An Honest Look at McCain's chances...
Looking at most polls (basically the electoral maps at RCP and Slate, I know no bastion of conservatism), I have some thought's on what to look for, so this is a little amateur punditry.
McCain has made quite a surge in this last week in the popular vote, most polls have either Obama or McCain leading by 2 points either way.
While I question some of the polling numbers (like how the hell can Arizona be a swing state, seriously?), the Electoral Map hold this simple truth. The three biggest states left are Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), and Ohio (20). McCain has been surging in all 3 states, and looks primed to take Florida and Ohio. However, it looks extremly difficult for McCain to win the 270 electoral votes without all three. If he does however, it would appear that this could be part of a national trend where McCain would likley pick up all of the "toss up" states and can easily get to 270. If McCain misses any of these states, he's going to have to out-perform the polls greatly in a lot of states to get there.
My bottom line is this. If McCain doesn't get all three of the states I identified above, he's likley to lose. However, if McCain does, look out, Obama's in a lot of trouble as it appears McCain would also win the remaining "toss up" states (in most of which he currently enjoys slight leads).
A more personal note...
No matter who's elected, I promise to offer the respect the office of President affords to whoever holds it. This means, no Alec-Balwdin-crybaby "I'm moving to Canada stuff." This means no Michael Moore style electoral maps depecting half the country as "commie-land." While I am likley to have many disagreements with an Obama administration, and I won't be silent about them (as long as the 1st amendment applies to the internet), I will still promise to afford him the basic respect that President Bush has been denied for the last 8 years by the angry left. I promise I won't refer to Obama as retarded, or ignorant, or any of the other absolutly disgusting things that have been said and believed acceptable about President Bush. No matter what happens I hope the left looks at the way they've behaved the last 8 years with shame.
Should Obama win the election, I hope we as conservatives don't have to look at how we acted during the Obama administration with the same sense of shame. It's very tempting to take the horrible level of the left's rhetoric in revenge. However, I urge conservatives to think about the way they attack Obama should he be elected. And the people in the middle that aren't affilated will be able to compare the way we act out of power with the way they did, and that message will pay off extrodinairaly when we meet at the ballot box two and four years from now.
Final Thoughts...
I know this sounds like I'm resigned to defeat, I assure you I'm not. I still believe McCain has a very real shot to win in the scenario I laid out above. But no matter what happens, let's hope for the best, and that starts by respecting the Presidency for the great office that it is...
conservativeuncensored.com RSS feeds
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label Sen. Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen. Obama. Show all posts
04 November 2008
03 November 2008
My closing argument against Barack Obama...
I know what most conservatives think of the reasons Obama supporters have. I think most think that they're simplistic and ill-informed. In part that's true, but I choose to give voters a little more credit either way. Of the reasons for supporting Obama, These are the two that I'll choose to dignify.
1) "Punish" the incumbent presidency
2) "Punish" the rich in tough times
If you fall in this category I want you to consider this piece from The Wall Street Journal last September.
If you don't read it, they key points are.
1) While the rich are making more money, they are paying even more in their share of the total taxes the IRS collects (in a sense still "soaking the rich" even with lower rates).
2) When taxes get cut across the board the goverment still takes in more money, just a smaller share of the overall larger GDP.
I've heard it eloquently put that the choice between McCain and Obama is the difference between trickle down economics, and trickle-up poverty. This about it, don't automatically assume the "rich can afford it." The truth is while the "rich can afford it" if profits get cut into that easily could mean one less job offered (and one less taxpayer). If dollars get taxed to a point where it's not worth the risk to expand, jobs will be created slower over and over again.
This is why this phenomenon of cutting taxes across the board grows the economy (and also expands the governments revenues as well!). And yes while it is true that the rich will get richer, the poor will as well. Whereas if we get into this 12-year-old-girl jealousy of hurting those just because we hate that they have more than us, will ultimatly lead to more jobs overseas, and more people looking for a welfare system they will soon bankrupt if we chase away the taxpayers at the top.
My Point is this, "spread the wealth" is a romantic notion, but does unfairly punish the job creators an economy needs. It's a romantic notion that if you're below the OWL you may not have to worry. However, that now may need to be redefined as low as $150K/yr (which would include, yes, "Joe the Plumber"). However the OWL is defined should Obama be elected, we may soon find our nation in a situation where the poor majority will vote to abuse a rich minority. How long before they look at losing 60% of their money and find a country where the labor is cheap and the taxes far friendlier. Europe is starting to get away from such policies at a time we seem to be heading there.
If you really think about "spread the wealth" it is a pretty childish thought, one you would have before you dad has to point out that "life isn't fair." When you're alone in the booth, don't fall into the jealousy trap, don't vote for the politics of rich versus poor. Vote for the thing that does all americans good, even those that don't "seem to need it," cause maybe someone needs the job that isn't there, because the goverment took it for themselves.
Anyway if you are thinking about voting for Obama because you think he's better on the economy I hope I've given you reason to re-think that, if you have other reasons, I don't think I can help you...
1) "Punish" the incumbent presidency
2) "Punish" the rich in tough times
If you fall in this category I want you to consider this piece from The Wall Street Journal last September.
If you don't read it, they key points are.
1) While the rich are making more money, they are paying even more in their share of the total taxes the IRS collects (in a sense still "soaking the rich" even with lower rates).
2) When taxes get cut across the board the goverment still takes in more money, just a smaller share of the overall larger GDP.
I've heard it eloquently put that the choice between McCain and Obama is the difference between trickle down economics, and trickle-up poverty. This about it, don't automatically assume the "rich can afford it." The truth is while the "rich can afford it" if profits get cut into that easily could mean one less job offered (and one less taxpayer). If dollars get taxed to a point where it's not worth the risk to expand, jobs will be created slower over and over again.
This is why this phenomenon of cutting taxes across the board grows the economy (and also expands the governments revenues as well!). And yes while it is true that the rich will get richer, the poor will as well. Whereas if we get into this 12-year-old-girl jealousy of hurting those just because we hate that they have more than us, will ultimatly lead to more jobs overseas, and more people looking for a welfare system they will soon bankrupt if we chase away the taxpayers at the top.
My Point is this, "spread the wealth" is a romantic notion, but does unfairly punish the job creators an economy needs. It's a romantic notion that if you're below the OWL you may not have to worry. However, that now may need to be redefined as low as $150K/yr (which would include, yes, "Joe the Plumber"). However the OWL is defined should Obama be elected, we may soon find our nation in a situation where the poor majority will vote to abuse a rich minority. How long before they look at losing 60% of their money and find a country where the labor is cheap and the taxes far friendlier. Europe is starting to get away from such policies at a time we seem to be heading there.
If you really think about "spread the wealth" it is a pretty childish thought, one you would have before you dad has to point out that "life isn't fair." When you're alone in the booth, don't fall into the jealousy trap, don't vote for the politics of rich versus poor. Vote for the thing that does all americans good, even those that don't "seem to need it," cause maybe someone needs the job that isn't there, because the goverment took it for themselves.
Anyway if you are thinking about voting for Obama because you think he's better on the economy I hope I've given you reason to re-think that, if you have other reasons, I don't think I can help you...
17 October 2008
Joe the Plumber (Can we fix it, yes we can)...
AAL 2:
This is a little Limbaugh Echo Syndrome here, but I do want to ask, "What if the media investiaged Sen. Barak Obama the same way they've investigated Joe the Plumber?"
The SCUM seem to be very selective who they go after. They've turned Sarah Palin's life upside down within a couple days of her selection, they've done the same now with Joe the Plumber (who knew he would be the October Suprise).
But there's no way you can say CNN has been that in-depth on Obama. Otherwise, Rev. Wright would've come to light a year ago when radio host Sean Hannity was beating that drum, or more people would know about mobster Rezko giving Obama a sweetheart deal (I'm not going to use "bribe" in two posts in a row, oops too late) on his house. Or Biden, caught plagerizing a speech from the British parliment, if you are hearing these things for the first time, you're a victim of the SCUM.
Even a columust at Slate (no bastion of conservative thought mind you) admitted Biden is getting very different treatment than Palin.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200302/
We pause here for a couple asides:
* For the Record, Fox is reporting that Joe the plumber isn't expected to earn above the OWL (new blogword, Obama Wealth Limit, slang for $250,000, sample sentence: New York Ranger Aaron Voros now earns 4 OWLs a year since leaving the Minnesota Wild), and reporting that he has tax liens and may not be licensed. I got all that without having to watch a SCUM network like CNN or MSNBC.
* This post was originally going to be added thoughts from the debate, I did want to say Schieffer did the best job of all the moderaters. I liked his question formula "You said, such and such and you said such and such, why are you right and why does the other guy suck."
Back to the post:
All I wanted to establish is the right never get a fair shake, those that disagree with the right seldom go after the ideas (there are exceptions), they go after the person. I get it that with regular politicans, they put themselves in the public eye. But if the personal attacks aren't backed up by policy relavance it's sounds flat.
I do find it disturbing that the SCUM have gone after a voter for just asking the politican a legitamate question. If every voter gets scrutinized this heavily for asking questions I weep for the 1st Amendment (much I like I did after McCain-Feingold passed, but that's another issue).
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber is still below the OWL mean that he's not allowed to believe in not screwing those above the OWL? This is certainly the implication of Obama's condesending question "How many plumbers do you know that make $250,000?" As if that disqualifies Joe from having an opinion about those above the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber isn't licensed mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber owes taxes mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
If you answered yes to any of those questions you have a serious 1st amendment problem. Joe the Plumbers alleged problem probably mean he's too checkered to run for president, but remember there was only one guy running for president in that conversation, and it wasn't Joe.
The guy that answered the question gave the "share the wealth" answer, that's an answer american on all parts of the political spectrum don't like. That is now a problem for the Obama campaign. And to cover the fact they need to run from that answer, they are attacking the questioner.
This is a little Limbaugh Echo Syndrome here, but I do want to ask, "What if the media investiaged Sen. Barak Obama the same way they've investigated Joe the Plumber?"
The SCUM seem to be very selective who they go after. They've turned Sarah Palin's life upside down within a couple days of her selection, they've done the same now with Joe the Plumber (who knew he would be the October Suprise).
But there's no way you can say CNN has been that in-depth on Obama. Otherwise, Rev. Wright would've come to light a year ago when radio host Sean Hannity was beating that drum, or more people would know about mobster Rezko giving Obama a sweetheart deal (I'm not going to use "bribe" in two posts in a row, oops too late) on his house. Or Biden, caught plagerizing a speech from the British parliment, if you are hearing these things for the first time, you're a victim of the SCUM.
Even a columust at Slate (no bastion of conservative thought mind you) admitted Biden is getting very different treatment than Palin.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200302/
We pause here for a couple asides:
* For the Record, Fox is reporting that Joe the plumber isn't expected to earn above the OWL (new blogword, Obama Wealth Limit, slang for $250,000, sample sentence: New York Ranger Aaron Voros now earns 4 OWLs a year since leaving the Minnesota Wild), and reporting that he has tax liens and may not be licensed. I got all that without having to watch a SCUM network like CNN or MSNBC.
* This post was originally going to be added thoughts from the debate, I did want to say Schieffer did the best job of all the moderaters. I liked his question formula "You said, such and such and you said such and such, why are you right and why does the other guy suck."
Back to the post:
All I wanted to establish is the right never get a fair shake, those that disagree with the right seldom go after the ideas (there are exceptions), they go after the person. I get it that with regular politicans, they put themselves in the public eye. But if the personal attacks aren't backed up by policy relavance it's sounds flat.
I do find it disturbing that the SCUM have gone after a voter for just asking the politican a legitamate question. If every voter gets scrutinized this heavily for asking questions I weep for the 1st Amendment (much I like I did after McCain-Feingold passed, but that's another issue).
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber is still below the OWL mean that he's not allowed to believe in not screwing those above the OWL? This is certainly the implication of Obama's condesending question "How many plumbers do you know that make $250,000?" As if that disqualifies Joe from having an opinion about those above the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber isn't licensed mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber owes taxes mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
If you answered yes to any of those questions you have a serious 1st amendment problem. Joe the Plumbers alleged problem probably mean he's too checkered to run for president, but remember there was only one guy running for president in that conversation, and it wasn't Joe.
The guy that answered the question gave the "share the wealth" answer, that's an answer american on all parts of the political spectrum don't like. That is now a problem for the Obama campaign. And to cover the fact they need to run from that answer, they are attacking the questioner.
15 October 2008
Presidental Debate Part III
Anger Alert Level: 1 (Low, in fact I'm almost giddy)
I don't know what part of the debate I liked best...
1) The part where McCain said he wasn't racist and Obama blew him off
2) The part where Obama had to defend his screwing of Joe the Plumber (which really demonstrates Rush Limbaugh's contention that Obama's american dream ends at $250K)
3) The part where McCain told Obama to run 4 years ago if he wanted to oppose Bush
4) The part where Obama had to defend not sticking to his pledge to stick to public financing unlike McCain
5) The part where Obama had to defend the $850,000 ACORN bribe
6) The part where Obama couldn't defend foregin policy "expert" Joe Biden's stance against the first gulf war, and against the troop surge.
7) The part where Obama couldn't explain why he opposes offshore drilling and nuclear power when that will get us off of forgein oil
8) The part where Obama looked absolutly confused on free trade
9) The part where he had to admit that small buisness may not be able to afford his government healthcare plan and would be exempt since the big buisness were the only ones that could afford it.
10) The part when Obama tries to say he reaches across the aisle but missed the chance to join McCain's "gang of 15" on Bush's appointments (in the interest of full disclosure this is one of the reasons I don't like McCain, but it illstrates Obama's partisanship and inablitly to bring people together)
11) The part when Obama explained that his present vote to kill abortion survivers is in fact being opposed to partial-birth abortion
12) The part when I distinctly heard NEA members across the country cringe when McCain suggested that bad teachers find another line of work
13) The part where McCain so succinctly summarized Obamas position on school competition and vouchers "Because there's not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn't do it, even though it's working. I got it."
As of this I've only watch about 30 minutes of the Fox News channel panel, and they seem content to take the PC-everyone's-a-winner-line saying this was a draw and therefore Obama won. I don't buy it, these punches landed and will shape the tone of the last few weeks. Is it too little too late for McCain? that's the only question, but he hurt Obama tonight, make no mistake.
I don't know what part of the debate I liked best...
1) The part where McCain said he wasn't racist and Obama blew him off
2) The part where Obama had to defend his screwing of Joe the Plumber (which really demonstrates Rush Limbaugh's contention that Obama's american dream ends at $250K)
3) The part where McCain told Obama to run 4 years ago if he wanted to oppose Bush
4) The part where Obama had to defend not sticking to his pledge to stick to public financing unlike McCain
5) The part where Obama had to defend the $850,000 ACORN bribe
6) The part where Obama couldn't defend foregin policy "expert" Joe Biden's stance against the first gulf war, and against the troop surge.
7) The part where Obama couldn't explain why he opposes offshore drilling and nuclear power when that will get us off of forgein oil
8) The part where Obama looked absolutly confused on free trade
9) The part where he had to admit that small buisness may not be able to afford his government healthcare plan and would be exempt since the big buisness were the only ones that could afford it.
10) The part when Obama tries to say he reaches across the aisle but missed the chance to join McCain's "gang of 15" on Bush's appointments (in the interest of full disclosure this is one of the reasons I don't like McCain, but it illstrates Obama's partisanship and inablitly to bring people together)
11) The part when Obama explained that his present vote to kill abortion survivers is in fact being opposed to partial-birth abortion
12) The part when I distinctly heard NEA members across the country cringe when McCain suggested that bad teachers find another line of work
13) The part where McCain so succinctly summarized Obamas position on school competition and vouchers "Because there's not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn't do it, even though it's working. I got it."
As of this I've only watch about 30 minutes of the Fox News channel panel, and they seem content to take the PC-everyone's-a-winner-line saying this was a draw and therefore Obama won. I don't buy it, these punches landed and will shape the tone of the last few weeks. Is it too little too late for McCain? that's the only question, but he hurt Obama tonight, make no mistake.
09 October 2008
Do you really Believe Sarah Palin is Racist?
Anger Alert Level: 3 (Elevated)
Someone needs to explain to me how Gov. Sarah Palin's comment on Saturday about Sen. Obama's associations with known terrorist turned college professor (lateral move) William Ayers: "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," is "a racially tinged subtext" as AP "journalist" Douglass Daniel states in this article:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&show_article=1
You know I get that the SCUM (new CU blogword, So-Called Unbiased Media) talking point is that this when Obama was 8 years old, but the deeper you get into this the less true that is.
We'll set that aside for now, All Palin is talking about is specifically people that would turn on their own country. For Palin to have slighted a whole race, or all races, as Dumbass Dougie asserts here, he has to believe that all minorities (or whoever he thinks Palin is slighting here) are ready to "target their own country." All this is yet another example of a SCUM journalist that has been taught that Sarah Palin is a religious republican, all republicans and religous people are racist, therefore Sarah Palin must be a racist in everything she said.
----
I'm sorry this anger is way unfounded on the part of these congresspeople. They are acting like like "Joe six-pack", "Hockey Mom" and "doesn't see the country the way we see it" are passwords for a KKK meeting. (If in fact they were they could just ask former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV).
"Joe six-pack" doens't mean "white joe six-pack," it means working class person. Obama is "not one of us" because, he's black. It's because McCain believes that Obama doesn't see the goodness in the country and sympathises with its enemies.
I'm going to break "hockey mom" down a little. The truth is most "hockey moms" are white, but not white and exclusive. Clark's comment impling that "hockey mom" is exclduing minorities is a sterotype on the same level as "White Men Can't Jump," which I guess in this case could mean a white woman, and Palin shouldn'tve been a high school basketball player. Now I don't belive this what Clark is saying, but you have to understand her implication is on the same level. That if one is believable so is the other.
But republicans NEVER get the benefit of the doubt with the SCUM. Anything they can stretch into racism they will, and I hope the electorate sees through that.
Someone needs to explain to me how Gov. Sarah Palin's comment on Saturday about Sen. Obama's associations with known terrorist turned college professor (lateral move) William Ayers: "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," is "a racially tinged subtext" as AP "journalist" Douglass Daniel states in this article:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&show_article=1
You know I get that the SCUM (new CU blogword, So-Called Unbiased Media) talking point is that this when Obama was 8 years old, but the deeper you get into this the less true that is.
We'll set that aside for now, All Palin is talking about is specifically people that would turn on their own country. For Palin to have slighted a whole race, or all races, as Dumbass Dougie asserts here, he has to believe that all minorities (or whoever he thinks Palin is slighting here) are ready to "target their own country." All this is yet another example of a SCUM journalist that has been taught that Sarah Palin is a religious republican, all republicans and religous people are racist, therefore Sarah Palin must be a racist in everything she said.
Furthermore, we have heard from some Democrat Congresspeople..
---
from Brit Hume http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434747,00.html:
[Representative] Yvette Clark was critical of Sarah Palin's repeated appeals to "Joe Six-Pack" and "hockey moms." "Who exactly is Joe Six-Pack and who are these hockey moms?... Is that supposed to be terminology that is of common ground to all Americans? I don't find that. It leaves a lot of people out," Clark said.
Congressman Gregory Meeks says in The New York Observer, "They are trying to throw out these codes. He's 'not one of us?' That's racial. That's fear."----
I'm sorry this anger is way unfounded on the part of these congresspeople. They are acting like like "Joe six-pack", "Hockey Mom" and "doesn't see the country the way we see it" are passwords for a KKK meeting. (If in fact they were they could just ask former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV).
"Joe six-pack" doens't mean "white joe six-pack," it means working class person. Obama is "not one of us" because, he's black. It's because McCain believes that Obama doesn't see the goodness in the country and sympathises with its enemies.
I'm going to break "hockey mom" down a little. The truth is most "hockey moms" are white, but not white and exclusive. Clark's comment impling that "hockey mom" is exclduing minorities is a sterotype on the same level as "White Men Can't Jump," which I guess in this case could mean a white woman, and Palin shouldn'tve been a high school basketball player. Now I don't belive this what Clark is saying, but you have to understand her implication is on the same level. That if one is believable so is the other.
But republicans NEVER get the benefit of the doubt with the SCUM. Anything they can stretch into racism they will, and I hope the electorate sees through that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
