The Republican party is dead! Conservatism is dead!

Not so fast! Democrats are trying to dance on the grave of the conservative views of America and they are way ahead of themselves. This election DID NOT spell doom for the Republican party or for social conservatives or fiscal conservatives(me). If anything it reinforced some social conservative views. I do not agree with a number of socially conservative views but to proclaim them dead is a foolish thing to do.


Barack Obama is an inspiring man and his story is historic but his election is being woven into a fairy tale of great change in the United States. I hope he does bring positive change to the United States and succeeds, after all who would want a president to fail...if he does then our country does. He is my president now and I support him but I will not let this election, and the reason for its results, to be twisted into a lie. The fact is that there was little hope of a Republican being elected in this current environment but this backlash against the Republican party was not brought on by a rejection of their ideology. It was brought on by the unprecedented convergence of historic calamities.

To all those who say that George Bush/Republicans caused this bad economy: take an economics class! This economy is a direct result of the .com bubble bursting(which did so before Bush took office), the 9/11 attacks(which were planned before Bush was elected and would have taken place no matter who was in office), and the mortgage crisis that was set in motion 20 years before Bush even thought about running for President. Any economist will tell you that a sitting President has very few levers that he can pull to tweak the economy. That is levers/actions that will show up within six years of the President doing so. Whether the blame for the bad economy is factually correct or not...perception is reality. The Republicans wore this economy like an albatross around their neck and it led to their defeat(John McCain was winning before the economy imploded).

Some of the other reasons why John McCain and the Republicans were defeated:

• The $630 million dollars Barack Obama was allowed to spin on this election. Even without the low popularity of George Bush and the imploding economy, being out spent 8 to 1 in some areas is going to swing voters.
• The media's selection and protection of Barack Obama.
• The fact that John McCain did not fully embrace the social and fiscal conservative views of his own party.

The reports of the Republican party's death are greatly exaggerated. A number of factors contributed to what happened in last night's election but a move by our country to the left was not one of them. The fact that the Democrats did not pick up as many seats in Congress as they had hoped is one example and the other is the passing of many socially conservative propositions throughout the country...specifically the bans on gay marriage. This country is still conservative and the quickest way to find that out is if MY President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress try to run far left. There is already going to be a shift back to the Republican party in 2010...if the Democrats abuse what they have been given...that shift will be even larger!

Letter to Barack Obama and anti-coal environmentalist

Mr. Obama and anti-coal environmentalist,



Coal is a fossil fuel that is a heavy pollutant and is harming our environment but you can not stop coal use unless you are ignorant of the truth. WE HAVE NO REPLACEMENT FOR COAL!!!! Not only does coal provide more energy for us than any other fuel source but it is the one fossil fuel our country has an abundance of in reserve(more than even natural gas). If there was a clean replacement for coal then we should stop using coal tomorrow but there is no replacement! We have to use coal until we have something else...end of story.

What about all these new "clean" sources of energy? Wind? Nope, it would take decades for the wind power infrastructure to be built up to make even a dent in what coal gives us now. Nuclear? Nope, it would take more than a hundred years to permit and build even a few nuclear plants and even then they would not make a dent in what coal gives us now. Natural gas? Is an option but we can not just go cold turkey off of coal! Methane from landfills? Burning garbage? All those other pie-in-the-sky green ideas? No, no, and NO! None of those sources are abundant enough to replace coal.


So you say let's get rid of coal anyway and just suffer through the transition? IDIOTIC!!! Half our country would be blacked out. The ones who could get energy would be paying energy bills in the tens of thousands of dollars a month. Not to mention we would be immediately attacked from every country across the globe because without energy it is like we are standing there with our pants down! Besides, I thought Obama was going to create jobs and save the economy? Our economy is energy and energy is our economy. If he did something this stupid, our economy would collapse not to mention the 100s of thousands of American workers he would put out of work!

While I am on the subject let me talk about these supposed miracle cars that are going to get us off of oil and gasoline. Hydrogen cells? Great, but hydrogen does not exist in its natural form on Earth. We have to separate it and we use more power from natural gas(a fossil fuel) to separate hydrogen into its pure form than the power we get in return from the hydrogen! Ethanol? HELL NO! Ethanol is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the American people. Ethanol actually gives off some emissions that are worse than gasoline. Not to mention that there is not enough land area, above water, ON THE ENTIRE PLANET to grow enough crops to satisfy America's need for energy alone! Electric cars? GREAT IDEA! Oh, wait, WHERE DO YOU THINK WE GET THE ELECTRICITY FROM?!?!? That juice flowing out of your wall socket does not magically appear there. It is generated from?...yes! burning coal and other fossil fuels! So, live in your dream world if you want but the fact is that we can work our butts off trying to replace fossil fuels, and we should, but we can not take any drastic measures right now. We do not have the technology! We do not have the infrastructure!

UPDATE: Is this an answer? Air car? It is interesting but a car that only goes 35 mph and can only go 60 miles per tank? I doubt it would be accepted anywhere in the U.S. besides huge cities with residents that only commute inside city limits. This thing compares more favorably to a scooter than a car.

Obama is making this comeback easy for McCain!

Obama- "John McCain and Sarah Palin call this socialistic. I don't know when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.". You have to be kidding me! And I thought Biden was trying to throw the election! COME ON BARACK!!! haha! You are making this too easy!

No, what you are wanting to do to the American people, Barack, is for the teacher to take our sandwich and decide how to split it with other people whether we like it or not!

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Karl Marx

Is the media completely pro-Obama? Yes it is!

I have been watching all of the different channels(with the help of my DVR) and their coverage of the election. I have come to a conclusion: the media IS unethically and overwhelmingly pro-Obama! Why do I say unethically? I do so because I do not care if you are pro-Obama or pro-McCain but when you are posing as a legitimate unbiased news outlet but you are not, you are lying and that is unethical! If you want to be pro-Obama or pro-McCain then come out and say it. Do not hide behind your lies about unbiased news reporting. The second part of my conclusion is: CNN is left of center by quite a bit, MSNBC is so left of center it is bordering on lunacy, and Fox News is fair and balanced just like they say they are.

What is that? Is every liberal yelling at their computer right now that I am obviously a conservative and I am drinking the Fox News kool-aid? If so you would be completely wrong because like I said I have watched all of the news outlets and even the main networks for their coverage before coming to these conclusions. I had never watched Fox News before this election but I had always heard it was an unfair right-wing slanted channel. I had heard that basically Fox News was far right, MSNBC was far left, and CNN was in the middle and fair. Again...that was before I watched them all. I will also go as far as to guaranty that no one who thinks Fox News is what people say it is has ever actually watched the channel at all, much less enough to form that opinion! Fox News gives equal time. If they have a discussion there is normally always a person from the left and a person from the right and the anchor tries to stay off one side or the other. On the other hand, it is the honesty of the other anchors or hosts of shows on Fox News, that are biased and pulling for one side, that I respect more than CNN. At least the people on Fox News who openly lean right, or have even jumped into the deep end of the right, admit who they are and what they are. Likewise, MSNBC anchors do not try to hide the fact that they have Obama sheets on their bed and that they wear Obama pajamas...for that I at least have some respect for them. But CNN anchors try to hide their allegiances and they do a horrible job of it! The only people I respect on CNN are John King and Lou Dobbs.

Quick personal story:
-I was just watching a discussion about the election on CNN where Anderson Cooper was the anchor and the people discussing the topic were Al Sharpton, Roland Martin, and David Gergen. That is your idea of a discussion group, CNN? Can we at least have a somewhat conservative voice in this pro-Obama love fest? Anderson Cooper far-left, Roland Martin far-left, Al Sharpton ultra-left, and David Gergen a left leaning moderate?!?!? Nice job! That is like hiding an elephant in an open field! (where the elephant is the hard on that CNN has for Barack Obama!)
-One more example as proof that Anderson Cooper has Barack Obama's picture on the front of his tightie-whities: He opened his show tonight by saying, "Four days to the election. We are on the cusp of history and it is very exciting!". The cusp of history, Anderson? No, it is only history if Obama wins. Sounds like you think this race is over and you have let your love of Obama slip out yet again!

Are you liberals still calling me a conservative hack? Ok, I guess I should offer some proof to my assertions...I wish someone would do a study on the media in this election cycle...oh, wait, someone did do that! The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism did!

• The study found that MSNBC aired stories on McCain that were negative 73% of the time. MSNBC only aired negative stories about Obama 14% of the time.
• The study found that CNN aired stories on McCain that were negative 57% of the time. CNN only aired negative stories about Obama 29% of the time.
• The study found that Fox News aired stories on McCain that were negative 40% of the time. Fox News aired negative stories about Obama 40% of the time.

Anymore questions?

"Bleeding heart liberals" or hateful hypocrites?

I have been shocked at how nasty, vindictive, and childish democrats have been in this election. No group of people can be accused of all thinking alike but from what I have seen there is a nastiness running through the Democratic party. Story after story during this election tells about how democrats attack anyone who questions them or speaks out against them or their savior Barack Obama. You are not allowed to question him or you get attacked. If you question him anyway, you are a racist! This behavior is unbelievable to me when it is coming from the party that is suppose to be so pro-free speech and so accepting of other peoples' views. Here are a few examples of vindictiveness and pettiness from the left:

• Joe "the Plumber", who I for one am tired of hearing about, was immediately attacked on air by democratic pundits but even worse democratic government officials in his home state of Ohio investigated him and looked into his confidential records then leaked them to the press!

• Obama and Biden smeared and cut off a news organization from their campaign because one of their reporters dared to ask Biden tough questions. Even if they thought these questions were wrong or off base...you answer them then move on. That is the job of the press...ASKING QUESTIONS! This incident shows Obama and Biden have very thin skin and are vindictive! All she did was ask very tough questions, even if they were partisan, THEY WERE QUESTIONS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ACTUALLY WANTED ASKED!

• Now Obama has kicked three newspaper reporters off his plane! These three reporters just happen to work for papers who endorsed McCain! That is ridiculous! These reporters were reporters not columnist not op end writers! This gives the impression that Obama is petty, thin skinned, and vindictive! This is a HORRIBLE idea this close to the election...this action just makes Obama and his campaign look vindictive and people do not like vindictive people especially in government. I guaranty you that Obama lost a few votes from this incident alone!

In addition to the attacks of the media and democratic pundits there is an amazing amount of hate on the Internet. And, yes, I know there are right-wing loons and hate filled people that are anti-Obama but there is no doubt that they are out numbered this year by hate filled left wingers! The Democrats have always said they were the party for the people. They were the party for the little man. They loved everyone and everything and wanted to make the world a better place. This election has proven otherwise. There is a large population of the Democratic Party that are hateful, childish, and down right ignorant! Hateful websites posting insane ramblings, and yes they are completely insane ramblings about the man and 9/11 conspiracies, out number conservative, or even right wing hate websites, 3 to 1. Do not believe me? Look for yourself! You will find a lot more hate from the left then you will the right...I guaranty it!

After taking all of the hate on the Internet and adding it into the fact that Republicans are actually PROVEN to be more generous and charitable people...I saw that this whole persona of the Democratic party is a crock of shit! They hate just as much as people on the right! They are as vengeful as anything that comes from the right. They are as petty as anyone from the right. All of this makes the Democrats, overall but not every one of them, even bigger frauds because they claim to be something they are not!

Now that I am done bashing a large portion of the Democratic party and calling them out for being hateful, vindictive, and childish...I would like to say that both sides have loons and it is sad. It is one thing to disagree, even passionately disagree, with someones views or beliefs but it does not give you the right to spread hate or be a childish troll! I feel sorry for every person who said things like, "I hope Cheney dies!", or "George Bush is a war criminal", or "lynch Obama", or "I hope McCain's cancer comes back!", or any of the other thousands of hateful and insane things that have been said on the Internet. For you to be that caught up in politics, and that hateful, shows a very big problem in your life. No matter who wins this election, he will be my president. And, here is the thing, he will be your president too! No, do not say that he will not be "your" president...because he will be! If we go by that thinking...if you do not like your boss...is he not your boss? NOPE, he is still your boss! And the question you have to ask is: what will make your place of work, the lives of your co-workers, and your life...easier(not to mention your future brighter)? The answer? Accepting and working with the people around you regardless of your differences because we are all Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats and we are all human beings before that!

Part IV: Barack Obama wins popular vote. McCain wins electoral college and Presidency.

The race is getting closer and there are some trends that spell doom for Barack Obama! In the last few weeks there has been a 20 point closing of the gap, with voters 18-30 years old, in favor of McCain. There has been a 16 point closing of the gap, with voters 30-45 years old, in favor of McCain. There has been no change with voters 45-65 years old and among voters 65+ years old, Obama has moved ahead by 11 points. What does all this mean?

• The changes with voters 18-30 and 30-45 show that John McCain's attacks on Obama as a tax and spend liberal are working. People from their mid-20s to their mid-40s are historically more concerned about someone raising their taxes.
• The lack of change with voters 45-65 shows they might just have made up their minds.
• The change in favor of Obama with voters 65+ show that Obama's attacks on McCain, which link him to President Bush's Social Security Reform, are working.

What do all these things mean when put together?

They show that the race is tightening and that a number of people are becoming wary of Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's many gaffes and unpopular statements of the last month. Hardworking Americans do not like to hear, "Spread the wealth". People do not like to hear, "Paying taxes is patriotic". People are also starting to wonder why a year ago Obama said rich was someone making more than $1 million a year, then a few months ago said rich was $250k, then Biden said it was $150k, and now Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a supporter of Obama, says it is $120k? Even if those changes are not really changes in policy and/or are taken out of context and/or anything else that Obama's campaign wants to use to defend them...it does not matter! Perception is reality and you can not erase those statements from this campaign. They are there and no amount of explaining will make them go away and people will decide on their own what they mean.

How do these changes support my contention that Obama will win the popular vote but McCain will win the electoral college and the Presidency?

These changes back up my prediction by showing that Obama is vulnerable. My assertion that people will be scared away from Obama the closer they get to actually having to vote for him, also has weight. Lastly, I actually take the 11 point swing towards Obama, with voters 65+, as a positive for McCain. McCain will not do it, for his own reasons, but a group called GOPTrust.com is going to saturate all the swing states with an ad about Reverend Wright. This ad will have the most effect on voters 65+, they are more likely to be patriotic and should be more sensitive to anti-American sentiments and racial issues, thus negating the only positive trend that Obama has in the closing weeks of this election.

Dirtying Up Obama

The above ad does something that a lot of people have been waiting for the McCain camp to do for a long time...show the real Barack Obama(as they see him). This ad is obviously negative and is in the tradition of political mud slinging but it is also something that may be very effective against Barack Obama. The truth is a lot of voters do not know much about Obama. The more that can be dug up from his past to fill in the blanks for voters(whether it be all true or not), the more the Republicans will be able to define him. Not to mention that these ads are not lies. Obama did associate with everyone named in this ad and he has been seen by a number of people as skirting the issue when asked about these associations. The more the Republicans can make "Obama the unknown" into "Obama the dangerous", the easier they will win this election.

It goes against the purpose of this blog but the truth is negative ads work. If I was advising John McCain I would tell him to push these horrible associations in Obama's past that lead one to question Obama's judgment and the persona the DNC has built him into. Call him on his association with ACORN(have you watched the news? voter fraud?), Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko(felon), Father Pfleger, and William Ayers(domestic terrorist). The beauty of attacking him on all these associations is that it is all true! He can not deny knowing and/or working with everyone I listed. He will down play how close he was to these people or organizations but he can not say that someone linking them to him is immoral or wrong. He is linked! So, is Barack Obama a radical social activist who the DNC packaged as an agent for change while trying to hide his obvious warts and questionable past? Or is he truly what he says he is? The more the Republicans get people to ask themselves those questions...the more people will go with the safe choice..... John McCain.

Barack Obama wins popular vote. McCain wins electoral college and Presidency

I am 100% sure that Barack Obama will win the popular vote but John McCain will win the electoral college and the Presidency. Everyone is playing up the poll numbers and Barack Obama's lead in those polls as if they are devastating news to John McCain. They are not. Polls are very inaccurate. One can see how inaccurate polls are just by looking at how none of them agree. In addition to the inherent inaccuracies in polls there is the way that the issue of race skews the accuracy of polls even further.

The first issue of race effecting polls is the Bradley effect and the reverse Bradley effect. The Bradley effect, as it is called, is a way to describe how when an African-American is running against a white opponent, the poll numbers sometimes do not match the actual vote totals. Basically it is hypothesized that white voters say they will vote for the African-American candidate or that they are undecided and then vote for the white candidate which was their intention all along. Some say this might be because white voters fell uneasy answering the question of who they will vote for because it might be seen as a racial decision. To avoid the appearance of racism these voters say they will vote for the African-American candidate or say they are undecided, when they have already made up their mind to vote for the white candidate, just to avoid the question. The reverse Bradley effect is used to explain why some African-American candidates poll lower and then get more votes in the final election. This hypothesis is based on the idea that pollsters are not polling enough African-Americans or young voters.

There are some who believe in the Bradley effect(Fred Barnes), some that do not(McCamy Taylor), and some that do but think it is no longer relevant such as Nate Silver and Dan Hopkins.

RealClearPolitics Poll Averages

General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Poll	Obama (D)	McCain (R)
RCP Average	49.0	43.9
Gallup Tracking	52	41
Rasmussen Tracking	51	45
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby Tracking	47	45
Hotline/FD Tracking	45	44
GW/Battleground Tracking	49	45
Ipsos/McClatchy	47	40
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	49	43
CBS News	48	45
CNN	53	45
Democracy Corps (D)	49	46

More Polling Data | Chart | News

Looking at these up-to-date poll numbers one can see that they are all different and most are close. The biggest lead for Obama is eleven points on one poll and only one point on another poll. First I would like to point out that four of these polls are within the margin of error. Second we must add in the Bradley effect, if anything like that actually exists, to see the effect it may have. For this exercise let us believe that the Bradley effect is real and the percentage of which it effects the polls is 5%, which would be a mild Bradley effect compared to the double digit swings that have happened in the past. If true, the Bradley effect would give John McCain the lead in five of these national polls while Obama would retain a lead in the five others. Sounds pretty close to me? The Bradley effect makes this race a dead heat but does anything like the Bradley effect really exist?

Yes, it does. But it is not the Bradley effect that will change this election. It is how race effects an election as a whole that will change this election, especially a national election which cuts across so many different regions of the country. Race is playing a huge role in the election but most people are treating it like the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Barack Obama's own advisers believe that race effects this election because they have crafted his image and his responses so they do not offend the white majority. There is a fear that he would be portrayed as the "angry black man" if he ever loses his temper in public. Other Democrats have played the race card as well when they have rebuffed some criticisms of Obama as being racially motivated. Race is everywhere in this election and it will be a deciding factor in this election.

Racism and reverse racism will be a factor in this election. It is unfortunate but there are still a number of people in this country who will not vote for an African-American candidate(racism). On the other end of the spectrum, I have talked to white friends who are thinking about voting for Obama because he is black(reverse racism). When I questioned them about why they were going to do that, I was told that they thought, if Obama was elected, that it might heal some of the racial wounds our country suffers from. This is a noble idea but it is still racism to pick a candidate solely on the color of their skin. We can not avoid the truth that there are people in this country who will decide to vote for or against a candidate strictly because of the color of their skin. This being the first national election to pit an African-American candidate against a white candidate, and a very close competition, it will be decided by those who cast their vote on race alone. This is not the Bradley effect. The Bradley effect is someone hiding their vote because of the issue of race. My contention is that these people will vote because of race. I believe that there are a lot more people out there who will cast their vote due to racism(against Obama) rather than what I call reverse-racism(for Obama). That is why I am 100% sure that Barack Obama will win the popular vote by a small margin but John McCain will win the electoral college and the Presidency. If Obama was exactly the same in every way except for being white instead of black, this presidential race would already be over and he would win by a landslide.

The Democrats and Barack Obama are committing political suicide

Do me a favor. Grab your wallet or purse real quick and take out a dollar or a bill of any amount. Do you know what that bill is worth? One dollar, five dollars, twenty dollars? No, it is worthless! It is a piece of paper. The only reason that this small piece of paper has any value is because our government uses it as a promise of value. They back that bill and guaranty that you can exchange it for goods and services.

So, what is my point? My point is that the U.S. government has the power and authority to make something worthless have value by just saying they will back it. This is where the title of this post, "The Democrats and Barack Obama are committing political suicide", comes from. The Democrats are trying to push through a bill that spends $700 billion of tax payers money. The plan the Democrats are backing has been trashed by economists across the country. The House Republicans have offered an alternative that will spend less of the tax payers money by using the same power that the U.S. governments uses to make that worthless piece of green paper in your hand, worth something.



Before I go on let me explain why there needs to be action in this crisis and what are the mechanics of this issue. The $700 billion plan was proposed because some think we need to buy up a lot of assets from the financial world that have lost their value and cannot be sold. What happens with these real estate assets is that a company takes individuals' mortgages, bundles them, and then sells them to other companies for a profit. The purchasing company then sales those same assets to another company trying to make a profit. This passing on of these assets goes on and on like a game of musical chairs. What has lead to this crisis is that everyone found out that a lot of these assets were very risky or even worthless. This led to a drop in real estate prices that led to more real estate assets being devalued. Very quickly a lot of companies found themselves with real estate assets that they could not get off their books so they could free up money to buy and trade other assets. Basically when the music stopped a lot of companies got caught without a chair to sit in.

The solution to this problem is to get the game of musical chairs going again. How do we do that? The $700 billion plan says that the American tax payers should buy all of these bad real estate assets from these companies so the game can start again. The House Republican plan says, no, neither the federal government or the tax payers should buy or own assets in such huge quantities. The Republican plan admits that there are some real estate assets that are so bad that there is no alternative but for the tax payers to buy them and hold them until their value returns. Unlike the $700 billion plan, the Republican plan says, in addition to having to buy the worst assets ($100 to $200 billion), that the market can correct itself without such a huge burden on the American tax payers. How is that?

1. The government will use the same power that makes paper money valuable to fix this problem. The government will have Wall Street, and these companies that are hurting, pay for insurance on these assets. In return the government will guaranty a certain value for each of the real estate assets being held by these companies. By doing this the government has given those worthless real estate assets value, the same way it gives our money value. Those assets can now be entered back into the game of musical chairs and the market can start working again.
   
   
2. The House Republicans are also asking for a reduction or elimination of the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is the tax paid on money made in the stock markets. A reduction or elimination of this tax would make money start to flow into the market at an incredible rate thus giving the struggling companies liquid assets to use. The market would pull itself up and the American people would not be paying a dime after the original purchase of assets. Retirement plans and 401Ks would shoot back up in value as the market rose from the influx of cash. Companies would have money to expand and hire new people. Basically this would be a stimulus plan that actually works.

The Democrats and Obama would reply to my assertion, that they are committing political suicide, by saying the $700 billion plan was George Bush's idea. Are you serious? The Democrats are going to use Bush for political cover? They are going to pass a bill that Bush presented that his own party does not like not to mention almost 90+% of Americans do not like? If they keep going down this path of saying that they had a deal on this $700 billion plan until John McCain screwed it all up...they are committing political suicide. If 90+% of Americans do not like this plan then anyone who slows it down or knocks it of track will be a hero. The Democrats are making the 90+% of Americans, who hate this plan, see John McCain and the House Republicans as the voice of reason!

The Economic Panic We Are In: Give credit to McCain. He said it would happen.

The Democrats are running with the economy as a political plus for themselves. I do not blame them for that because it has been a good strategy but they need to be careful. The reason markets are collapsing and businesses are failing is because of the mortgage crisis. One man warned us, on the record, this would happen. It was John McCain:

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005

The United States Senate

May 25, 2006
Section 16

"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation." -John McCain, May 2006

He was right! In addition to him being right, Barack Obama was the second largest beneficiary of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions. Fannie and Freddie play a huge role in the economic panic we are in right now.

A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama. - Fox News, John Gibson

Information I collected from Center for Responsive Politics or OpenSecrets.org:

John McCain's top contributors 2003-2008:

Contributor	Total
Merrill Lynch	$293,010
Citigroup Inc	$251,851
Goldman Sachs	$223,995
Morgan Stanley	$212,821
AT&T Inc	$187,673
Blank Rome LLP	$175,326
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$169,625
Greenberg Traurig LLP	$154,687
Credit Suisse Group	$144,525
Bank of America	$120,625
Pinnacle West Capital	$119,250
Lehman Brothers	$115,800
UBS AG	$114,315
US Government	$112,101
Wachovia Corp	$110,462
PricewaterhouseCoopers	$109,270
FedEx Corp	$108,253
Hess Corp	$95,050
US Army	$92,007
Blackstone Group	$91,500

There are several struggling companies at the top of McCain's list but they are also on Obama's.

Barack Obama's top contributors 2003-2008:

Contributor	Total
Goldman Sachs	$689,280
University of California	$531,070
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$449,671
Citigroup Inc	$411,504
Harvard University	$407,452
University of Chicago	$396,339
UBS AG	$390,000
Google Inc	$379,212
Lehman Brothers	$365,922
Skadden, Arps et al	$358,121
Sidley Austin LLP	$356,345
Kirkland & Ellis	$351,714
Moveon.org	$347,463
Morgan Stanley	$314,638
Exelon Corp	$310,911
National Amusements Inc	$298,500
Microsoft Corp	$280,425
Time Warner	$279,859
Jones Day	$266,705
Latham & Watkins	$255,095

In 2008 Freddie Mac has given the most money to:

Top Recipients

Senate	Dodd, Christopher J	$28,800
Senate	Obama, Barack	$18,150
Senate	Clinton, Hillary	$17,600
House	Bean, Melissa	$11,249
Senate	McCain, John	$9,500

Obama got twice as much as McCain but McCain is still fifth. That is pretty high considering his statements against GSEs.

I am not going to try to sway anyone's opinion on this issue. I just want to put forward the facts. What do you think about the facts I have provided? Does this effect your vote any? Does this change your mind any on which candidate can best fix the economy?

"I will lower your taxes! My opponent will raise them!"

I could attribute the title quote of this post to either candidate in this election and most elections. One of them has to be lying or, at least, partially lying! Right?

Out of frustration I tried to find the truth. Below is a graph that compares McCain's tax strategy vs. Obama's.


Here are the problems I see.

1. Obama talks about how he will cut taxes on 95% of Americans. That can't be true because at least 20% of Americans pay no federal taxes at all.
   
   FACTCHECK.ORG
   FactChecking Obama
   He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.
   
   
2. Obama says he will cut taxes on the middle class but will raise taxes on large corporations. Barack, come on! I am not sure how any American can let this piece of spin get by them. Large corporations are large because they are good at making money. Do you really think that large corporations are going to pay extra taxes and let that hurt their bottom line? No, Barack, they won't! Those large corporations are in the business of making money. They will take the extra costs of Obama's tax increases and pass them onto their customers. Who are their customers? You, me, the lower class and, yes, the middle class of America. If you buy groceries, gas, consumer products, etc...Obama's tax increases will effect you the same way as if he taxed you directly.
   
   

   Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they're not going to tax your family. (Laughter.) No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline -- (laughter) -- or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don't worry, it's not going to affect you! (Laughter, cheers, applause.) They say they're not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket! (Laughter.) That's their idea of tax reform. Fred Thompson, Speech at GOP Convention

3. John McCain needs to explain how he is going to reduce our deficit and cut taxes at the same time. Just saying he will shrink the size of government is not enough. What will you shrink John? Where will you get the money the government needs if not through taxes?
4. More important than what his plan is to cut taxes and balance the budget, McCain needs to tell me(us) how he is going to get these policies through a backed up and broken Congress. Honestly...John McCain needs to give us his plans on most of the issues facing Americans today. The Democrats are not exactly being forthcoming with hard numbers but I have heard even less from the McCain camp. Tell us your plan John.
   

Why are Republicans better than Democrats at the "political game"?

First before I post this...I know 9/11 is a politics-free zone but something happened yesterday that needs discussion.

My contention has always been that Republicans are better than Democrats at running a presidential campaign. It seems like every four years that Democrats come up with a candidate that excites their base and looks like a real contender and most of the time they mess it up. This year the Democrats had a clear path to the White House. People were so upset and ready for change that either Obama or Hillary Clinton should have rolled through the season uncontested....but it did not happen.

The DNC's past failures are what made something standout to me yesterday. Obama and McCain visited ground zero yesterday. I immediately noticed that Cindy McCain was there but Michele Obama was not. I did not think much of it because of the importance of the day and because, frankly, I didn't care. Michele Obama not being there is no great offense or a great mistake for her or her husband. What it is, is a lack of understanding by the DNC of the political game. I find it hard to believe that none of Obama's advisers saw a problem with Michele not being at ground zero.

Michele Obama's absence was not a major blunder but it was a mistake for a woman who has been repeatedly accused of not being patriotic. She was hammered for saying, "For the first time I am proud of my country." , she and her husband were harassed for not wearing flag pins, and she has even been called a racist. So, why oh why, would anyone in the DNC not see that Cindy McCain being at ground zero and Michele Obama not being there would be more fuel for the fire? She could have skipped the appearance at ground zero under any other circumstances and in any other campaign....but not this one.

The press didn't make a big deal of it. The RNC isn't making a big deal out of it. Heck, even Fox News isn't making a big deal of it. But I guaranty you that people, who were already questioning her, now have another piece of evidence to back up their opinion that she isn't patriotic and does not love her country. The accusation is unfair and most likely untrue but when has fairness and truth ever mattered in a presidential election?!?

Michele Obama's dissertation.