Saturday Morning Musings

We'll talk some more about the Supreme Court in upcoming posts, but the big news today is:

Sarah Palin:


What should we think about such a unique choice? Here are a few of my thoughts

1. She has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. Period. Don't let anyone tell you differently. I'll be blunt, it's not a great deal of national experience, but keep in mind that Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and W. Bush were all PRESIDENT, with little national experience, but quality state governing experience.

The Democrats are going to make the argument that Barack Obama has lots of executive experience. After all, he's run a campaign for the past 18 months, making decisions, leading a staff of thousands, etc. So running a campaign means executive government experience?

No it does not, and don't let anyone tell you any differently. Gov. Palin has more executive experience than Barack Obama, and even if she didn't, Palin's not the one running for the chief executive of the United States of America. Senator Obama is.

2. I like that Gov. Palin is an outsider. Senator Obama likes to tell people that he's an outsider too, coming to Washington to change it. When it comes to being a Washington outsider, Senator, you're no Sarah Palin. In fact, with the exception of Hawaii, no one could be geographically MORE of an outsider than Gov. Palin.

3. She's a solid conservative. This is the kind of pick that helps shore up conservatives, but does not alienate moderate women.

4. She's just so likable.

5. I think that Democrats are secretly very concerned about this pick.

Overall, I give McCain's pick a B+.

The Supreme Court

Our nation’s highest court is ever important when discussing the Presidential race. The role of the President in selecting judges for these appointments on the court is crucial, especially in the coming years. Although the Supreme Court hasn’t really been mentioned by the media too much, people deep inside Republican and Democratic circles are thinking about it. A lot.

Going back to 1960, we can see the importance of nominations.

• JFK nominated 2 justices
• Lyndon Johnson nominated 2 justices
• Nixon, 4
• Ford, 1
• Reagan, 3
• HW Bush, 2
• Clinton, 2
• W Bush, 2

Only Jimmy Carter never nominated a justice to the Supreme Court.

Now, nothing is certain, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. However, on average, a President has the opportunity to nominate two justices during his term in office. Lifetime justices. No campaigns. No elections. A Lifetime on our nation's highest court. Wow.

So, who do we want nominating these justices? These next few posts will revolve around the Supreme Court, as John McCain envisions it, and the Supreme Court, as Barack Obama envisions it. Let’s just say their visions are fundamentally different.

A Quick Note

This statistic means different things to different people, but Barack Obama keeps saying that John McCain votes with President Bush 90% of the time. It’s true (in 2007). If you’re a Democrat, that generally makes you dislike John McCain.

However, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention tonight, I would really like Senator Obama to tell his supporters that he has voted with President Bush more than 40% of the time. Many have probably been thinking that Obama has opposed the President on every one of his “wretched” policies and I really just want to see how the truth would go over at a stadium full of the President's opponents.

Saturday Morning Musings

After a small hiatus from 1007 Grand, we're back for the homestretch. This weekend was pretty big, with Senator Obama choosing longtime Delaware Senator Joe Biden.

And in perhaps one of the most clever advertisements in recent memory, here is the McCain campaign's response.



Should be an interesting couple of months.

Saturday Morning Musings

Cash on Hand. These three words are very sweet if you’re a presidential candidate. Cash on hand is exactly what is sounds like. It’s how much money you actually have RIGHT NOW.

Here’s the official COH stats for today, August 9^th, 2008.

$71.6 million – Barack Obama

$35.6 million – John McCain

While $35 million certainly isn’t bad, Senator Obama has more than twice the amount that Senator McCain.

And I know what much of the money is going to be used for. It’s going to be used to try to convince Americans that Barack Obama is

• Centrist
• Experienced
• Moderate
• Mainstream
• Prepared

During this coming week, we’ll be looking at ways that Senator Obama is none of the above, and why a President McCain would be more ideal than a President Obama.

Gridlock in the District of Columbia

Clearly, there is quite a bit of gridlock in Washington D.C. Clearly, someone needs to get things moving…someone needs to work with opposing political parties to work for the American people.

Who is that more likely to be?

Senator Obama? He often speaks of unity and working together, and it sounds nice. However, I look at his actions in the Senate before I look at his friendly speeches. Throughout the past 4 years, he has consistently been one of the most liberal senators. Generally, he is more liberal than Hillary Clinton. As such, it’s hard for me to believe that such a left-wing ideologue would be willing to work together with the opposing party. In fact, it’s more likely he will say, “My way, or the highway.”

Senator McCain? He’s been called a “maverick” by many in Washington, but is it true? Is he really willing to bring Democrats and Republicans together to compromise? Do Democrats even like him? These are all good questions. Recently, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Hillary Clinton (among other prominent Democrats) have been heavily criticizing Senator McCain. With such criticisms, how could McCain possibly work together with Democrats?

Here’s what the same Democrats think of Senator McCain.

Apparently, the Democratic Party has a love-hate relationship with Senator McCain. When I juxtapose the clip with the past few weeks of McCriticism, I really don’t know how these folks feel about John McCain. After viewing the clip, it sounds as though they respect the Republican nominee…actually, it sounds as if they LIKE the Republican nominee.

So, back to the original question. Who would be more likely to get things moving, working together with all in Washington? Judging by these comments, the answer is John McCain. It seems as though the Senator from Arizona is the most likely to get the ball rolling in Washington D.C. in January of 2009.

One Final Thought:

I am aware that John McCain is not the most conservative member of the Senate. To some in the Republican Party, it’s an unfortunate truth. However, given the choice between McCain and Obama, I’ll choose McCain any day.

McCain is superior on the following issues:

• The Supreme Court
• Taxes
• Energy
• Size of government
• Foreign policy
• Free market economics
• Experience
• And many other issues

Because of these things, I’ll choose McCain any day of the week.

**Extra note. McCain is not perfect. Some of the compromises that he has made have been unfortunate. But, again, he is the best choice for President in 2008.

Gas Prices

They affect most us here in Dallas County. Many of us drive to work in Des Moines from where we live. Many of us need gas for our farm equipment and vehicles. Many of us have social lives that take us to family and friends that reside throughout our state. In any case, gas prices are, no doubt, a concern for those living in Iowa (and the U.S.).

So, the question that many are asking is this: Why hasn’t the government done anything about high gas prices?

First, the concept of gas prices being critically influenced by government is folly. Now, government can do little things here and there to create minor changes in the economy, such as the stimulus checks. However, unless a government is socialist/communist, there are few ways that government can seriously influence the free market and the national/global economy. However, the Democratic Party seems to believe that the government has the ability to effect massive changes in the American and even the global economy.

While that may not be the official party platform, the party certainly believes that there is only one person responsible for the economic downturn we are currently in: President Bush. The Democratic Party believes (and wants us to believe) that high gas prices, higher unemployment, and the weakening dollar are because of the actions or inaction of this one man. You see, they like to tie the President to the economy for two reasons.

• It fits into their narrative that George W. Bush is one of the worst Presidents because the economy was woeful during his Presidency…and therefore, Republicans shouldn’t control the White House in 2008.
• It fits into their narrative that Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents because the economy was wonderful during his Presidency…and therefore, Democrats should control the White House in 2008.

Democrats love the idea that the government seemingly controls which way the economy goes, because it fits within their delightful political narrative of the past 15 years. Now, most economists would say that the President and the government can’t affect the economy THAT much. The boom of the 1990s was not the doing of Bill Clinton.

However, let’s go ahead and say that the government CAN affect MASSIVE change within our economy. Congress has been controlled by Democrats during the last 18 months. What have they done? Let’s look at gas prices as an example.

We reached a high of $3.15 in mid-May of 2007. The prices went down a shade, and then shot up about a dollar over the next year.

So we have two conclusions:

1. Either the Democrats in Congress have done a terrible job taking care of the economy for 2 years

OR

2. Government really can’t strongly influence a complex economy.

So which is it? Are the Democrats in Congress poor stewards of the economy, causing gas prices to go higher than ever? Or is the market economy so diverse that the United States government can’t really do that much, and the Democrats have been wrong to criticize the President for his “poor economic leadership.”

For me, I like to think that the former is true, but I know that the latter is the correct answer, but I’d sure like to hear that from a Democrat in Congress.

Pursestrings

In Fiscal Year 2004, the total budget for the government of the state of Iowa was $4.5 billion. In Fiscal Year 2008, that budget had grown to $5.7 billion. That's an increase of more than 26% in four years. Even allowing for inflation of 2% or so a year, the state is clearly on a big spending spree. How long can we afford that?

Saturday Morning Musings

Over the coming weeks, we’ll be hearing a lot from the left about how John McCain is a slave to big oil…how he voted time and time again to give billions in subsidies to oil companies. How very nice of them to point out the votes of John McCain. In fact, the Sierra Club made up a nice little video about it.

$4 billion? Wow! That’s a lot of money! Let’s check the votes of Barack Obama. Certainly he wouldn’t do anything like this. Or would he?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

In 2005, Barack Obama voted yes to HR 6, giving $6 billion, (yes, $6 billion) in subsidies to Oil/Gas companies. In fact, check out what Public Citizen had to say about the bill. They say it’s a MASSIVE gift to oil/energy companies ever.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980

By the way, Public Citizen is the super liberal group founded by perennial Green candidate Ralph Nader.

Whether you agree or not with the subsidies, consistency must be maintained. If the Sierra Club and other liberal conservationist organizations are going to criticize John McCain for his votes, they better criticize Barack Obama too. Let’s not give Senator Obama a(nother) free pass.

Oh, by the way, John McCain voted no on that bill that Senator Obama voted yes on. Perhaps the Sierra Club should create a cute little video criticizing Obama…but we know that won’t happen.

UPDATED -- UPDATED

Wow...that was quick. Sure enough, an Obama ad targeting McCain's vote for $4 billion to help oil companies. All I can think of while watching it is $6 billion...$6 billion...$6 billion. Thank you Senator Obama, for helping me prove my point.

George W. Bush and John McCain

The primary goal of the Democratic Party over the last 4 months has been to tie John McCain to President Bush. It seems like a good strategy, due to Bush’s less than stellar approval rating, and I would do the same if I were in their shoes. Of course, while there are some similarities between the two politicians, there are some big differences as well.

One of the most notable differences is in regards to fiscal responsibility.

When the Republican Revolution of 1994 came along, one of the big hopes of Republicans was to balance the budget and to reduce the federal deficit. In one of the rarer signs of bipartisanship, President Clinton signed the bills that Congressional Republicans created to balance the budget, thereby reducing the amount of debt we accumulated yearly.

However, when President Bush came into office, the fervor in Washington D.C. to keep a balanced budget faded away. With this fervor gone, the federal coffers (in essence) opened up even more, resulting in massive pork barrel projects. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress wanted to bring home the bacon (in the form of federally financed projects in their home states) and billions were spent. Unfortunately, President Bush did not veto these billion dollar pork bills.

This is where a major difference lies. John McCain is not George W. Bush. Senator McCain hates pork barrel spending and he has promised to veto any such bills. While President Bush missed an opportunity, John McCain will seize it. Check out his platform.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/reform.htm

So, in essence, President George W. Bush presided over a deficit that grew too big. President John McCain will preside over a deficit whose growth will be stunted.

There are a few major differences between McCain and Bush! Don’t let the Democratic Party tell you differently, as this campaign continues.

As the mantra of 1994 Republicans went, “Why should we pass along massive debt to our children and grandchildren?” I wish more politicians felt this way today. John McCain does.