Skewing the Presidential Polls

Have you ever wondered about the Presidential polls?   How they are determined and what do the numbers really mean?  And what "secret sauce" do they use for likely voters, turnout, and independent voter trends?  In the 2012 Presidential race and polling the narrative (interpretation of the polls by MSM) is that the Presidential sweepstakes has been tied, with Obama now pulling away.   But there is a problem with this pro-Obama story line that is being parroted by the Main Stream Media (MSM).   Here is an article on how polls can be skewed:

http://www.examiner.com/article/is-the-latest-washington-post-abc-poll-skewed-for-obama

Here is a polling web site that is adjusting for "likely voters" vs. registered voters.   The website Unskewed is using different voting trend models, including the higher number of registered Republicans in 2012 vs. 2008 and the historical trends suggesting that independents are breaking towards a more conservative vote:

http://unskewedpolls.com/

And here is the backgrounder on Scott Rasmussen from Rasmussen reports, who has been the most accurate pollster in the past 10 years, including the first to predict that Scott Brown (R-Massachusettes) could upset the Democrat in the recent US Senate race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

So, who are you going to believe?    I'd go with the actual voters this November.   But in the meantime, I'd watch Rasmussen and Unskewed out of the corner of my eye, in spite of the steady drumbeat by the MSM that polls are showing Obama more favorably (due to their Democrat skew).

(c) 2012, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org  

The ACORN nut is cracked open

The ACORN nut is cracked open

Editors Note:  This excellent article by Charlotte Allen on the web that ACORN has woven was released in November 2008 by The Weekly Standard.     Recent video’s (www.biggovernment.com) have exposed serious issues with ACORN field offices, resulting in de-funding by Congress for some ACORN activities.    The US Census has also pulled funding.   But as Charlotte Allen’s article points out, the seeds of this ACORN corruption and collusion under the name of community organizing have been growing since their inception in 1970.

From Little ACORNs, Big Scandals Grow

Barack Obama: torn between two models of community organizing.

by Charlotte Allen     www.weeklystandard.com

11/03/2008, Volume 014, Issue 08

The in-your-face Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is currently being investigated for voter-registration fraud in 13 states. ACORN is often referred to as the spawn of Saul Alinsky (1909-72), the godfather of radical community organizers, whose most famous aphorism was "Keep the pressure on." ACORN's founders certainly had Alinsky's principles in mind when they founded the organization in 1970.

There is a web of connections between Alinsky, ACORN, and the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama. From 1985 to 1988, Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project, a church-based consortium operated by several Alinsky disciples on Chicago's poverty-plagued South Side. The DCP was imbued with Alinsky's philosophy of helping poor people band together at the grassroots level to confront a city government that frequently neglected them. (Obama contributed to the anthology After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois, touting the "impressive results" his Alinsky-inspired project had achieved.) Just before he left Chicago for Harvard Law School, Obama also went through training with the organization Alinsky founded in 1940, the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), and which carries on his legacy today.

Back in Chicago in the early 1990s, Obama represented ACORN in a voter-registration suit and directed a voter-registration drive for an ACORN affiliate, Project Vote. He sat on the board of the Chicago-based Woods Foundation that made hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of grants to Project Vote and (according to a report published in an ACORN journal in 2004) ran a session on power as part of ACORN's annual leadership training sessions for several years before his first run for public office in 1996.

To hear it from people connected to IAF, though, Obama took an unfortunate turn when he linked himself to ACORN, whose activist shenanigans would have Alinsky spinning in his grave. These range from allegedly procuring thousands of phony and multiple signatures on voter registration lists (one 19-year-old in Cleveland claimed to have been bribed with cash and cigarettes to register 72 times over 18 months) to using taxpayer funds to strong-arm mortgage companies into lending to the un-credit-worthy, helping precipitate the current financial meltdown.

"Shakedowns" and "blackmail" were the words used by IAF's director, Edward Chambers, a protégé of Alinsky, about ACORN and its activities when I called the IAF's Chicago headquarters (IAF today trains organizers in a loose network of some 57 affiliates in 21 states). It was the day before the New York Times published a story about a June 18 internal report by an ACORN lawyer which contained a laundry list of "potentially improper use of charitable dollars for political purposes; money transfers among [ACORN's 174 affiliates, some of them tax-exempt, others not], and potential conflicts created by employees working for multiple affiliates," as Times reporter Stephanie Strom put it.  One area of potential impropriety detailed in Strom's story is the relationship between Project Vote, registered as a tax-exempt charity with the Internal Revenue Service since 1994 and thus barred from engaging in partisan political activities, and ACORN itself, a membership organization incorporated under Louisiana law that is nonprofit but not tax-exempt and is thus free to be as partisan as it wants. ACORN's political action committee, for example, endorsed Obama in February, and the Obama campaign in turn paid an ACORN consulting affiliate, Citizens Services Inc., more than $832,000 for its work in helping Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

© 2009, The Weekly Standard, LLC      www.weeklystandard.com  

Overspending Swells Federal Deficit in April 2009

Overspending Swells Federal Deficit in April 2009

What does massive government spending by the US government result it?    The inability to even show a monthly surplus in April, the historical high point of tax collections during the fiscal year (October through September), reflects the out of control spending by the Federal Government.   In fact the US treasury has not shown a negative monthly gap in April (spending vs. taxes collected) since 1983.    Thanks to the ongoing economic downturn, combined to massive Federal spending authorized by Congress, first April monthly shortfall in 26 years was experienced in Washington DC.  President Obama and the Congress Democrats appear to be determined to spend money US government doesn’t have, to fund programs we don’t need, that will cause increased taxes we don’t want.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States posted its first April deficit in 26 years, a record $20.91 billion shortfall as a deep recession caused revenues to collapse in the year's biggest tax collection month, the U.S. Treasury said on Tuesday.

The deficit, the first for April since a $3.3 billion gap in 1983 as the country emerged from a deep recession, was largely in line with forecasts from Wall Street economists polled by Reuters.  It brought the deficit for the first seven months of fiscal 2009 to a record $802.29 billion after a major positive accounting adjustment for the government's bailout investments.

Receipts for April, normally the year's biggest revenue month due to the April 15 deadline for federal income tax filing, fell to $266.23 billion from $403.75 billion in April 2008. Both individual and corporate income tax payments fell sharply from a year earlier.  But outlays set another April record, rising to $287.14 billion from $244.47 billion a year earlier.   www.reuters.com 

© 2009, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org

The Loyal Opposition

The Loyal Opposition

As a conservative, what is the approach that we should take following the US election in which liberal Democrats picked up more seats in the US House and US Senate?  And what is the conservative response to our newly elected US President, Barack Obama?   We are the loyal opposition:  Loyal to our country, our republic and the US Constitution.    We are supporting the peaceful (and gold standard) process of the transition of power in American, following our national elections.  America is unique in the world in how we elect our leaders and how the change in power occurs peacefully.    The pundits, politicians and press are now debating the demise of conservative principles and the weakened Republican Party.   While that is a debate worth having, as a member of the loyal opposition, I both support the newly elected President Obama, but I also oppose many of his ideas and policies that have been proposed in the campaign.   Unlike my liberal friends who bashed President Bush (and the office of the President), I will not engage in that disloyal behavior.   Sure, I had some tough words and pointed criticism of Senator Obama as a presidential candidate.    But he is the President Elect now, and that electoral victory and historic accomplishment is to be admired and respected.    This is American.   A country in which a presidential candidate from a diverse background can be elected to the Office of the President with the support of the minority and majority citizens of the United States.  That is the dream of every American.

But I will respectfully disagree with our newly minted President, when he proposes more Federal government spending, not less; when the security of the United States is compromised in the interest of getting along with our enemies or if the hand of the US government becomes heavy through taxes, regulations or limits to personal freedom.   In this case, as a member of the loyal opposition, I’ll express my contrary views.    Fortunately, the days of Bush bashing  are fading away, into the dusty Texas sunset. (Although Bush bashing is still lingering the MSM and in left leaning blogs)  Let our former President George W. quietly retire to his Crawford Ranch.  As for President Elect Obama, he has my loyal support and respect.    He was elected by a majority of the States, with a plurality of the vote of our fellow citizens.    However, his vision for American is still yet to be unfolded in the policy details of 2009.      The Obama campaign platitudes sounded pretty good, but as a member of the loyal opposition, I was suspect as to what will really happen in Washington DC under President Obama and the Democratic Congress. 

Meanwhile, I’m looking at the conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats in Congress http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/   as a member of the loyal opposition.   These are self selected Democrats that have a moderate to conservative view on budget and fiscal issues that come before the US House of Representatives.   In the 2006 House elections, there were 47 “Blue Dog Democrats”.    Since 1996, 27 Blue Dog Democrats have been elected to the US House, replacing incumbent or retiring Republicans.    In the 2008 election, 20 new Democrats were elected to the Congress, with a likely number of these new Democrats willing to join the Blue Dog coalition as fiscal conservatives.      The question will be: Are the Blue Dog Democrats willing to stand up to President Obama and the liberal Democratic House leadership on overspending and increased government programs that run up the US deficit?   We’ll see in January 2009.    As a member of the loyal opposition, I’m counting on Blue Dog Democrats in the House and the GOP members of the US Senate to provide some fiscal restraint and balance to Presidential initiatives from the Obama administration.

© 2008, Jasper Welch,  Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org

Final Electoral College Predictions

The Final Electoral College Predictions

Today is the day.    The Legacy Media has moved from a watchdog role in public affairs and elections to an Obama advocacy role.    The Legacy Media has waived off serious questions about the Democrat candidate, and according to the predictors of the US Electoral College, Senator Obama is poised to become President-Elect Obama.  Does the Republican candidate John McCain have a chance to win?  According the pundits, pollsters and Legacy Media it is over.   The left leaning Legacy Media, in their advocacy role, is heading to Grant Park in Chicago for the coronation event for their new leader, Barack Obama.   How far to the left will America go politically?   That will be the big question.   It will remained unanswered until the American people realize that Change We Can Believe In is more of the same liberal tax and spend approach to government.   Is a Harry Truman upset in the works?  It will depend on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.   However, the odds for a McCain victory are slim at this point.  The pollsters will be left with their final prediction, as the American voters will decide the final outcome.

The Electoral College predictions range from a close Obama victory to a landslide victory.   The overall vote totals ranges from the margin of error (+/- 3%) to a 10% margin for Obama over McCain.  Here is the line up of web sites and their 2008 predictions:

www.zogby.com     Obama=311, McCain=174, Toss-Up=53

www.humanevents.com  Obama=291, McCain=247

www.rove.com   Obama=338, McCain=200

www.realclearpolitics.com   Obama=338, McCain=200

www.electoral-vote.com   Obama=353, McCain=174, Toss=11

www.fivethirtyeight.com   Obama=346.5, McCain=191.5

From the polling research on Election 2008, the Democrat candidate Barack Obama is predicted to win all of the Blue states from 2004 and he is poised to compete in a number of Red states such as Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina.

         On the US Senate side of the political races, it is likely that the Republicans may loose six to eight seats to the Democrats.    Now we have 49 Dems, 49 GOP and 2 Independents as members in the US Senate.   At the end of the Election 2008, it is likely to be 56 Dems, 42 GOP and 2 Independents.     However the 2 Independents (Sanders and Lieberman) usually vote with the Democrats.       However, if the GOP does even worse in the US Senate, and Republicans loose their ability to filibuster the Democrat majority, there will be no boundaries for a liberal, left leaning Congress and likely Democrat President. 

© 2008, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org

What Does a Left Turn Look Like?

We know that the American electorate is ready for a change, but exactly what “Change We Can Believe In” are we looking at?   While Presidential Bush still remains unpopular (27% approval rating), the US Congress (12% approval rating) is competing with lawyers, used car dealers and mortgage brokers for popularity.   Over the past two years of the new Congressional Democrats, the only political check on the Congressional move to the “progressive left” has been GOP Senators (with a solid filibuster firewall) and a weak GOP President.  

While many in the Main Stream Media (MSM) would lead us to believe that Obama is a centrist, his liberal voting record, his radical left wing friends, his “ spread the wealth around” socialism and his class warfare rhetoric on the campaign trial indicate otherwise.   But are the American people ready for a sharp left turn politically into European style socialism?

            Peter Dupont, in his editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal listed seven major policy shifts from an Obama administration with the backing of the Democrat controlled Congress http://online.wsj.com He makes the strong case for the Europeanization of America.   In other words a trend towards socialism with full support of a Democratic President and Congress, (aka “one party rule”).  To quote Mr. Dupont in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “So where is the new Obama administration likely to take us? Seven things seem certain:

1)    The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq quickly and substantially, regardless of conditions on the ground or the obvious consequence of emboldening terrorists there and around the globe.

2)    Protectionism will become our national trade policy; free trade agreements with other nations will be reduced and limited.

3)    Income taxes will rise on middle- and upper-income people and businesses, and individuals will pay much higher Social Security taxes, all to carry out the new president's goals of "spreading the wealth around."

4)    Federal government spending will substantially increase. The new Obama proposals come to more than $300 billion annually, for education, health care, energy, environmental and many other programs, in addition to whatever is needed to meet our economic challenges. Mr. Obama proposes more than a 10% annual spending growth increase, considerably higher than under the first President Bush (6.7%), Bill Clinton (3.3%) or George W. Bush (6.4%).

5)    Federal regulation of the economy will expand, on everything from financial management companies to electricity generation and personal energy use.

6)    The power of labor unions will substantially increase, beginning with repeal of secret ballot voting to decide on union representation.

7)    Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment.

These policy changes will be the beginning of the Europeanization of America. There will be many more public policy changes with similar goals—nationalized health care, Kyoto-like global-warming policies, and increased education regulation and spending.” Opinion Page, Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2008

Is American ready for socialism?   Apparently, polling data from Tipp On-Line

  www.tipponline.com/social.html in August 2008 indicates that while the majority of Americans are not supportive of socialism, higher taxes and government ownership of industry, the Obama supporters appear to support a socialist approach.   This socialistic approach is confirmed in Senator Obama’s liberal voting record as an elected official.

“Since ADA's founding in 1947, the Annual Voting Records have served as the standard measure of political liberalism. Combining 20 key votes on a wide range of social and economic issues, both domestic and international, the Liberal Quotient (LQ) provides a basic overall picture of an elected official's political position.”   Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) www.adaction.org  on voting records, which ADA has tracked since 1947.   US Senator Barack Obama ranked as a 95% liberal (out of 100%) on 20 issues in 2006.  Essentially, Mr. Obama is a certified liberal, as rated by the ADA “gold standard” for political liberalism in the United States.

So if the junior Senator from Illinois, (who is the least experienced and most liberal Presidential candidate in modern history), is actually elected, what is the probability that he will track to the political center and provide any challenges (vetoes) to a Democrat majority in Congress?    Or rather will Obama following his previous voting records and lead the US on a sharp turn to the left on political issues, with the full support of the majority of the Democratically controlled Congress?

As for many Americans,  “Change We Can Believe It” is a platitude that sounds good on the campaign trail.    In a year or two, under the liberal approach taken by an Obama Administration, those same Americans may be saying “Change We Can’t Stand For” as their President and his Democrat operatives in Congress turn the country sharply to the political left.

© 2008, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media,    www.jasperwelch.org 

 

Behind the Curtain? What have they done?

So exactly who are these Presidential candidates?   Are they defined by what they say, how they look, and or what the Main Stream Media (MSM) says about them?    Or should we look behind curtain, behind the debate stage, or actually consider their records?  What have they actually done, versus just what they have said or has been said about them?  Is the essence of the Presidential candidate’s speech more about the speechwriter or about the candidate or the topic of the day?  What does the candidate say “off line”, when they think that the cameras and microphones are off?   How do Presidential candidates respond with they are “off the talking points”?

Quoting from William Kristol, a leading conservative writer for the Weekly Standard www.weeklystandard.com  on the WS web 10/20/08 publication date.  (Oh, by the way, he is a contributor to Fox News [gasp], the “Fair & Balanced” MSM channel and the New York Times [gasp, a liberal rag!]).  Here is what Mr. Kristol wrote in regards to Senator Obama and Senator McCain:

“One is an orthodox and timid liberal, personally ambitious but intellectually conventional. For all his talk of hope and change, when has Barack Obama ever shown a willingness to break with liberal orthodoxy or Democratic dogma? What bold decision has he taken, what unpopular idea has he embraced? The odd truth about Obama is that, for all his unsavory radical associations--and they are unsavory and a legitimate issue in the campaign--he's not radical enough for the times and challenges we face.”

“The other candidate, John McCain, has been all over the map in terms of domestic policies, and has shown a management style during the campaign that makes one worry about the coherence and purposefulness of his administration. But he's shown strong character in his life, and he's done serious things. His general views are centrist, but he's willing to be bold when necessary. He won't be passive as president, and he'll think anew and act anew as he adjusts to the challenges we face, in the spirit of doing what's necessary to preserve and strengthen the underlying principles of American life.”

So why would it matter what a Presidential candidate actually did?   Why not just go for “Change We Can Believe In?”   Or follow after the “Change in Coming” mantra?

In fact, the conventional wisdom appears to say that if the candidate lacks experience, let’s just gloss over that.  It’s all about how I feel.  Right?

            Maybe we should look behind the curtain?  Who somebody is, really does matter.   What the Presidential candidates have done is more important than what they say or what is said about them.  Let’s take the approach that “observed behavior” tells more the next president than “stated promises” made by the Presidential candidate.

            So as we look behind the curtain, we have one candidate with community, legal and political experience, who has written two books about himself, but hasn’t sponsored any significant legislation.  But he is younger man, and he is still gaining experience.  He has never been in business, he has never been in the military, he has never been avid outdoorsman and he has never advocated cutting spending in a meaningful way.  Senator Obama is from Chicago, and has a full history in the Illinois legislature, although not much has been written about it.   (However, a NYM article is worth reading: Goggle “New Yorker Magazine” and search for “Making It” article on Obama).   He has had various friends for political purposes, until it gets too embarrassing for his political career, and then Barack Obama moves on (usually after disowning or disavowing the friend).  Finally, as we lift the curtain, his books, campaign rhetoric and voting record is liberal and orthodox Democrat.  Change we can believe in?   Yes, if a liberal tax and spend approach is what you’d like, then a vote for Barack will get you there in a hurry.

            Then we lift the curtain on the other candidate.    John McCain is an American hero, which makes some people feel uncomfortable, but most Americans appreciate his service to his country.   He has served in the US Navy.   His father, grandfather and his sons have served as well.   While Senator John McCain has served in Washington for 25 years, he has done so as a maverick, angering and challenging parties, their members and their leadership. He actually has led the fight to cut wasteful spending.   Imagine that: Washington living within its means!  John McCain is an older man, a seasoned warrior (literally and politically) from a long career, being involved in most of the major issues that have faced America over the past 25 years.    Is he the best speaker?    Probably not.   Is he a down the party line Republican?   Definitely not.   Does he speak his mind?   Yes, and to a degree his candor is both disarming, yet refreshing in this age of political double speak. 

            So what has Barack Obama done?  A thin resume backed by good books, winsome looks, great campaigning and over $500 million bucks.   So what has John McCain done?  Served his country with dedication, principle and candor over his 72-year lifetime.    He wrote one book, hasn’t run the best campaign, and opted for $84 million in public financing in the General election.

So, it is now up to you as a voter, to decide how experience in your lifetime best prepares you to be the President of the United States.   Oh, I forgot.   The MSM pundits, the pollsters and the Democrats have already decided for you.   Experience doesn’t matter anymore, it is about change.    And courage under fire is old fashioned; now what matters is how good your campaign is.    And the American dream, built on hard work and determination, is really no longer possible, unless the US government intervenes and spreads the wealth around.  So I guess we just close the curtain at the point, and may the best marketing plan (I mean best man) win!

© 2008, Four Corners Media,  Jasper Welch    www.jasperwelch.org             

Style vs. Substance 10.20.08

So how important are style points?  Is the best Presidential candidate the one who is cool?   Does substance matter anymore?  What about the Commander-in-Chief role?   Between the view from the spin room after each Presidential debate and the posturing of the MSM talking heads during the campaign, it is clear that “cool” and “style” matter the most.   Substance?    That is that policy wonk stuff.  It is boring and really doesn’t matter much.   Or does it matter  in the selection of the next President?

As a Harvard educated and emerging member of the elite political class of the America, Senator Obama is well coached and disciplined.     He has the talking points down pat, from the regular Bush bashing to the class warfare rhetoric.    His background as an attorney and professional politician (and some would argue professional candidate) has served him well in this long campaign.   With the full faith of the Main Stream Media (MSM), Barrack Obama is already the President.  The November election is a mere formality. The “One” has mastered the crowds, the campaign dance and it is done. However, the rest of the folks in America still need to cast their vote.  And it is likely that substance will come up in their election decision.

            But can substance carry the day?   Senator McCain, despite a less focused and less disciplined campaign is still hanging around, just over Senator Obama’s shoulder.    The MSM says the “One” has the style, the coolness, the demeanor and temperament to be the President.  Heck, he already is the President in their mind.    But McCain who the MSM has written off several times in this Presidential campaign continues to be within striking distance.    Given the significant media bias, it is pretty amazing the John McCain is in a competitive position here in mid October.

            Maybe Senator McCain is still in this Presidential race because substance and command actually do matter.   In the third debate, the substantive issue of abortion and US Supreme Court nominations came up.   Mr. Smooth attempted to hedge on his intense abortion rights position, but his debate answer clearly communicates his firm position: “With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.”  Senator Obama, October 15, 2008.   “An exception” for the health and life of the mother?  So if a fully alive child is partially delivered, and the baby is killed by the abortionist, this is okay with Senator Obama if the mother’s health or life is threatened?  This barbaric practice is about the termination of the fully alive child’s life.  The mother’s health is not the substantive issue here, but rather the exception (excuse) to fully trample upon the baby’s human rights.

To this substantive issue, Senator McCain responded: Here is it is “again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama.  He's “health” for the mother.  You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything.

That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."  But, look; Cindy and I are adoptive parents.  We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives.  We'll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country. But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn.”   John McCain stood alone for the rights of the unborn, and pointed out the despite his eloquence, Senator Obama’s position is extreme on the substantive issue of abortion.

“Well, you know, I admire so much Senator Obama's eloquence.  And you really have to pay attention to words.  He said, we will look at offshore drilling.  Did you get that?”  John McCain as he pointed out that Senator Obama said he’d ‘look at’ offshore drilling.  As an attorney, with a smooth and eloquent style, the junior Senator from Illinois was able to appear to support offshore drilling without actually drilling for oil offshore.   The substance of the issue:  What policy should American have for energy independence?  Looking at it, or actually drilling for oil?

            Finally, let’s look at the Commander in Chief role.   The Obama campaign chose to criticize Senator McCain because he did use a computer.   The likely reason is that his war related injuries limit his keyboard abilities, but that is beside the Obama campaign point.    The logic of the Democratic campaign argument is that the GOP candidate is “out of touch”.   Or what they really mean to say is that McCain is old and behind the times, as compared the youthful, cool style of Senator Obama.   But the substance question is: Has Senator Obama ever worn a US Military uniform?    Has he ever been a US Military officer?  Is he fully prepared, based on relevant experience, to be the Commander in Chief of the US military forces?   When it comes the to the President of the United States, substance really matters.

© 2008, Four Corners Media, Jasper Welch  www.jasperwelch.org

The Case for Freedom 10.01.08

I have looked extensively at Barack Obama's ideas and the legislation he has supported and I could not disagree more with his ideas about how to run the US. I do not think that more government is better, ever.  I honestly believe that if you want a government, that penalizes achievers and risk takers to pay for the rest of society you should vote for Obama.  Because that is exactly his plan.

I do have a few questions.  Why should the wealthy (a.k.a. successful achievers) be made to pay for people who have not worked as hard or been willing to risk as much?  What is so bad about achieving? What is so noble about being poor and why should we reward it?   Why is the government better suited to spend the money I have earned than me?  Surely the government is not wiser than me. I believe we all have an obligation to help those who are truly in need.  That is our calling as Christians. But I do not feel any obligation to enable laziness or financial irresponsibility.

What is that really creates the prosperity we all enjoy?  It is risk-taking entrepreneurs who have worked hard and risked much to create companies that create jobs and opportunity for people.  That is what drives the economy and creates prosperity.  It is those same companies that provide jobs, health insurance and pensions etc., for their workers.  If you take away the incentive to achieve, by placing a huge tax burden on more successful individuals, why would they risk their time, effort and money to invent, create, and solve problems? Why is it that people risk everything, their lives, families, etc., to come to America?  Because the opportunity exists here to work hard and be rewarded fairly for that work.

I believe that Obama preys on class envy and fear to drive his message home.  Are you really doing so poorly?  How many people do you know personally, that are suffering in the current economy?  If you really scrutinize your family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority are doing fine.  But the media drums daily about how awful it is. Hmm.

          How many of your successful friends are greedy S.O.B.'s that have taken advantage of the downtrodden?  Or are they perhaps, interesting, intelligent, risk-takers that through their ingenuity have improved their part of the world, created a successful business, law practice, small business or medical practice that has improved the lives of its employees or members of the community it was built in and give generously to the charity of their choice?

Are there exceptions to this, are there some who do take advantage of others? Of course.  The questions boils down to whether you think it is worth the risk of having some that do not have the betterment of society at heart, in order to allow others the freedom to achieve, improve their cornerof the universe, or even the society as a whole and be rewarded accordingly without penalty.

I choose freedom and hope that as a country we protect that freedom which we have worked so hard and sacrificed so much for.

 Carroll Pawlikowski        (Jasper's sister who lives in Pennsylvania)

(c) 2008, Four Corners Media,  Jasper Welch    www.jasperwelch.org    

Tie Goes to the Runner

Tie Goes to the Runner   Prez Debate 9.27.08   jazzman3

In baseball, the tie goes to the runner.   At this point, the first one-on-one debate in the 2008 Presidential race, the runner is John McCain and the 1^st baseman is Barack Obama.  Senator McCain is stretching to win the race, while Senator Obama is holding on to stay in the race.  According the left leaning MSM, the script calls for Senator Obama to continue his soaring campaign all the way into the White House.  The Republican nominee, Senator John McCain is not supposed to be this competitive in the Presidential horse race.  Can’t he just fade away like the last Republican war hero, former US Senator Bob Dole?   However, this 2008 Republican nominee is looking presidential and the Democratic candidate is looking for more experience, as reflected in his VP pick of Senator Joe Biden.

In this first debate, both men held their own generally in the debate.  But the real goal is not who won the debate (that the MSM naturally gave to Senator Obama), but which candidate looked presidential and ready to lead the United States of America?   To me Obama knew about the subjects and was well prepared for the debate, but McCain really knows the world and he is well prepared to be President.     This is what will convince the US voter…is this guy ready to be the President?

Based on Senator Obama’s own words, “John you are absolutely right on that”, the junior Senator from Illinois was the follower as he acknowledged the Senator from Arizona articulate his position on the issues.   Byron York noted that Senator Obama make this statement of acknowledgement eight (8) times during the Friday night presidential debate www.nationalreview.com   There was plenty of disagreement during the debate, but it was clear that McCain’s experience, judgment and determination was substantial as compared to Obama’s smooth and well rehearsed subject matter answers.

Both men weighed into the debate with vigor, resolve and determination, as the national stage was set to discuss the issues.     The moderator, PBS newsman Jim Lehrer made the decision to have the presidential candidates respond to each other, in addition to answering the questions.    In a sense the Mr. Lehrer was also a winner in the debate, as his approach kept the topic and responses by the candidates more spontaneous, and less rehearsed.  

Three areas stand out in this debate:  Taxes and spending, the war in Iraq and dealing with the rouge nations of the world.   Moderator Jim Lehrer asked each candidate, based on the potential cost of the financial bail out, what would each man do in response in terms of the Federal budget?   Senator Obama wavered as he realized that with less tax revenues at the Federal level, many of his spending priorities would be in jeopardy.  But where to cut, that was beyond his experience and way of thinking.    Senator McCain on the other hand, weighed right in with suggesting a freeze on US government spending, with exceptions for national defense, veterans and some entitlements. 

Both candidates differ on the war on Iraq.   Barack Obama built his political career and campaign at the national level on an anti-war position, regardless of the consequences or situation on the ground in Iraq.    John McCain, on the other hand, took the approach that while war is something to avoid and only to be engaged in as the last resort, we better get the mission accomplished in Iraq, and leave with victory, honor and dignity.   McCain knew his bracelet, it’s story and the young man’s name whom he committed to his mother that his battlefield sacrifice was not in vain.  Obama quickly responded that he had a bracelet to, but struggled to remember the young man’s name.   He knew the reason he wore it for the soldier’s mom, but in a political way that supports his anti-war position.

Then the question of what to do with Iran came up, and the contrasts of the candidates became even clearer.  Senator Obama wove a delicate set a statements as he backed away from his primary campaign position of “I’ll talk to anyone and anytime, with out preconditions”.   Senator McCain schooled the younger senator in diplomacy 101, making the airtight case for preconditions prior to the US President meeting with any rouge state or enemy head of state.   While Obama was ready for the Presidential debate, McCain came across as ready to be the President of the United States.    He looks like he is now off and running to 2^nd base, the site of the October 7^th Presidential debate.

© 2008, Four Corners Media, Durango, CO  

Presidential Politics 9.26.08

As a recovering elected official, I’ve been watching the Presidential (and other) race(s) closely.  Actually I served as the Mayor of small town in Colorado…kind of like a community organizer, except with some actual responsibility.

Each day, I’ll get my start with Www.realclearpolitics.com and www.townhall.com and www.politico.com, plus the Weekly Standard and National Review on Line.   Various pundits, columnists, polling data and video clips of the day, will get me off to a good start on the daily campaign chatter.

Sarah Palin was a very good pick by Senator McCain, and the liberal media (NYT, big three TV, AP & Time) totally over reacted and blew their “balanced coverage” facade (which was already left leaning, but now the MSM has fallen into leftist hands as their propaganda organs).  Obviously the Main Stream Media (MSM) thought Palin was a good pick (and needed to be defined in their liberal MSM terms).  This viewpoint is based on the MSM atom bomb approach to disable the newly minted conservative VP before she could define herself with US voters.   It is now very clear that the national press (MSM) is in the tank for Obama, and they will trash the GOP ticket at every chance they have (which is now being done on the 24/7 basis).  Some of the unfounded rumors and over reaching media bias towards Gov Palin is ridiculous.... and in my opinion is helping the GOP, because the average person is saying, “Wait a minute, this is an emerging woman leader and Governor isn’t getting a fair shake”.

And the Democratic VP nominee, US Senator Joe Biden, is Mr. Gaffe extraordinaire.   As the golden-tongued senior Senator on the Democratic ticket, he is a sound bite machine, with a disdain for historical accuracy.    Let’s see, FDR as president on TV dealing with the Depression?   President want to be Biden was only a decade and a major technology away from the truth!   More history in the remaking by our US Senator from the teeny tiny state of Delaware. If president-elect Obama was looking for change, Biden’s role in the “Change ticket” is apparently to keeping changing the stories daily. McCain clearly made the better VP choice, and he looked to the future in selecting a proven reformer and Governor with a record on energy, cutting spending and actually leading a state as the chief elected executive.

 Colorado is a battleground state this year, so we are getting pounded by ads, mostly negative and from out of state 527 groups just carpet bombing the state with “over the top” TV and radio ads.  Do the 527’s or campaigns really think that anyone is listening?  Maybe the money could be better spent on helping orphans around the world?

Only 40 days to go, and it is getting interesting.   McCain’s decision to suspend on the campaign Thursday (9/26) and head back to Washington (and try to actually get something done) shows his leadership.  Obama was trying to figure out what to do, but apparently rolling up his sleeves to actually get something done in Wash DC, was taking a back seat to debate prep and press conferences!   Then, when he and the Obama advisors realized that “debate prep in Florida” was not exactly the “Change We can Believe in”, they were relieved that that President Bush gave them a call to head back to Washington for some actual work.   For all the Dems whining about “injecting Presidential politics into the massive bailout debate”, both Obama and McCain are sitting US Senators, and in my opinion, they should weigh into the “massive bailout” debate as the emerging leaders of their respective parties.   The Dem majority and a weakened “lame duck” president need supervision in Washington, prior to screwing up the present financial mess up even worst than it is now!

We’ll see what the big economic summit in Washington DC brings today.