Change you can believe in, but not expect.

Like I was sayin… please don’t hold me to my word.

For the last year, the Obama campaign has be working feverishly to make sure that we understand that an Obama administration means that Change is coming, we can now all have Hope, and finally that all our prayers will be answered (at least if you don’t make too much money that is).

Now that the election is only a few days away, the Obama campaign is concerned that Americans will be upset if Obama doesn’t deliver. 

According to a Times of London story by Tim Reid, senior staffers are working on a communication strategy to let America down softly:

One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, “so there’s not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair.

The adviser added that Obama was one of the first to realized that expectations may risk being inflated.  It seems that it didn’t dawn on anybody in the campaign that promising to ease everyone’s burdens would risk setting up some expectations.

Recently when asked about his first 100 days, Obama indicated that he would need more time to tackle issues like the war, health care, and global warming:

“The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference,” he said.

Perhaps now we can expect great change and hope during the administration following Obama’s should he win.

Democracy, Obama Style

Like I was sayin… let me make you an offer you can’t refuse.

One of the main themes of a democracy (yes, I know we are a representative republic) is the right of the individual to vote in free and open elections.  One of the things that we also hold dear is the right to keep our votes private.  This is important as it removes the threat of intimidation.  You can tell me who to vote for, but you don’t have a way to know what I truly believe as my vote is private.

I was reading earlier this year that Obama and democrats want to “strengthen” unions by allowing unions to have people sign cards stating that they want to belong to a union.  Once enough people have signed the cards, the union is then the representative of the workers.

Now this doesn’t sound so bad on the surface, but the unions will have the workers sign the cards in public in front of other workers and union reps.  Essentially, they will march employees up to a table and have them sign a card if they want to join the union.  Refusing to sign would mean that they don’t want to join a union.  However, don’t even think for a second that being surrounded by pro-union workers and union organizers will sway anybody to sign the card….

HR 800 removes the right of workers to vote to unionize through secret ballot.  The argument goes something like “you can only tell a workers true intent by having them vote in public in the open”.  However, this turns the idea of the secret ballot on its head by declaring that workers voting by secret ballot are somehow susceptible to intimidation.

The Heritage Foundation has a good article describing the bill.  In essence, the bill has three main goals:

First,it requires the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union after a majority of a firm’s workers has signed union cards, puttingan end to almost all organizing elections: “if the [National Labor Relations] Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations…the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization.”

Second,the EFCA requires companies and newly certified unions to enter bindingarbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations. Neither companies nor employees could appeal the arbitrator’s ruling, and the contract would last for two years.

Third, H.R. 800 would dramatically increase the penalties for unfair labor practices committed by employers, but not unions, during an organiz­ing drive.

Those wishing to muddy the waters of the true intent of the bill indicate that after enough cards are signed, a secret ballot is then conducted.  However, the language of the bill seems pretty clear “if the [National Labor Relations] Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations…the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization”.

President Bush has stated his opposition to the bill.  However, Senator Obama has made his intentions clear:

“We’re ready to play offense for organized labor. It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers. . . . I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States. . . .” ~ Barack Obama

I can imagine a day in the not to distant future where a run away Democratic congress and a President Obama declare and end to stolen elections and voter fraud by having us vote with our friends and neighbors looking over our shoulder to ensure our vote matches our true intentions.  I hope for our sake “we the people” wake up and see the direction that we are headed as a nation.

The Audacity of Troop Pullouts

Like I was sayin… do as I say not as I say.

Senator Obama made a big splash with is overseas trip this summer.  He made several anti-free market speeches and even met with military and political leaders in Iraq.

It should be no secret to anyone that Senator Obama favors a speedy withdrawal of US forces from Iraq as he has said so publicly of the last few years.  However, apparently what he does behind the scenes is quite different.

In an article today in the NY Post, Amir Taheri details Obama’s lobbying the Iraqi government to delay an agreement troop withdrawals until after the US elections.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari:

He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.

The article goes on to detail that:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

I find it hard to believe that an American presidential candidate would seek to derail Iraqi security negotiations for his own political gain, but then again, some people will do anything to gain power.  This is the type of thing that the candidate of change has been preaching against.

Once again we find our politicians saying one thing, but then doing another.

Obama was for the Bridge to Nowhere before he was for it.

Like I was sayin… people in glass houses…

The Obama campaign has been making a lot of noise recently about Gov. Palin’s support for the infamous bridge to nowhere before seeing the light and taking a stand against it.

The interesting thing is that both Senators Obama and Biden were for it even when given a chance to shift the funds from the bridge to Katrina relief.  Why on earth would the Obama campaign be pushing this story when they can be tied to being for it and even voted to keep it when given the chance to move the funds to help the victims of hurricane Katrina?

Given that most of the media won’t put this information out there, I believe that the Obama campaign believes that they won’t be called on it.  It will be interesting to see what the discussion happens in all the blogs.

Hillary Admits Obama Can Win

(April 16, 2008 ) – Like I was sayin… some people can’t make up their minds.  For several months part of Hillary Clinton’s argument about why she should be the Dem nominee is that she had a better chance than Barack Obama at beating the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.

The facts are somewhat different.  For several months, many polls show McCain beating Clinton by as many as 12 points.  Other polls have shown Clinton winning by as many as 5 percentage points.  Currently, the Real Clear Politics average has has McCain up by 2.6%

The same polls show McCain over Obama by as many as 6 points, but with Obama over McCain by as many as 12 points.  The current Real Clear Politics average has Obama over McCain by 0.6%

The raw numbers show Obama with a better chance of beating McCain than Clinton.  However, a convincing argument can be made that both the Dem candidates are in a statistical tie with John McCain.

Tonight in the first Dem debate in several months, Clinton stated when asked if Obama could win in the fall, “Yes, yes, yes”.

It would seem that over the last few weeks when given the chance, the Dem candidates often weaken their own argument as to why they should be the Dem nominee.

At one point, Obama was almost assured the Dem nomination.  However, his recent statements about small town voters have hurt him and will force uncommitted super delegates to look again at Clinton.  The next few weeks should prove to be interesting in the race for the Dem nomination.

Rockefeller Apologizes to McCain

(April 8, 2008) – Like I was sayin… some people will say anything.  Sen. Rockefeller (D, WV)  apologized to Sen. McCain for saying that he doesn’t care about the lives of people caught in the wars he champions.

Sen. Rockefeller made his remarks in the Charleston Gazette.

“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.”

There is so much wrong with these statements, you have to wonder what is wrong with Sen. Rockefeller.

First off, in Vietnam, the fighter pilots didn’t drop bombs from 35,000 feet nor did they have laser guided bombs.  The fact that Sen. Rockefeller doesn’t even know what he is talking about should cause anybody to wonder why they should vote for him in the next election.

Secondly, and even more troubling, what message does this send to the men and women who are currently or have served our country in the military.  Are they not fit to be the president because they launched missiles or dropped bombs?  If that is his opinion, then he should come out and say it and not just take cheap shots and McCain.

So not only is Rockefeller clueless as to how wars are fought, but his character comes into question if he doesn’t believe that pilots don’t care about people and therefore can’t be the president.  If that isn’t his opinion, then he is just another politician that is willing to say anything to get elected.

Being the man of conviction that he is, on Tuesday Rockefeller issued an apology:

“I have deep respect for John McCain’s honorable and noble service to our country. I made an inaccurate and wrong analogy and I have extended my sincere apology to him.

“While we differ a great deal on policy issues, I profoundly respect and appreciate his dedication to our country, and I regret my very poor choice of words,” he said.

Notice that he didn’t say that McCain does indeed care for people caught in war, but that he merely used a bad analogy and a poor choice of words.

I can’t imagine that anybody in the military would even think of voting for Rockefeller.

More calls for Hilliary to drop out

(March 29, 2008) – Like I was sayin… it ain’t over until the lady sings.  More and more prominent democrats are calling for Hillary Clinton end her campaign for the dem nomination.

In the last few days, several prominent democrats have urged Clinton to bow out clearing the way for an Obama nomination.  Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Patrick Lehey have both indicated that they believe there is no way for Clinton to secure the nomination and have called for her to end her campaign. 

This week, speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi urged the “super delegates” to back whomever has the most popular votes.  The DNC chairman, Howard Dean, has called for the “super delegates” to declare which candidate they support by July 1st in an effort to avoid a nasty convention floor battle.

Clinton has vowed to keep up the fight even to the floor of the DNC convention.  The DNC would like to avoid a nasty fight which would turn off independents as well as some dem voters.  However, Clinton will not bow out so easily.

John McCain seems to be benefiting from this the most.  As the two dem candidates continue to take shots at each other, they unwittingly provide McCain ammunition for the general election.  This week, Clinton put forth the argument that Obama has received the most cash from companies involved in the sub-prime mortgage business.  That is debatable depending upon how you slice the data, but in any case, McCain received the least cash from those companies compared to Clinton and Obama.

It will be interesting to see how far the dems are willing to drag their party down in order to secure the nomination.

Clinton and Obama spar over Sub-Prime Donations

(March 28, 2008) – Like I was sayin… the devil is in the details.  Yesterday, Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of taking more cash from the companies involved in the current sub-prime mess.

 However, it depends on how you slice the list of donors.  Here is a great article from the WSJ that breaks it down.  Apparently, if you limit the list to the top 10 issuers of sub-prime mortgages on different dates, either Clinton or Obama received the most.

The problem that the Clinton Campaign overlooked is that over all, Clinton has received slightly more money from the sub-prime industry with $2.8 million for Clinton and $2.67 million for Obama.  On a side note, John McCain only received $1.28 million.

It is almost unbelievable that the Clinton Machine would make such a mistake by trying to point this out.  Firstly, they have received more money from sub-prime players than Obama.  Do they really still believe that people will just take what Clinton says as the truth without checking it out?  In the past this may have been the case, but will the popularity of Obama, the Clintons can no longer rely on the MSM to push the Clinton agenda across the board.

Secondly, with either Obama or Clinton facing McCain in November, this is a gift to McCain as if taking donations from companies that make bad financial decisions is wrong, McCain comes out the best.

This just seems to be another miscalculation by the Clinton Campaign that will hurt them in the end.  It will also end up hurting the eventual Dem nominee.  Clinton has been accused of being willing to do anything to win and this seems to be the case even if it drags down her party.

Pork Spending to Continue

(March 14, 2008) – Like I was sayin… they love to spend our money.

For years, presidential candidate John McCain has been against pork barrel spending in congress.  Pork spending is when a senator attaches an amendment to a spending bill to pay for pet projects.  Yesterday, John McCain voted for a 1 year moratorium on pork spending which failed to pass.  Obama and Clinton also voted for the bill even though they had over $390 million of earmarks in fiscal year 2008.

The issue that most Americans have with the practice is that the spending is attached to defence and other spending bills without debate.  There is also a lack of accountability of who benefits the most from the pork spending.  For instance, if my construction company donates or raises 100k for a political campaign and a pork item spends 10 million on a new cancer care wing of a hospital that my company builds, it pretty much is a payback at the expense of the American tax payer.

Citizens Against Government Waste, a non-partisan watch dog group, 71 senetors voted against the measure to stop pork spending for 1 year.  From the site, you can contact your senator and let them know what you think.