. If Collins and Specter aren’t able to stand strong with the rest of their colleagues, why do they deserve to stand up with them at all? There are moderate members of the house who somehow found the courage the shout “NO!” so why couldn’t these two weasels find a way to do the same?
This “stimulus” bill vote is going to be a defining moment for every member of this body one way or another. When my grandchildren ask me why they were born into a nation with so much debt and obligation, I will have to look them in the eye and tell them that two senators buckled to the pressure of fleeting popular opinion. When given the choice to stand up and say no to the foolish majority, Senators Specter and Collins sold our children and our grandchildren over $1,000,000,000 in debt simply so they didn’t have to look like obstructionists to “hope and change”.
Thanks for reading,
Andrew
Friday, February 6, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Obama plan?
Replace candy and ice cream with "income supplement checks" and "universal health care" and substitute the kids for all of American population and you've got a good outline for Barack Obama's plan. (Have a little fun people!)
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The double standards of the campaign we have so enjoyed…
Oh the media…your thorough reporting and tough questions to the candidates on some of our biggest campaign issues have left me wondering how you can be so fair, so unbiased, and so equal in your coverage…yeah right.
Here are some examples of your great double standards.
The Health of our Candidates
John McCain is 72 years old and had skin cancer a while ago, clearly this should make us look at Palin more strictly because John McCain probably wouldn’t last half a term.
There’s no need to worry about almost 66 year old Biden and his history of near fatal aneurisms though; those were a long time ago.
The “Washington Insider”
John McCain has been a Washington insider for far too long; 32 years! He is part of the broken mess in Washington that we need to change!
Joe Biden has been a part of Washington for 26 years, his long service gives him the experience that makes him qualified to lead as a vice president or a president should he need to assume that role; it’s an asset, not a negative issue.
Experience
Sarah Palin’s years of service as a community activist with groups like the PTA, being mayor and serving 2 years as governor gives her SOME executive experience you could say, but it was in it’s in a state that really doesn’t mean much to be a mayor in or a governor of, so really she is under qualified to even be VP.
Barack Obama’s experience in the Illinois State Senate, his role as a community organizer in Chicago and serving in the US Senate for 2 years before running for president, gives him more than enough experience to hold an executive office, like the office of President and be the commander in chief of the US armed forces.
Corruption
John McCain wrote some letters on behalf of an old friend and political contributor Charles Keating who was later indicted and went to prison, clearly a lack of judgment on McCain’s part to hang around such people and that shows he doesn’t have judgment to be President.
Barack Obama has been friends with Tony Rezko since he launched/financed Obama’s political beginnings. Obama even got a great deal on a house and some land out of the friendship, but Rezko got indicted and will be going to prison on several corruption charges…Its no biggie though, it’s tough to be a politician in Chicago and not deal with corrupt individuals, it’s not Obama’s fault.
The Tone of the Campaign
John McCain releases a tough new add questioning a view of Senator Obama’s, or perhaps asks if we even know Obama’s real view; the add is deemed as negative, McCain declared to be desperate because he is losing and overall it is said to be expected because after all, he is a Republican and that is what they do.
Barack Obama releases a tough new add where a little fact finding shows it can be labeled as untrue or even a lie, little comment is made of it as it is allowed to be just an add and it is not news worthy otherwise. The McCain campaign mentions that Obama is negative campaigning and lying, and then the news becomes that the McCain campaign is calling Barack a liar.
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
These are only a few of the dozens of double standards in this campaign, feel free to post key ones left off this list…
-Michael Hilburn
Here are some examples of your great double standards.
The Health of our Candidates
John McCain is 72 years old and had skin cancer a while ago, clearly this should make us look at Palin more strictly because John McCain probably wouldn’t last half a term.
There’s no need to worry about almost 66 year old Biden and his history of near fatal aneurisms though; those were a long time ago.
The “Washington Insider”
John McCain has been a Washington insider for far too long; 32 years! He is part of the broken mess in Washington that we need to change!
Joe Biden has been a part of Washington for 26 years, his long service gives him the experience that makes him qualified to lead as a vice president or a president should he need to assume that role; it’s an asset, not a negative issue.
Experience
Sarah Palin’s years of service as a community activist with groups like the PTA, being mayor and serving 2 years as governor gives her SOME executive experience you could say, but it was in it’s in a state that really doesn’t mean much to be a mayor in or a governor of, so really she is under qualified to even be VP.
Barack Obama’s experience in the Illinois State Senate, his role as a community organizer in Chicago and serving in the US Senate for 2 years before running for president, gives him more than enough experience to hold an executive office, like the office of President and be the commander in chief of the US armed forces.
Corruption
John McCain wrote some letters on behalf of an old friend and political contributor Charles Keating who was later indicted and went to prison, clearly a lack of judgment on McCain’s part to hang around such people and that shows he doesn’t have judgment to be President.
Barack Obama has been friends with Tony Rezko since he launched/financed Obama’s political beginnings. Obama even got a great deal on a house and some land out of the friendship, but Rezko got indicted and will be going to prison on several corruption charges…Its no biggie though, it’s tough to be a politician in Chicago and not deal with corrupt individuals, it’s not Obama’s fault.
The Tone of the Campaign
John McCain releases a tough new add questioning a view of Senator Obama’s, or perhaps asks if we even know Obama’s real view; the add is deemed as negative, McCain declared to be desperate because he is losing and overall it is said to be expected because after all, he is a Republican and that is what they do.
Barack Obama releases a tough new add where a little fact finding shows it can be labeled as untrue or even a lie, little comment is made of it as it is allowed to be just an add and it is not news worthy otherwise. The McCain campaign mentions that Obama is negative campaigning and lying, and then the news becomes that the McCain campaign is calling Barack a liar.
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
These are only a few of the dozens of double standards in this campaign, feel free to post key ones left off this list…
-Michael Hilburn
About Collin Powell......
This is exactly what the media had been predicting all week, and yet its now GROUNDBREAKING. Sorry folks, the groundbreaking story would have been Collin Powell’s endorsement of John McCain. After all the reports I have read this week, today’s announcement was a foregone conclusion.
And, if Powell had instead endorsed McCain, would the media have made such a big deal out of it? Of course not. I can’t see how this doesn’t hurt McCain in the polls, but it’s honestly a story going bonkers in the liberal press and frankly, I’m already sick of it.
I guess now Obama can actually roll around with someone with decent credibility on military issues; too bad McCain doesn't need surrogates for that.
And, if Powell had instead endorsed McCain, would the media have made such a big deal out of it? Of course not. I can’t see how this doesn’t hurt McCain in the polls, but it’s honestly a story going bonkers in the liberal press and frankly, I’m already sick of it.
I guess now Obama can actually roll around with someone with decent credibility on military issues; too bad McCain doesn't need surrogates for that.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Fight
I wish I knew if they read my blog before they made this ad (my guess is no, but let me be disillusioned for a wee bit!). At any rate, this is exactly the kind of ad I had in mind and I LOVE IT! This is exactly the thing this campaign needed to reconnect with independent voters! WAY TO GO!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
What McCain needs to say
Tomorrow's debate will, barring some enormously ground-shaking event, be John McCain's last shot to win this election. We are three weeks out and the trend in every key state is not looking good for the senior senator. He needs to make this one count. If he doesn't, it's time for us to prepare ourselves mentally for a Democratic House, Democratic Senate and Democratic President running our nation in a time of war, recession and uncertainty on the Supreme Court, where 5 of the 9 Justices are age 70 or older.
McCain needs to make this country wake up and realize what's really at stake here. The issue that comes first, second and third is the ECONOMY. If I were advising McCain, I would make the following (lengthy) hypothetical quote as my final push message. It is formulated to fit in line with my idea for a commercial, but should also be adopted for the debate.
"Today, this nation faces challenges of a magnitude few of us have seen in our lifetime. We have a financial system on the verge of collapse at the hands of greed and corruption; we are engaged in a global struggle against forces of pure evil and hate; and the American people are suffering from the worst lack of confidence in their government in modern history. But for all of our troubles, we also have reasons to be optimistic. The foundation of our economy, our creative, innovative and industrious talents, are the greatest in the world; the freedoms our forefathers so elegantly articulated and defended are preserved; and our citizens have two drastically different choices in this historic election. I understand that, at this moment, I am not winning the hearts, minds or votes of the deciders in the American Democracy, the independent voters. I want to address them directly right now. After we cut through all of the talking points and polish, this election comes down to the independent voter choosing between style and substance. Despite what Senator Obama might say, you are not racist if you vote for me instead of him. You get to choose between a man who has spent his entire career running for higher and higher offices on the backs of domestic terrorists, radical America-haters and the people who's policies and philosophies have caused our current economic mess. Or, you can vote for me. I am person who has, despite all of my shortcomings, fought for what was right for our nation for my entire life. I have a record of taking on people who need to be brought to justice, regardless of party affiliation or personal consequence. Senator Obama, for all of his bi-partisan rhetoric, has never once stood up to his party. How do you, the independent voter, expect from Senator Obama the tough, relentless effort to bring the responsible parties to justice when he has never even made an attempt to do so in the past? I understand that you are angry about the mess we are in; I am too. I share your disdain for the Bush Administration's reckless ways. But I am also sick and tired of listening to my opponent lay this entire mess at the feet of my party. There are responsible people, some of whom are good friends and supporters of Obama, on both sides of the aisle whose hands are dirty; they need to be brought to justice. I have the fortitude to do it, Barack Obama has shown the world that he does not."
McCain needs to make this country wake up and realize what's really at stake here. The issue that comes first, second and third is the ECONOMY. If I were advising McCain, I would make the following (lengthy) hypothetical quote as my final push message. It is formulated to fit in line with my idea for a commercial, but should also be adopted for the debate.
"Today, this nation faces challenges of a magnitude few of us have seen in our lifetime. We have a financial system on the verge of collapse at the hands of greed and corruption; we are engaged in a global struggle against forces of pure evil and hate; and the American people are suffering from the worst lack of confidence in their government in modern history. But for all of our troubles, we also have reasons to be optimistic. The foundation of our economy, our creative, innovative and industrious talents, are the greatest in the world; the freedoms our forefathers so elegantly articulated and defended are preserved; and our citizens have two drastically different choices in this historic election. I understand that, at this moment, I am not winning the hearts, minds or votes of the deciders in the American Democracy, the independent voters. I want to address them directly right now. After we cut through all of the talking points and polish, this election comes down to the independent voter choosing between style and substance. Despite what Senator Obama might say, you are not racist if you vote for me instead of him. You get to choose between a man who has spent his entire career running for higher and higher offices on the backs of domestic terrorists, radical America-haters and the people who's policies and philosophies have caused our current economic mess. Or, you can vote for me. I am person who has, despite all of my shortcomings, fought for what was right for our nation for my entire life. I have a record of taking on people who need to be brought to justice, regardless of party affiliation or personal consequence. Senator Obama, for all of his bi-partisan rhetoric, has never once stood up to his party. How do you, the independent voter, expect from Senator Obama the tough, relentless effort to bring the responsible parties to justice when he has never even made an attempt to do so in the past? I understand that you are angry about the mess we are in; I am too. I share your disdain for the Bush Administration's reckless ways. But I am also sick and tired of listening to my opponent lay this entire mess at the feet of my party. There are responsible people, some of whom are good friends and supporters of Obama, on both sides of the aisle whose hands are dirty; they need to be brought to justice. I have the fortitude to do it, Barack Obama has shown the world that he does not."
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
McCain's Way Forward
Yesterday's debate, while a fantastic display of the fundamental differences between the two realistic candidates for President, largely appears to be a non-event in terms of campaign momentum. That spells trouble for our hero and candidate, John McCain. With Senator Obama's frightening climb in the polls as our economy falls into a state of near despair, Senator McCain needed to make a drastic shift in the race. He needed to (and still has the chance to) harness the feelings of average Americans. We are worried, anxious, fearful and mad as hell. While McCain's words came close to matching that tonight, his attitude didn't.
Democrats have, for some mysterious reason, been able to put this crisis almost completely around the necks of Republicans. This is hogwash of the highest order and if John McCain and the other Republicans running for office cannot mount a more convincing counter argument, they might not deserve to win. Please see the previous post for a very important news clip regarding these issues and where different key players have stood on this sub-prime issue. Here is what we wanted to hear Senator McCain say, in forceful posture, directly to Senator Obama:
"In 2006, I co-sponsored legislation that would have reformed Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac in an effort to prohibit them from using the polices that are DIRECTLY responsible for our current economic crisis. And Senator Obama, what did you have to say about that bill? Oh right, you were too busy taking campaign contributions from those organization's leaders and using it to run for President to be bothered with that silly little task of VOTING on the bill. You didn't even vote, but you sure got a lot of their money!"
In the real debate, he made mention of the contributions and some reference was made to his bill, but he largely allowed Senator Obama to get away with pinning McCain with the label "de-regulator". On this and several other key economic issues, this is simply a falsehood that hurts McCain greatly. McCain co-sponsored a bill in 2006 (thats two years ago, folks) that would have changed the regulations making it harder or downright impossible for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to continue the practices that caused this situation! Obama couldn't even be bothered to go on record by voting! You tell me who the de-regulator really is.
Now the debate is over and we need to map out a clear course of action for Senator McCain to recover in the polls and go on to victory in the general election. If anyone has the ability to come back from this, its John McCain. After all, the man has been counted out more times than last year's New York Football Giants! Both were underdogs going in and both will come out on top when the history books are written!
The best political asset McCain has is his brand. People know and respect the American hero that he is and the independent political leader he has consistency shown himself to be. The general reputation he has earned, outside the realm of the intellectually stunted media and the unyielding liberal Obamanation, is that of an honest and forthright moderate who works to join seemingly conflicting ideologies into coherent and proper policy decisions. The key is reconnecting the people to that image. The simple and paramount question is how?
The slick TV ads with the ominous female voiceover announcer might have worked a while ago, but they don't fit with McCain's stated goals for campaign content and we question their overall effectiveness on swaying undecided voters.
Instead of "I'm John McCain and I approve this message" followed by 30 seconds of Obama bashing, however warranted and accurate it may be, McCain needs to film himself talking and connecting with the voters on an individual level. We imagine a script would go something along the lines of : "Hello, I'm Senator John McCain and I'm asking for a small amount of time out of your busy day to explain to you why I am asking for the privilege of serving you as our nation's next President......." Then, for the next 30, 60 or 90 seconds, Americans (or, more specifically, citizens of key battleground states) see and hear John McCain explaining his position on a critical issue or theme and defining his policy agenda on his own terms, face to face with the voter. This format is much more personal and, we believe, will resonate much better with undecided voters who will see the ads as something of a mini-speech, a conversation if you will. This would be a stark contrast to the current ads both campaigns have running, where the candidates hide behind ominous music, narrators and flashy graphics showing quotes disparaging or contradicting their opponents interests. If John McCain can convincingly shoot an ad like this, it will be seen as a man coming out from behind the safety of his intellectual fort to directly stand in the way of Obama becoming our next President, rather than staying behind these safety walls of mind-numbing glossy productions and lobbing rhetorical grenades at the other side.
Additionally, and secondarily, McCain needs to articulate in a clear and accurate manner the differences in philosophy, judgment and policy that separate himself from Senator Obama. We are well aware that the McCain camp has been stressing this throughout the campaign and we are saying that they have thus far failed to do so in anything resembling a positive way. McCain has been allowed the Obama camp to cast him as "Bush's third term" when, in reality, we challenge the average outsider to find a more rage-inducing Republican from the standpoint of the Bush administration. The McCain camp should not think that negatively defining Obama is alone enough to make the case stick. The honest and "McCain-like" thing to do would be to lay out the differences and say "If you agree with Senator Obama, then he is who you should vote for. But if you are unsure or you share my values and goals but are anxious for change from the current administration, I'm the one you want." That kind of straightforward willingness to lay his ideals before himself and his political future is what got McCain where he is today and it would serve him well to do that at this juncture. A man who stands on rhetoric alone is a man soon to come crashing to the ground. The American people know that and if McCain can appear to be the man who stands for more than just words and empty promises, he will win this election.
We leave the target locations and specifics of the advertisements up to people much more knowledgeable in those areas that us. The electoral map and what issues resonate best in what parts of the nation are complex and require more studious review than any of us could provide to the campaign. However, coming from the perspective of college students in a state that is a good deal away from the fray and intellectual hangups of the beltway, we believe the basic strategy is the right course for this campaign going forward.
-Andrew Jones, Michael Hilburn & Eric Fischer
Democrats have, for some mysterious reason, been able to put this crisis almost completely around the necks of Republicans. This is hogwash of the highest order and if John McCain and the other Republicans running for office cannot mount a more convincing counter argument, they might not deserve to win. Please see the previous post for a very important news clip regarding these issues and where different key players have stood on this sub-prime issue. Here is what we wanted to hear Senator McCain say, in forceful posture, directly to Senator Obama:
"In 2006, I co-sponsored legislation that would have reformed Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac in an effort to prohibit them from using the polices that are DIRECTLY responsible for our current economic crisis. And Senator Obama, what did you have to say about that bill? Oh right, you were too busy taking campaign contributions from those organization's leaders and using it to run for President to be bothered with that silly little task of VOTING on the bill. You didn't even vote, but you sure got a lot of their money!"
In the real debate, he made mention of the contributions and some reference was made to his bill, but he largely allowed Senator Obama to get away with pinning McCain with the label "de-regulator". On this and several other key economic issues, this is simply a falsehood that hurts McCain greatly. McCain co-sponsored a bill in 2006 (thats two years ago, folks) that would have changed the regulations making it harder or downright impossible for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to continue the practices that caused this situation! Obama couldn't even be bothered to go on record by voting! You tell me who the de-regulator really is.
Now the debate is over and we need to map out a clear course of action for Senator McCain to recover in the polls and go on to victory in the general election. If anyone has the ability to come back from this, its John McCain. After all, the man has been counted out more times than last year's New York Football Giants! Both were underdogs going in and both will come out on top when the history books are written!
The best political asset McCain has is his brand. People know and respect the American hero that he is and the independent political leader he has consistency shown himself to be. The general reputation he has earned, outside the realm of the intellectually stunted media and the unyielding liberal Obamanation, is that of an honest and forthright moderate who works to join seemingly conflicting ideologies into coherent and proper policy decisions. The key is reconnecting the people to that image. The simple and paramount question is how?
The slick TV ads with the ominous female voiceover announcer might have worked a while ago, but they don't fit with McCain's stated goals for campaign content and we question their overall effectiveness on swaying undecided voters.
Instead of "I'm John McCain and I approve this message" followed by 30 seconds of Obama bashing, however warranted and accurate it may be, McCain needs to film himself talking and connecting with the voters on an individual level. We imagine a script would go something along the lines of : "Hello, I'm Senator John McCain and I'm asking for a small amount of time out of your busy day to explain to you why I am asking for the privilege of serving you as our nation's next President......." Then, for the next 30, 60 or 90 seconds, Americans (or, more specifically, citizens of key battleground states) see and hear John McCain explaining his position on a critical issue or theme and defining his policy agenda on his own terms, face to face with the voter. This format is much more personal and, we believe, will resonate much better with undecided voters who will see the ads as something of a mini-speech, a conversation if you will. This would be a stark contrast to the current ads both campaigns have running, where the candidates hide behind ominous music, narrators and flashy graphics showing quotes disparaging or contradicting their opponents interests. If John McCain can convincingly shoot an ad like this, it will be seen as a man coming out from behind the safety of his intellectual fort to directly stand in the way of Obama becoming our next President, rather than staying behind these safety walls of mind-numbing glossy productions and lobbing rhetorical grenades at the other side.
Additionally, and secondarily, McCain needs to articulate in a clear and accurate manner the differences in philosophy, judgment and policy that separate himself from Senator Obama. We are well aware that the McCain camp has been stressing this throughout the campaign and we are saying that they have thus far failed to do so in anything resembling a positive way. McCain has been allowed the Obama camp to cast him as "Bush's third term" when, in reality, we challenge the average outsider to find a more rage-inducing Republican from the standpoint of the Bush administration. The McCain camp should not think that negatively defining Obama is alone enough to make the case stick. The honest and "McCain-like" thing to do would be to lay out the differences and say "If you agree with Senator Obama, then he is who you should vote for. But if you are unsure or you share my values and goals but are anxious for change from the current administration, I'm the one you want." That kind of straightforward willingness to lay his ideals before himself and his political future is what got McCain where he is today and it would serve him well to do that at this juncture. A man who stands on rhetoric alone is a man soon to come crashing to the ground. The American people know that and if McCain can appear to be the man who stands for more than just words and empty promises, he will win this election.
We leave the target locations and specifics of the advertisements up to people much more knowledgeable in those areas that us. The electoral map and what issues resonate best in what parts of the nation are complex and require more studious review than any of us could provide to the campaign. However, coming from the perspective of college students in a state that is a good deal away from the fray and intellectual hangups of the beltway, we believe the basic strategy is the right course for this campaign going forward.
-Andrew Jones, Michael Hilburn & Eric Fischer
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
McCain, COME TO WASHINGTON (State)!
Many in the political circuit in my home state of Washington were abuzz last week with word that a new poll shows Senator McCain a mere two percentage points behind Senator Obama in the Evergreen State.
That number is down from double-digit lead just weeks ago. If that poll is supported by others, it would be very wise for the McCain campaign to send one or both of the candidates out to the friendlier Washington along with some ad money. It would be a cheaper play than going full bore in California and it would force the Obama camp to spend time and money in a part of the country long thought to be a lock for their column on election night. And, with the governor of Alaska on the ticket, who knows, maybe Washington State will surprise a lot of people (myself included) and color itself red for the first time in a very very long time. Lets not forget that in Washington State, change equals Republican!
-Andrew Jones
That number is down from double-digit lead just weeks ago. If that poll is supported by others, it would be very wise for the McCain campaign to send one or both of the candidates out to the friendlier Washington along with some ad money. It would be a cheaper play than going full bore in California and it would force the Obama camp to spend time and money in a part of the country long thought to be a lock for their column on election night. And, with the governor of Alaska on the ticket, who knows, maybe Washington State will surprise a lot of people (myself included) and color itself red for the first time in a very very long time. Lets not forget that in Washington State, change equals Republican!
-Andrew Jones
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Hate the Game, not the Players
Let me say that I am a very big opponent to pork barrel spending. Let me also say that if I had a mayor or governor who didn’t ask for way more pork than they thought they would get or would need, I would vote against that person. The simple fact is that, as
In case you haven’t pieced it together, I’m ranting about all of this commotion surrounding Sarah Palin and
The bottom line is that local politicians are supposed to ask for money and federal politicians (Like Senators McCain, Obama and Biden) are, in my opinion, supposed to say no and work to reform the system in a way that gets states money for worthy projects without allowing some of the ridiculous and frivolous ones to get through. Senator McCain has taken on the status quo while senator Obama has spent his time in the senate running for President and winning earmarks for his home state.
If Governor Palin had been a
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Case for Meg Whitman
With all of this talk about Mitt Romney being the apparent running-mate in waiting for John McCain, I just wanted to make my case for someone else. It’s not that I wouldn’t supporter Governor Romney if he was the person on the ticket; it’s just that I think there is a better fit for McCain, not to mention the unity of the Republican Party. If I had my way, Senator McCain would pick Meg Whitman to be his running mate. In case you wondered why, I made a bulleted list of pros and cons.
PROS
· She knows the economy: She is the former President and CEO of EBay and one of America’s most successful business leaders. The appeal of Romney’s economic experience is also fulfilled in a Whitman pick. She was his economic advisor, after all.
· Many women would be drawn to vote for the first female Vice President in US history.
· She is not part of the Washington culture. A true outsider for true change would be enticing to people craving change, but still wanting correct judgment and perspective in a leader. Especially now that Senator Obama has gone with Joe Biden (the epitome of a Washington Insider), the argument that a McCain-Whitman ticket is true change would be easy to make.
· By choosing someone other than Huckabee or Romney, both men will feel that they have a strong future in the party (and a potential second shot at the White House later). This way, both groups of supporters can get behind the ticket without any hard feelings.
CONS
· We don’t know her views on abortion. The base of the party has made it clear to Senator McCain that anything but a pro-life running-mate would be met with significant disapproval and could singlehandedly keep him from winning in November.
· We know very little about her private life. According to all the sources I was able to read, she is single. That has been a point of interest for other single females in high office (i.e.: Condoleezza Rice).
· We don’t know if she can fill the role of “attack dog” strongly enough to combat the hurricane that is the wind that cometh from Joe Biden’s mouth.
From where I sit (far away from Washington, D.C. and from the decision makers in the McCain camp), I see the pros as a much stronger list than the cons. I think that choosing Whitman would generate extraordinary interest in McCain and would bring swing voters to his side come Election Day. Imagine the coverage the McCain campaign would get out from the mainstream press if he picked her!
The cons cannot be ignored; but I really do hope that as I write this, the McCain camp is vetting her to determine the unknowns that fill the list. If she passes through that as a viable option, I think Whitman is the right choice for this campaign.
This election season has told us that this country is primed for a change. Now that Obama has failed to deliver that change in his running mate, I say that it’s the perfect time for McCain to do it.
-Andrew Jones
PROS
· She knows the economy: She is the former President and CEO of EBay and one of America’s most successful business leaders. The appeal of Romney’s economic experience is also fulfilled in a Whitman pick. She was his economic advisor, after all.
· Many women would be drawn to vote for the first female Vice President in US history.
· She is not part of the Washington culture. A true outsider for true change would be enticing to people craving change, but still wanting correct judgment and perspective in a leader. Especially now that Senator Obama has gone with Joe Biden (the epitome of a Washington Insider), the argument that a McCain-Whitman ticket is true change would be easy to make.
· By choosing someone other than Huckabee or Romney, both men will feel that they have a strong future in the party (and a potential second shot at the White House later). This way, both groups of supporters can get behind the ticket without any hard feelings.
CONS
· We don’t know her views on abortion. The base of the party has made it clear to Senator McCain that anything but a pro-life running-mate would be met with significant disapproval and could singlehandedly keep him from winning in November.
· We know very little about her private life. According to all the sources I was able to read, she is single. That has been a point of interest for other single females in high office (i.e.: Condoleezza Rice).
· We don’t know if she can fill the role of “attack dog” strongly enough to combat the hurricane that is the wind that cometh from Joe Biden’s mouth.
From where I sit (far away from Washington, D.C. and from the decision makers in the McCain camp), I see the pros as a much stronger list than the cons. I think that choosing Whitman would generate extraordinary interest in McCain and would bring swing voters to his side come Election Day. Imagine the coverage the McCain campaign would get out from the mainstream press if he picked her!
The cons cannot be ignored; but I really do hope that as I write this, the McCain camp is vetting her to determine the unknowns that fill the list. If she passes through that as a viable option, I think Whitman is the right choice for this campaign.
This election season has told us that this country is primed for a change. Now that Obama has failed to deliver that change in his running mate, I say that it’s the perfect time for McCain to do it.
-Andrew Jones
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Hey, Joe!
First let me confess to something: I signed up for that ridiculous text message/email from the Obama campaign thinking that they would actually let their supporters in on the secret before the news broke. As we all know now, not only did they miss their mark by several hours, but they also had to send the text messages out at around 3 am EST, or midnight out here on the left coast. Nothing says well orchestrated campaign stunt like waking up your supporters at 3 am to tell them something that had already been leaked to the entire free world! I was further ecstatic to receive an official announcement email from the Obama people naming Joe Biden as Barack's running mate at about 10 am. The Obama campaigns timeliness would be nothing short of amazing....if this were 1890, but alas, as it stands it was just a comical thing to watch. They kept such a good secret for so long, only to have it leaked out and confirmed 12 hours short of the finish line. I think that is a sneak peak to a common theme for the remainder of the Obama campaign: Obama, a day late and a dollar short. I am now a happy former subscriber to Obama email updates (I would hate to waste any more space in my inbox with his updates).
I also wanted to share some thoughts about Joe Biden, the new running mate. First of all, I find it stunning that the Democrats continue to get thing so backwards. How in the world does the inexperienced, done-nothing junior senator take the #1 spot on the ticket while the 6 term senator (and current chairman of the foreign relations committee) is relegated to #2. This is the definition of a backwards and unbalanced ticket.
Even Senator Joe himself doesn't think Barack is Presidential material. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8
And isn't it strange that Mr. Change felt the need to pick a 6 TERM US SENATOR to be his running mate. Its almost like experience actually does matter. Imagine that.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Obama and his Gas Problem
I was watching Barack Obama talk at the Jefferson Jackson dinner and he stated something that is nothing new from him, or most Democrats and honestly, a growing number of conservatives. "You suffer and the oil companies put record profits in their pockets!" The correction that should be made to this complaint would be this: oil companies put record profits in YOUR pockets. While you may or may not own stocks or have investment portfolios, your parents, or your grandparents who have retirement accounts or investment portfolios most likely have oil company stock. Exxon Mobile posted a 10.9 BILLION dollar profit this last week and people were livid. "Gas prices are so high and they're making money!" the average consumer complains. But what that consumer, and evidently Obama doesn't know or doesn't want YOU to know that every day Americans get those profits. There isn't a man swimming in his pool filled with 10.9 billion dollar bills, every share in the company earned $2.03. Now unless we have decided that it is wrong for a company to earn money, unless we have decided that we no longer want to have a free economy, unless we have decided that a company who earns a profit should be taxed and punished for their success, oil companies should not be seen as villains. It's easy to blame the big guy when you’re not happy, but if you are really upset about oil prices, drive your car less, drive slower, decrease DEMAND for gasoline and the SUPPLY will rise and PRICES will decrease. Rather than complaining about a company being successful and making YOU, the public shareholder, money point the blame finger elsewhere.
By the way:
Exxon Mobile makes a profit of about 9 cents a gallon.
Should we start punishing other companies who make 9 cents profit per item? The only reason Exxon has such high profits is because of the massive volumes of gasoline sold. If a shoe maker sold his shoes for a $10 per shoe profit, and he sold $1 million shoes, would we be outraged that they made $1o million dollars in profits?
The real thieves here aren’t the gas companies, and John McCain wants to do something about it:
The US government takes 14.5 cents a gallon. Washington State takes 28 cents a gallon.
--Michael Hilburn
By the way:
Exxon Mobile makes a profit of about 9 cents a gallon.
Should we start punishing other companies who make 9 cents profit per item? The only reason Exxon has such high profits is because of the massive volumes of gasoline sold. If a shoe maker sold his shoes for a $10 per shoe profit, and he sold $1 million shoes, would we be outraged that they made $1o million dollars in profits?
The real thieves here aren’t the gas companies, and John McCain wants to do something about it:
The US government takes 14.5 cents a gallon. Washington State takes 28 cents a gallon.
--Michael Hilburn
Friday, March 14, 2008
Obama and the "preacher"
We are fully aware that there have been repeated calls for exclusively issue-oriented attacks in this campaign from the McCain people and we would ordinarily respect that. However, this business about Obama's pastor has us in a special kind of uproar and we feel it warrants the special attention:
A year ago, before Barack Obama had reached super-star status, questions were raised about his spiritual leader, mentor, confidant, and pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and his often racially charged sermons and statements. Then, Obama was not overly challenged by this relationship, but now as new video of the prejudiced preacher have surfaced showing the outrageous rhetoric from Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and we are once again required to demand Obama to either align with or denounce his "spiritual leader". Some argue that a pastor does not represent the views or beliefs of the members of their church. While that may be true to a degree, it is preposterous to suggest however that some one, like Obama, who has attended a church for over 15 years under the same pastor (whom he has been friends with for around 2 decades) shares none of the views or beliefs as said pastor. Obama has likened his relationship with this man to that of a relative with a crazy uncle who says outrageous things but has to be tolerated. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, this is a stupid analogy. We cannot pick our family, we certainly can and do pick our pastors. And if our uncle was seriously outrageous, as this pastor is, would any normal person still visit with him? We think not.
It is also ridiculous to suggest that the company a candidate keeps should not come into question during an election. If a candidate called a Klu Klux Klan member as their personal spiritual leader, and mentor, there would be outrage from the electorate. This is no different. The hate speech that "Rev." Wright preaches is not only racist, but anti-American. Any one who so closely associates themselves with the source of such rhetoric is not fit to be President of the United States of America.
Statements by Rev. Wright:
America and Al Qaeda commit the same crimes .
America invented AIDS to kill people of color.
God Bless America? No No No, God **** America
Should some one who says these kind of comments be supported by a candidate for President? What does this tell us about Obama's judgement in character?
Our liberal friends are quick to point out that Senator McCain and President Bush have met with and enjoyed the support of some people who have said some rather unseemly things. This is most assuredly true. Anyone running for the Presidency of the United States is bound to pick up some supporters who say nasty things and don't share the values of the candidate. So long as they make it clear that they disagree, and strongly denounce the people's inappropriate words, there is no great problem here. In Obama's case, this rule does not apply because he has remained a member of this church after repeated controversial comments made my Wright. For example, right after the horror that was September 11, 2001, "Rev." Wright said that America's "chickens had come home to roost."
Senator Obama has categorically denied hearing or knowing of the vast majority of these comments and has stated, for the record with Fox News reporter Major Garrett, that he would have left the church had he known about these comments. Now, all that needs to happen is for proof to emerge that Obama was made aware or in attendance when one of these comments were made and America will see what a disingenuous and dangerous illusion he is.
We want to provide some clips of the preacher that is Obama's "spiritual leader" and "mentor" and let you decide for yourself if you want a product of this "thought" to be our next President. We pray to God (and we didn't ask Rev. Wright for help figuring our how to do that) that you answer that question with an emphatic and absolute NO! We have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zs38vqJFfU
Thanks for reading,
Andrew Jones and Michael Hilburn
A year ago, before Barack Obama had reached super-star status, questions were raised about his spiritual leader, mentor, confidant, and pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and his often racially charged sermons and statements. Then, Obama was not overly challenged by this relationship, but now as new video of the prejudiced preacher have surfaced showing the outrageous rhetoric from Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and we are once again required to demand Obama to either align with or denounce his "spiritual leader". Some argue that a pastor does not represent the views or beliefs of the members of their church. While that may be true to a degree, it is preposterous to suggest however that some one, like Obama, who has attended a church for over 15 years under the same pastor (whom he has been friends with for around 2 decades) shares none of the views or beliefs as said pastor. Obama has likened his relationship with this man to that of a relative with a crazy uncle who says outrageous things but has to be tolerated. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, this is a stupid analogy. We cannot pick our family, we certainly can and do pick our pastors. And if our uncle was seriously outrageous, as this pastor is, would any normal person still visit with him? We think not.
It is also ridiculous to suggest that the company a candidate keeps should not come into question during an election. If a candidate called a Klu Klux Klan member as their personal spiritual leader, and mentor, there would be outrage from the electorate. This is no different. The hate speech that "Rev." Wright preaches is not only racist, but anti-American. Any one who so closely associates themselves with the source of such rhetoric is not fit to be President of the United States of America.
Statements by Rev. Wright:
America and Al Qaeda commit the same crimes .
America invented AIDS to kill people of color.
God Bless America? No No No, God **** America
Should some one who says these kind of comments be supported by a candidate for President? What does this tell us about Obama's judgement in character?
Our liberal friends are quick to point out that Senator McCain and President Bush have met with and enjoyed the support of some people who have said some rather unseemly things. This is most assuredly true. Anyone running for the Presidency of the United States is bound to pick up some supporters who say nasty things and don't share the values of the candidate. So long as they make it clear that they disagree, and strongly denounce the people's inappropriate words, there is no great problem here. In Obama's case, this rule does not apply because he has remained a member of this church after repeated controversial comments made my Wright. For example, right after the horror that was September 11, 2001, "Rev." Wright said that America's "chickens had come home to roost."
Senator Obama has categorically denied hearing or knowing of the vast majority of these comments and has stated, for the record with Fox News reporter Major Garrett, that he would have left the church had he known about these comments. Now, all that needs to happen is for proof to emerge that Obama was made aware or in attendance when one of these comments were made and America will see what a disingenuous and dangerous illusion he is.
We want to provide some clips of the preacher that is Obama's "spiritual leader" and "mentor" and let you decide for yourself if you want a product of this "thought" to be our next President. We pray to God (and we didn't ask Rev. Wright for help figuring our how to do that) that you answer that question with an emphatic and absolute NO! We have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zs38vqJFfU
Thanks for reading,
Andrew Jones and Michael Hilburn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)