Think About It

John McCain's Image Problem -- Barack Obama's BS Problem

I’ve been watching John McCain more closely than I had in the past.  I’m rooting for McCain, because he has far better credentials to be President than Obama.  He has more experience in every facet of government than Obama.  His plans for the economy, energy, foreign and domestic policies are superior to Obama’s.

So what’s wrong?  Why is Obama reportedly leading McCain by as much as 14%?  John McCain has an image problem – and an oratory problem – and a perceived age problem.  Yes, I know he also has the problem of the liberal media either chipping away at him or simply ignoring him.  McCain needs to make some changes.  One of my sons, who likes and is planning to vote for McCain, told me he thinks McCain comes across as “an old tired white guy.”  I can’t say as I disagree with his assessment.  I think McCain tries to project the image of the wise elder statesman, who speaks slower and in softer tones.  Unfortunately, this is perceived by the masses as an old tired white guy talking.  (I didn’t say the masses were smart.)

Maybe he could start by visiting a tanning salon once a week.  Not too brown, but let’s get rid of the pasty look of someone who hasn’t been outside in 10 years.

Next, let’s get him a voice coach to put some strength and punch into his speeches.  He has the experience advantage; let him project it.  He doesn’t need to pretend he’s 50 again, but neither does he need to look as though he’s eager to embrace 90.

Meanwhile, the black JFK is out enjoying rock star status.  Why?  Because he promises political pork like no other politician has before him – and he does it convincingly.   His voice projects strength and sincerity, albeit fake.  People will bite on a freebee anytime.  “What do I have to lose?” 

Questions:

If you were John McCain’s campaign manager, what advice would you give him?

Is there any chance McCain will change his campaign strategy?

What is the foremost thing that McCain needs to do in order to win?

Bill Clinton and the Strange Article in Vanity Fair

I never thought I would be defending Bill Clinton, but I question the journalistic integrity of Vanity Fair’s upcoming article, titled The Comeback Kid.  According to the author of the article, Bill Clinton has been doing some late night one on one campaigning.  Supposedly, old friends and aides are anxious over Clinton’s recent escapades that include dubious and secretive business dealings, jetting around with a skirt-chasing posse and all-round bad behavior.  The tenor of the article would suggest that Bill Clinton is out playing while Hillary is occupied with her campaign for president.  Oh, a word about the author of the article.  It was written by the husband of Dee Dee Myers, who was Clinton’s White House press secretary.

When I first heard about the Vanity Fair article, I looked forward to reading it.  I was disappointed; instead of a well-documented look into Bill Clinton’s nocturnal forays, it was long on gossipy rumor and short on verifiable facts.  A sample: “Bill Clinton.   He had come to the City of Light (Paris) with the motley crew that constitutes some of the post-presidential rat pack to celebrate the marriage of Douglas Band, the man who for the last decade has been his personal aide, gatekeeper, enforcer, and—more recently—counselor in the multifarious business, philanthropic, and political dealings that keep Clinton restlessly circling the globe.”

According to the article, Bill Clinton is a close “bachelor buddy” of Ron Burkle, the California supermarket billionaire.  Burkle reportedly jets around the world in his converted Boeing 757 that Clinton calls “Ron Air” and Burkle’s circle of young aides privately refer to as “Air Fuck One.”   If one didn’t read carefully, the reader would think Bill Clinton flew to Paris with Burkle, but Clinton flew in with Steve Bing, a real estate heir and Democratic donor.  The article rambles on for several more pages of innuendo.  A strange article.

The timing of this article is interesting to say the least.  The story is breaking just as Hillary Clinton is the last throws of her campaign for President or as some think, Vice-President.  Lots of questions on this one.

Questions:

Was the article a deliberate hatchet piece or just another expose?

Was the timing of the article coincidental?

Are Obama’s people behind it?

Why did Vanity Fair run a piece that didn’t include verifiable sources?

How does Dee Dee Myers figure into this scenario?

Obama and the PC Police

Hillary Clinton, as expected, trounced Barack Obama by a 2- 1 margin in the West Virginia primary last night.  Probably the most interesting thing to come out of this primary is the spin that is coming out of the Obama camp.  Obama’s spinmeisters, CNN,  and the mainstream media are hinting the reason Obama lost West Virginia is because the state is inhabited by working class whites (code for a bunch of inbred Jethros who are clinging to their guns and their religion).  It’s interesting to note that Fox is the only network that questioned the fact that Obama pulled in 92% of the African-American vote in North Carolina.  The not-so-subtle racist charge is intended as a warning for potential voters in the remaining primary states who intend to vote for Hillary.   CNN and other networks are reminding voters that it is not PC to vote for the white candidate.  How could you?  Shame on you?  The PC police are watching you.

This message, of course, is intended to carry over to the general election; however, allegations of racism, no matter how subtle, can backfire.  Americans are weary of the likes of Sharpton, Jackson, and the Reverend Wright. 

Questions:

Does Hillary stand a chance of winning the Democratic nomination?

Can Obama deny her the VP spot if she wants it?

What the Hell Was He Thinking?

  Hardly a day goes by without one or more of our illustrious elected representatives doing something that is completely off the wall.  The week’s What the Hell was He Thinking Award has to go to Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, an Obama supporter.  Earlier this week, Rockefeller, during an interview with a West Virginia newspaper reporter, launched into an anti-McCain tirade:  "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

   Rockefeller later apologized to McCain, but it makes one wonder kind of mental midget would make such a comment.  Did he think he could make such a comment with impunity?   Or was it a case of going too far, then trying to make amends for a stupid statement. In any case, it was bizarre.

Why Did Obama Decide Not to go to Memphis?

There was much press given to the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination.  It is interesting to note that with the passing of each year, the legend gains more and more distance from the real person.  I doubt that most of the current generation has taken the time to research the facts on MLK.  I also found it interesting that John McCain showed up in Memphis to pay tribute, and Hillary Clinton was there recounting the time when she, as a young girl, stood in line for hours to met MLK.  And he was so kind...and you get the picture.

Although Obama honored King, he did it from Indiana.  I found it interesting that Obama wasn’t in Memphis doing the balcony scene.  Was this by design?   Does Obama feel he has the African-American vote locked up, so why dredge up old feelings of white anger by standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel?   Is this an attempt to distance himself from the militant rhetoric of MLK?

Gas Prices - The Real Story

  There has been a great deal of public anger directed at oil companies, but is it justified? Yesterday, officials from Chevron, BP America, Conoco-Phillips, Shell, and Exxon-Mobil were hauled into Congressional hearings for a tongue lashing and a few questions.  A couple of committee members suggested that oil companies should reduce the cost of gasoline.  I laid out in yesterday’s blog some of the figures that came out of the hearing.

  Oil company officials stated their profit is 8% of the gas pump price.  This figure was not questioned or disputed by those on the committee, so I would conclude these figures are reasonably accurate.  This would mean that if one spends $ 50.00 to fill up his gas tank, then only $ 4.00 of that would go to oil company profits.

  I think it is important to note if oil companies simply announced they would forego all of their profit, that $ 50.00 fill-up would still cost $46.00, which really doesn’t do much to alleviate the pain being felt at the pump.

  Conversely, if the government agreed to give up their 15% tax, that $50.00 tank of gas would cost only $ 42.50.  Instead, it is clear to me that they plan to increase the amount of tax on fuel.  That should really help the consumer. 

Does anyone really believe the rhetoric of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama when they claim they will bring down the price of gas?  Think About It.

Clinton and Obama Promise Mortgage Bailouts

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are trying to make political hay out of the home mortgage crisis.  Both, of course, are blaming the Bush administration for not properly overseeing lending practices.

The subprime mortgage crisis is more complicated than it appears.  It isn’t merely a case of greedy lenders making unwise loans, which now have turned into bad loans.  Poor lenders?  No, many of these lenders will be just fine, thank you.  The lenders packaged these questionable loans and sold them to various Wall Street houses, who in turn packaged and sold them as high-yield securities.  These “packages” were purchased by unsuspecting investors all over the world.  When the bubble burst these securities went into the tank. 

What we have left is a sprinkling of lenders who kept their own loans and were burned when buyers defaulted.  We also have a large number of investors who now realize they have been had.  And, of course we have the people who borrowed more than they could afford and/or found themselves with a house that is worth a lot less than their mortgage.

So what to do?  Clinton and Obama are calling for some kind of bailout for the home buyers.  McCain hasn’t indicated that he is for such a plan.  So, who are we really bailing out?

Clinton says the Federal Housing Administration, "should also stand ready to be a temporary buyer to purchase, restructure, and resell underwater mortgages.”

Last week Clinton also called for a five-year freeze on interest rates for all subprime mortgages and a new stimulus package that includes $30 billion to help state and local governments buy foreclosed properties, restructure mortgages, and undertake "anti-blight programs."

Obama, not to be outdone, will create a fund to help borrowers refinance their mortgages.  If you smell another giveaway in the works, you’re right.  If Obama or Hillary Clinton is elected, the taxpayers will bail out the homeowners and ultimately the mortgage companies and their investors. 

The questions are:  Should the “unsophisticated” borrowers be bailed out? Should those who borrowed to speculate in the booming real estate market be bailed out?  Should the lenders be bailed out?  Those who bought these “packages”?

McCain Avoids the Obama / Wright Controversy

A John McCain aide was recently suspended for posting a controversial video of Barack Obama and his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.  I expected there surely must be some great untruth in it, but upon viewing the video, it tells no untruth.  The video did, however, come down hard on the Obama/Wright relationship.  I suspect McCain doesn’t want to want incur any allegations of race baiting.  You can judge the video for yourself.  Just cut and paste the web address into your browser.

http://election.newsmax.com/mccain_aide/?s=al&promo_code=47A6-1

The question is this:  If Obama is nominated, will McCain make the Obama/Wright connection off-limits?  How long will McCain continue to make it off-limits?

Election 2008 - Sorting Out the Truth

   The accusation that John McCain is a flaming liberal, prompted me to do some research on his voting record, along with Clinton and Obama's.  The problem is where does one go to obtain unbiased information about a candidate?  Most so called news sources can't be trusted, nor can the information from various commentator's sources.  Each has his own bias.  We can do our own research, but where does one start.  I looked at various websites that deal with political candidates.  There is one that I would recommend. I think someone mentioned it previously.  There is an organization named Vote Smart.  They are a non-profit, bi-partisan organization that compiles voting records, polls information from special interest groups, and gathers biographical information.

   So  what exactly can one find on this site?  You can find how any given special interest group, liberal or conservative, rates a particular candidate.  Most of us identify with certain special interest groups, whether it be the National Rifle Association or PETA.  Or the VFW or Peace Now.  The point is this information is useful in getting a clearer picture of any candidate.  The site is:
http://www.votesmart.org/

Interrogation, Morality, Terrorism and Politics

President Bush announced his veto of of a bill that was spearheaded by Nancy Pelosi and a group of Democrats that would have limited the CIA's ability to interrogate prisoners.  The bill, in essence, would have limited  the CIA's interrogation techniques to mirror those of the U.S. Army manual's list of permitted techniques.  Moreover, it would have outlawed the controversial water boarding.

President Bush used his weekly radio address to announce the veto.  He said the CIA's current interrogation techniques had helped stop plots against a Marine camp in Djibouti and the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan in addition to plans to fly passenger planes into a Los Angeles tower or London's Heathrow Airport and city buildings.

  The bill's proponents had collected the signatures of 43 retired generals and admirals, along with an assortment of other high ranking retired government officials.  The proponents, including John McCain, argue the U.S. should be setting the example for the rest of the world to follow.  They also argue this would expose our troops to unlimited torture by other foreign forces.

  Did Bush make the right choice in vetoing the bill?  It is unlikely that congress can muster the votes for an override.  Are we on a slippery slope with with little or no restrictions on interrogation techniques?  Are we abrogating the high moral ground?  Has this really changed anything or is Bush merely giving legitimacy to actions that have been used secretly by the CIA for years? 
 

                 

Delete Reply Forward     Spam Move...

Previous | Next | Back to Messages Save Message Text

Delete Reply Forward     Spam Move...

Previous | Next | Back to Messages Save Message Text