Experience? Yeah it's still on the table.

I first heard about McCain's pick for Vice President from a friend of mine. He sent me a text at 7am and it read "McCain picks Palin for VP!! Victory is Ours!!"

My friend was definitely excited about it and I must admit I was a bit jazzed myself. A few months ago when we were speculating about who would get the nod from McCain we discussed several possibilities but most were eliminated due to one reason or another. My personal favorite was Fred Thompson. Old "Law and Order" has remarkable oratorical skills and has party views that provide a nice balance to McCain's less conservative stances. However, for a party that is regarded as out of touch with the youth, the senior laden McCain/Thompson ticket doesn't make for good marketing material. My second favorite choice was Liebermann. I have always admired Liebermann, even as Al Gore's running mate. But as a lifelong Democrat, his historical positions would put him at odds with many in the Republican leadership. The two potential candidates that got us excited the most were Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal. Both of these Republicans were young, well rounded, ethical and astonishingly smart. They provided the perfect counterpunch to the insipid moronic behavior that comes from the Obama camp. The choice of Palin excited me because she is tough, intelligent and balances out the McCain ticket with youth and an authentic conservative track record. Outside of the fact that she wasn't Mitt Romney, I wasn't surprised by this pick too much.

What did surprise me on the other hand was the reaction by the Democrats and the media to this pick. They univerally panned it. Now I expected them to not like the pick because they've already consumed so much McCain Hater-ade that he could have chosen Jesus Christ himself and they still would have hated the pick. What surprised me was the one thing they used to slam her and that was her "inexperience".

Yeah, I'm laughing too. Where is Alanis Morissette when you need her because isn't this ironic?

No less a luminary than Senator Barbara Boxer herself slammed Sarah Palin as saying she "hasn't even got a single hour" of foreign policy experience. The Distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Charles Schumer chimed in "“While Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling"
B-b-bbut..
And get this statement from the head of MoveOn.org "It’s not only fair, but critical in this case, to ask if she’s up for the job of commander in chief. We just can’t afford a gamble like this with our future."

Wow! I am surprised indeed. That seems exactly the type of criticism that should be levelled at a certain Messianic Presidential candidate. Now I'm the first in line to agree with them that experience matters. But contrary to their points of view, Sarah Palin does not take away the experience argument against Obama. It reinforces it. Big Time.

Sarah Palin's 2 years of experience as the Governor of Alaska and her history as the mayor of a small town in Alaska vastly trump Obama's few weeks as a Senator. Being a Governor means you have to be active and accountable. Paychecks get cut, crisises get averted and lives are saved due to the decisions governors must make. You can't be indifferent and just show up to vote present 90 percent of the time. Don't get me wrong, Senators are vital pieces to our government, but the big decision making is left to senior members who draft critical legislation or who control vital posts on important committees. McCain has exactly that type of senatorial tenure and has been able to accomplish a considerable amount. Obama on the other hand has done nothing. Honestly, he has not been accountable for squat.

I took this point to my Obama friends who exuberantly rejoiced that their candidate was no longer the most inexperienced person on the ticket. "The playing field is level now" they cheered. But I asked them to name me in which way Obama's experience was superior to Palin's? While they could not point me to any specific accomplishment, they could direct me to several speeches where Obama has suggested, inferred or promised to do something great. Therein lies the great contrast. For many things Obama has promised, Sarah Palin has already delivered.

Meditate on this for a bit will you?

• Obama has promised to reform government, but Sarah Palin has actually reformed government eliminating certain earmarks, taking on special interests, the federal government and even her own party.
• Obama has promised to reduce spending, Sarah Palin has already cut programs and spending by $237 million dollars.
• Obama makes lots of promises about getting energy companies to pay big bucks, Sarah Palin has both taken on and cooperated with the oil companies, crafting an energy policy that has produced extra revenue for the citizens of her state.
• Obama talks about lowering taxes, Sarah Palin has lowered taxes both during her term as Mayor and as Governor.
• Oh, and did I mention she controls the National Guard for the only state that borders Russia?

But hey, don't take my word for it. Check out this MSNBC clip, no less, where a pro-Obama Senator attempts to list just one of Obama's vast achievements. I won't give it away, but suffice it to say that the best part is towards the end when you can hear studio members laughing in the background.

Experience is still on the table, and the McCain/Palin ticket is hoarding it all up, asking Obama/Biden to pass them the butter and biscuits.

This is a great pick. "Victory is Ours!"

The wacky brilliance behind the Palin pick

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that selecting Palin was a brilliant idea. She is completely immune from personal attack, which means the only real debate in the upcoming election can be about policy.

Criticize her sex, and you lose the women's vote.

Criticize her foreign policy experience (or lack thereof), and you invite painful comparisons to Obama, who wants to be President, not just VP.

Criticize her executive experience, and you invite even more painful comparisons to Obama, the wannabe President.

Criticize her youth, and you again have a problem with Obama, since he, with only three more birthdays than Palin under his belt, is aiming for the executive office.

Criticize her U of Idaho degree and you (a) invite painful comparisons to Biden, no Ivy Leaguer himself; and (b) invite charges of elitism.

Criticize her kind of goofy Alaska accent and lack of European sophistication, and you further alienate the embittered gun owners and religious nuts the elite Obama denigrated a few months ago. (By the way, I'm sarcastically quoting Obama when I refer to those embittered gun owners and religious nuts. His view of them, not mine.)

Criticize her small town roots, same thing: alienate embittered gun owners and religious nuts who make up the heartland.

Try to raise Alaskan political corruption, and you run smack into the fact that she attacked corruption head-on. You also open yourself up to invidious comparisons with Obama (Annenberg and Rezko) and Biden (repeat plagiarism)

Add to this that she's a good speaker, who will make Biden look overbearing and bombastic during debates, and you're just looking at a brilliant choice. She's bullet proof.

I should add, though, that her appeal is to the undecideds among us. I live in liberal land, and was able to hear lots of gleefully negative opinions about Palin today. The personal ones involved smears (and it's amazing how quickly they got around) that probably don't have a lot of truth to them. The first smear was that she abused her office to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. Patrick Casey neatly rebuts that one.

The next smear is that she's a rabid creationist. There is no doubt that she is a creationist, a view that I consider to be in the realm of faith, and unrelated to the science of evolution. As for me, I'm an evolutionist and, if anything, hew to John McCain's view on the subject: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also." "The hand of God" -- a rather lovely and poetic phrase for the mysteries that even science cannot answer.

So, she's a creationist, which is a little unnerving to those of us who believe that science and faith don't intermingle well, but is she rabid? Charles Johnson, of Little Green Footballs, who is himself a rabid evolutionist, and who tangles repeatedly with conservatives on the issue, has examined her position and is willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The actual fact of the matter is that Palin has said that, while she would not push for creationism to end up on the science curriculum, she believes that, if the subject arises in class, it can be discussed, rather than shut down. I agree with that too. Discussion acknowledges the existence of a heartfelt belief amongst many Americans, and allows students to understand that science can only deal with the physical record and the conclusions that can be drawn therefrom, and that it's smarter to leave to God knowledge of his role in that record.

What this means is that the two biggest substantive attacks against her are either false or exaggerated. Giving the full story, of course, won't change the liberal diehards, but should be interesting to for the undecideds among us -- especially since we know that it is they who will determine the outcome of this election.

Another thing I heard from the chattering libs was that "she's not one of us," meaning that Palin lives a lifestyle that is the opposite of that embraced in blue regions: she's pro-Life, she hunts, she actively believes in a traditional God, she doesn't support gay marriage, etc. The beauty of these charges against her, of course, is that they are all substantive. Her presence on the ballot allows a debate on the issues, without getting derailed by personal attacks. When it comes to Palin, no one can say, "Well, you may talk the talk on being pro-Life, Gov. Palin, but what would you do if that test showed your baby was defective?" Her life is an example of the depth of her belief systems.

Finally, when a few people nattered on about her inexperience, I politely pointed out that McCain might have been savvy by putting her on the ballot, because Obama doesn't have any more experience than she does and, quite possibly, less (which earned a nasty remark about small towns and Alaska) -- and that Obama is seeking on-the-job training in the President's spot, not the Vice President's.

The response to that one was "But McCain's an old man," the implication being she Palin's is more likely than not to be the kind of VP who ascends to office via the President's death, rather than a full elecction. "Yes," I agreed, "but he's still unlikely to die within minutes of taking office."

Silence. "

Well, that's why Joe Biden is on the ticket. He has great foreign policy experience." I forebore to point out that he's had the experience, but seems to have learned little from it, since his understanding is limited and his choices are rather consistently bad. I'd rather have a smart neophyte, than a dumb old hand.

Back to my opening point, then: With every passing second, I'm more impressed by the choice, and that's not even covering how impressed I was by the timing of the announcement, which sucked all the air out of that generic, unexciting, vicious Obama speech.

Dream Ticket McCain-Palin! Plus, Thanks God MLK was no Obama

My friends :D,

I put below what was supposed to be the beginning of my posting today... That is, until I learned that Sarah Palin has been chosen to be the VP nominee of the Republican Party.
I must confess that up until the announcement I was convinced that Mitt Romney was going to be picked, since he was almost unanimously perceived as "the safe choice". Yet, in another demonstration that John McCain is the true maverick and the independent mind in this race, he picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin! You have all about her in that wikipedia link, including her fight against politics as usual. Now for those who were looking for a new era of politics, you don't have an excuse! The McCain-Palin ticket offers the experience of a war hero who has worked in the US Senate for more than two decades with both parties to successfully bring in legislation that benefits Americans together with the youthful, energetic, and inspiring Sarah Palin. She'll be ready to be our first woman to reach the US Presidency if required. To paraphrase our Fox friends, "Governor Palin, the Republican VP candidate, has more executive experience than Senator Obama, the Democratic Pres. candidate.". The choice for Americans couldn't be more obvious.

McCain - Palin '08!



After all the hype surrounding Obama's acceptance speech at the DNC, I am deeply disappointed. As the old saying goes, much ado about nothing. This is the night we were supposed to know about Obama's concrete plans; about how, if elected President, he would bring about "change", that "change we could believe in". I am still as clueless about how he plans to do that that. But I am even more clueless about what "change" actually means if in fact it meant anything at some point.

During the primaries I was convinced that "change" meant that he planned to put Washington upside down; you know, get rid off the old guard, inject new blood, etc. Do things in a non Washington way. A new beginning we were told! It was a gullible idea back then but it seemed to inspire a lot of people, specially young people unfamiliar with the working of American politics. Apparently, once he realized that it was too naive of a proposition, so naive and impractical that he was forced to bring into his ticket the most hawkish and Washington-like among all the Democrats serving in the Senate, he said to himself "to heck with change". So much for the new beginning.

Tonight's speech didn't have any substance plus the guy wasn't at his best in the oratory department. His whole message message was: "I am clueless about the Presidency but believe me the other guy, that guy who has more than two decades of experience in the Senate, who has served honorably in the American military, who has worked with both parties to pass legislation important for the American people, who has disagreed with Bush in matters of importance such as the conduct of the war in Iraq by suggesting a winning strategy... he is no better". Unfortunately for you dear Barack I know better. Because I know better I say that I passionately support John McCain to be the next President of the United States over you a thousand times if necessary.

And BTW, Americans of all walks of life should feel fortunate that MLK was no Obama. No, this is not a mistake by a foreigner lacking proficiency with the English language. It is a self evident truth that Obama is no MLK. My point is that had MLK been an individual as empty as Obama is, the American South might still be segregated to this day. True agents of change, true American heros, such as MLK, work diligently to bring about change instead of spending the their time bragging about how to bring about change to end up doing nothing, as it has been your case, Mr Obama. After 8 years as a state senator in Illinois and 4 years as a US Senator, even the most faithful amongst your supporters is unable to mention a single significant legislative achievement of yours. And you have the guts to lecture us about John McCain? Give me a break! To quote NY Times' columnist David Brooks: "It’s about the future, and Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are."

Obama for President 2028! (not 2008!)

Obama for President 2028! (not 2008!)

That’s right. I said, “Obama for President 2028!” Let me explain…

Yesterday, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, the junior senator from the State of Illinois, and the son of a Kenyan foreign exchange student and a white American citizen was officially nominated for U.S. President at the Democratic National Convention. This is an historic moment for a couple of reasons and as a white dude, I will carefully select my words to make certain that I am not misunderstood.

Senator Obama’s nomination is a milestone moment for diversity in America, but let us be clear on the fact that he is not a descendant of African-Americans who suffered the oppression of slavery. Arguably, there is much to be done to remove any remaining barriers. However, in a sense, the race barrier has been broken in America with Senator Obama’s nomination for President, and with due accolades, let us move on to the problem of the timing of his historic candidacy.

There is an enormous problem with the timing of Senator Obama’s candidacy: at this point in his career, he would bring absolutely no relevant leadership and management experience to the Oval Office. In fact, he is really quite new to the U.S. Senate and national politics as well, spending most of his first three years running for President. His lack of national political experience is also historic and perhaps even more historic than this Kenyan heritage. Yes, he did serve in the Illinois State Senate for eight years. Still, there has not been a presidential candidate in modern times who ran for president without completing a term as a state governor or in the U.S. Congress. There is no track record of business or political leadership in this man’s background! It is no wonder that Bill and Hillary Clinton are hopping mad about the 2008 Presidential election. It is astonishing that Senator Clinton was defeated by a candidate who would bring almost no relevant skills to the job of Commander-in-Chief.

There is no doubt that Senator Obama is very short on experience. Of course, this is why I think Senator Obama might make a good Presidential candidate for 2028. Delaying his candidacy by twenty years will give him a chance to gain some important experience before running for President. As it stands, Senator Obama can not be compared to Senator McCain. Race or ethnicity have nothing to do with the comparison. There is simply no paradigm in which the two men can be compared. Obama is not experienced and McCain is very experienced. Senator Obama is barely a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois. Senator McCain is in his fourth term (22 years) as a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona. Senator McCain is the only choice for President in 2008.

Just say NO to Obama 2008 and perhaps MAYBE to Obama 2028…

Joe Biden. Really? Joe Biden?

As much as the left likes to attach George W for his speaking gaffs, Biden has quite a few of his own. Including the one tonight, that he and Obama “Share a Common Story” but I’ll get to that a little later. In the interim, here are some memorable quotes from Biden (disclosure: quotes could have arisen from Biden’s two prior aneurisms)

“There's less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with...." (Biden when responding on why DC schools perform worse than Iowa schools)

“You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent."

“Here at home, when Americans were standing in long lines to give blood after the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we squandered an obvious opportunity to make service a noble cause again, and rekindle an American spirit of community.”

I’ll be sure to have more that follow in the remaining weeks…

Back to what I was saying. Joe Biden and Barack Obama share very little of the same story. Let’s compare:

Obama: Elected to the Senate in 2005 at the age of 44
Biden: Elected to the Senate in 1972 at the age of 29

The story Obama has is of an outsider of Washington, whereas the story that Biden has, is someone who knows nothing other than Washington. In fact, Biden was shaped by Washington. How can Obama preach change, when is VP is the youngest person to be elected to the Senate in modern history?

Keep it simple people. Week after week we are waiting to find out who Barack Obama is, and he just threw us another curveball…

Democratic Convention

Are you watching the convention? Are you organizing drinking games where whenever somebody on the podium says "change," you take a shot? If you are, I doubt you'll be able to make it past one or two speeches. It just makes me want to change the channel. Not that I'm against change--actually, as a conservative, by definition I guess I am against change--but I don't want Obama's "change." Plus, I don't think he's really going change anything. It's a lot of fluff without much substance.

But I digress. Back to the convention...

I actually thought both Michelle Obama's and Hillary Clinton's speeches were pretty good in terms of delivering what they were supposed to.

Mark Warner's speech on the other hand was tedious and boring. Plus, Warner's basic theme about this being an election for the future and not the past could be given next week at the Republican Convention. In case you missed it, Warner first talked about his past about as businessman where after two failed businesses he got into the cell phone industry and became successful. That's a good story but I think it speaks more to the Republican issues about how people can be successful on their own and don't need the government babysitting them, raising their taxes, or regulating them.

Then, Warner tried to point out how he believes America can be an economic leader in the 21st century and how he brought hi-tech jobs to his state of Virginia. I agree with him, but I don't see how Obama's policies are designed to do that. In the primaries, Obama was promising to renegotiate NAFTA and promising protectionism. If the US follows that path, I can guarantee you we're going to lose our economic leadership position. Free trade benefits the United States by bringing foreign jobs into the United States, supplying the US with cheaper goods which overwhelmingly benefit those with lower incomes, making us more economically competitive, and opening up markets to American companies. As a former chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, McCain understands this. McCain understands that economic competition can make the United States stronger and believes that individual Americans are strong enough and capable enough to compete in a globalized world. I'm not sure Obama as a former community leader in Chicago really understands this point.

Finally, we heard a lot from all the speakers about how a McCain presidency would mean 4 more years of George Bush. They like to throw around that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. That is true over the 8 years, but Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time in 2007. In addition, McCain voted with Bush only 77% of the time in 2005. In my opinion, what is more important than votes are the number of times McCain has criticized Bush's policies, be it on the war in Iraq when McCain called for more troops a couple of years earlier than Bush's surge announcement or McCain's calling for Guantanamo to be closed or McCain's criticism of Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan because of its cost. The point I'm trying to make is that you may not agree with McCain on every issue but you can't say that McCain will blindly follow Bush's policies.

This is kind of mean, but when I saw the tribute to Ted Kennedy on Monday night and the whole water metaphor, I couldn't stop thinking about Chappaquiddick.

Next week, I'll be at the Republican Convention and I'll give you a few posts on what the RNC looks like from the Twin Cities.

You Call That a Plan?

So much for being above negative politics. Politico reported that Obama had some harsh words for John McCain at a barbecue in a local park in Eau Claire, Wisconsin yesterday after attending a local church, showing that it's back to politics-as-usual (which I'm not necessarily against, I'm just telling the guy “I told you so”).

To a group of 300 supporters, he said:

"If we can spend $10-12 billion a month in Iraq, we sure as hell can pay $10-12 billion right here in the United States of America to put people back to work."

He also said that he's the candidate for the middle class, "the teachers and nurses and the cops and firefighters." McCain, he said, "doesn't really have an economic plan, and everybody sort of knows it."

Did Obama have a few too many beers at this bbq? It's one thing to disagree with your opponent's plan, but he's starting to sound like the kids who ran against me in student council elections. And maybe he should take a look at McCain's detailed economic policies.

As for Obama's vision, the numbers say far more than any turn of phrase: he's planning on spending $800 billion, and that's going to hurt middle-class citizens the most. Why? Because that money has to come from somewhere, and it will be drained out of an economy that is already far from robust. And when the economy goes south, the jobs of middle-class Americans go with it. Ultimately, the middle class will pay for that extra spending in higher taxes, because Obama just won’t be able to squeeze that much money from “the rich.” Obama’s tax plan would reduce the incentives for the most productive Americans to work; the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) would rise from 44.6% to 62.8%. Obama’s plan amounts to a cut of one-third in the amount that these people keep from their earnings, after taxes.

So what will the high-earners do? Work less and produce less taxable wealth. Either that, or find ways to shelter their income from taxes. In both cases, the bills for Obama’s return to big government will come due for the same middle-income wage-earners he claims to defend.

Did the crowd in Eau Claire get to hear that?

Correct usage of the Verb " To Biden"

I had a different topic all set to go, but once I found out about Obama's veep nomination, I had to jump on the Bash Biden Bandwagon.

I remember one of Biden's first run ins with plagiarism. It was during the 88 presidential campaign and Biden was an up and coming youngster who was all set to give George Bush Senior a run for his money. Before the Democratic field was narrowed a whole host of allegations came up about Biden's uh "failure to reference" key components of his speeches. It was soon afterward that investigative reporters discovered a trend of Biden "duplicating the work of others" as far back as his academic days. Over the next months before the key primaries, Biden's reputation was savaged enough so that he never made much of a splash in that campaign or any campaign since.

Well, I was just a young'n in High School during that 88 campaign and we were learning about sophisticated concepts in our English and History classes such as footnotes and references. I distinctly remember my US History professor telling us, before an important paper was due, to properly footnote and include all references because "You don't want to end up like Joe Biden".

It was precisely at that moment the verb to Biden was created. That verb quickly became a shorthand term my friends and I appropriated to refer to "repurposing each others work".
For Example
"Hey Bobby, did you do that math homework last night?"
"Nah man, I Bidened it off of Tommy. It saved me a ton of time."

But the verb can also be used as a participle as well
"How does Sheila get her work in so fast, she never studies at all?"
"Oh, she's been Bidening the answers from the guys down the hall".

The infinitive form of this verb also has a particularly catchy resonance to it
"Hey guys, I was out all night at the U2 concert so I'm going to have to Biden someone's book report on Catcher in the Rye."

Some verbs can also be used as nouns too:
"After seeing the papers had the same paragraph structure, same silly jokes and same sentences word for word, Professor Johnson realized he was looking at the worst case of Bidening he'd seen in years."

Honestly, we did do this and it caught on for at least two of my high school years. That's especially significant seeing as how most trends back then had a half life of two weeks.

Now Joe Biden is back in the spotlight and it's fitting that he end up with someone like Obama. This means the Democratic ticket now features the man with no significant record alongside the man with no significant authentic record.



What a Joke.



I'm so very happy that I'm voting for McCain.

Obama-Biden -- that's the ticket

I was just delighted when I awoke this morning to learn that Barack Obama has tagged Joe Biden to be his running mate. The selection not only highlights Obama's weaknesses, but it also adds to the Democratic ticket a man who has significant flaws of his own.

To begin with the obvious: Could Obama have shouted more loudly to the American public "Yes, it is true that I have no experience!"? Had he picked a running mate who merely had somewhat more experience than he himself has, that would have have comforted the public, but would not have cast a spotlight on Obama's obvious absence of any practical experience. By selecting a man who has made Senatorial politics his life's job (he's on his sixth term), Obama effectively announced that he needs lots and lots and lots of help in the experience department. In other words, Obama's choice is the worst possible backdrop to highlight his greatest weakness.

Next most obvious point: What in the world States does Obama think Biden is going to help him deliver? Biden is the Senator for Delaware, for goodness' sake. He has name recognition from his longevity and his own (failed) Presidential runs, but he does not have emotional resonance for any specific geographic region. He's not going to carry any useful states or regions for Obama -- which is, again, a reminder that he's simply there to offset Obama's myriad failings.

Another obvious point: Biden is a thief. He doesn't steal objects, he steals ideas. Thus, he has a long history of plagiarism, which is nicely summarized at the "Famous Plagiarists" website:

In 1965 Biden plagiarized while writing a paper as a student at the Syracuse University Law School in a legal methods course which he failed because of that copied paper. Such “stressless scholarship” as it is euphemistically called has become all too common in the modern Internet era with countless cheatsites and “research services” offering to sell students papers on topics from A to Z.

[snip]

In an article entitled “Biden’s Belly Flop”, Newsweek printed Joe Biden’s yearbook picture from his college days and a copy of his law school transcripts with the big “F” in his transcripts circled. Biden was given a chance to repeat his legal methods course, and above the “F” his retake grade of 80% was eventually penciled in. Being a repeat offender when it came to plagiarism made things much, much worse for Biden than they might have been otherwise in his failed bid for the Democratic presidential ticket in 1987.

Senator Biden’s plagiarism of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neal Kinnock took place at a campaign stump at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. In closing his speech, Biden took Kinnock’s ideas and language as if they were his very own inspired thoughts, prefacing Kinnock’s ideas with the phrase “I started thinking as I was coming over here . . . “. Little did Biden suspect that video footage of this speech would be spliced together with footage of Kinnock’s speech in an “attack video” which would be distributed by members of the Dukakis campaign.

[snip]

Name recognition was no longer a problem for Biden, but not the kind of name recognition which would assist his campaign for the democratic presidential nomination. His name was now a byword for plagiarism. His situation became a classic example of plagiarism for high school teachers and college instructors across the nation lecturing on the evils of unacknowledged source use.

Biden initially denied any wrongdoing, claiming that this was just an inadvertent lack of acknowledgement. Yet there were other instances of rhetorical borrowing from speeches made by Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. And the fact that Biden had given other speeches using the Kinnock passages without acknowledgment suggested that the lifting was more than just an inadvertent oversight.

Given the fact that the public is always outraged by signs of corruption in the White House, and given how badly burned America was when the hyper-corrupt Clintons entered that same institution, do Americans really want to have a do-over with Biden? His disregard for ethics is not casual, it's habitual, and there's every reason to believe that he will fall again. Further, given increasing evidence that Obama has a corrupt streak (think Rezko), do we really need a two-for-one pair when it comes to dishonesty on the Democratic ticket?

Oh, here's another obvious point: Biden suffers from foot-in-mouth disease. Of my two favorite Biden quotations, one concerns Obama himself: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." The other Biden quotation I just love, one that tells you way more about the man than anyone really wants to know, is this one, a statement Biden made to a potential voter during his first Presidential, when that voter questioned his law school grades: "I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do." As to that last point, I guess he and Obama are a good match, because both that ordinary Americans are stupid.

Wait! Wait! I've got another obvious point: Obama hit the political scene as someone who had consistently opposed the Iraq War. That's how he was able to spirit the most diehard Democrats away from the Hillary camp. But Biden was pro-War. He voted for it, and made such memorable statements as "One thing is clear: These weapons must be must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power." Having a running mate who was a hawk is not going to placate the MoveOn crowd.

Lastly, there's the fact that Biden has the whiff of failure about him. He's a two-time loser in the Presidential sweeptakes, never having made it through the primaries.

Let me wrap up here with Jim Geraghty's take on Biden, some of which echoes my own thoughts:

It's hard for Obama supporters to play the age card any longer, as their potential veep is all of six years younger than McCain.

The candidate of hope and change selected a running mate who was first elected to public office when Obama was 9 years old. He was elected to the Senate when Obama was 11.

The bottom of the ticket running on change has been in Washington forever.

He voted for the Iraq War — which Obama touted as the most important decision since the end of the Cold War.

Biden supports a ban on partial-birth abortion. He supports deploying U.S. troops to Darfur in Sudan.

His mouth will be an absolute time bomb. Will he refer to Delaware as a "slave state" again? Will he discuss who's behind the counter at 7-11s?

I'm reminded of a Rudy Giuliani response when Biden took a shot at him — "Joe's a good guy, we all criticize each other during this time... But for Joe Biden to talk about qualifications — he's never run a city, he's never run a state, he's never run a business."

That statement is true for both men on the Democratic ticket.

Other than Biden's mouth, it's a relatively safe pick. But since he'll be spending just about every waking moment between now and Election Day in front of television cameras... look out.

Bottom line: When the press isn't covering for Obama, and he's working off his own arrogance and inexperience, he's the gift that just keeps giving, something the McCain campaign instantly figured out.

Ivory Tower Syndrome

I consider myself one of the most fortunate individuals in the planet. I am sure this feeling is shared by many of the egomaniacs who populate the Bay Area; in fact I am positive that many BayAreans are indeed part of the egomaniacs club. But seriously, I mean it. I am about to begin my 5th year as PhD student in Electrical Engineering at one of the best institutions of higher education in the world, Stanford. Before that I worked for 4 years in the knowledge intensive Silicon Valley high tech industry. I have spent the last 8 years of my life interacting with some of the smartest people in the planet from all walks of life and from all kinds of cultures/countries. Having been born and raised in a small rural town in Spain, I am still puzzled that I was able to come this far. We'll leave that story for a different time and place.

In Silicon Valley it isn't that unusual to know people who are proficient in three languages, hold several degrees from prestigious institutions and who work at the hottest high tech companies. At Stanford, the faculty is made of the best people in their respective fields. Students go through a very tough selection process before they are offered admission. This is why I am so puzzled that Obama enjoys so much popularity on campus across the board. The liberal bias amongst faculty members in top American institutions is nothing new. George Will of the Washington Post put it best in his 2004 column Academia, Stuck to the Left:

"Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations -- except such nations usually have the merit, such as it is, of candor about their ideological monopolies. In contrast, American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome. They do indeed cultivate diversity -- in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. In everything but thought."

Even taking that bias into account, I find the Obama worship professed by most of my fellow Stanford community members mind boggling. I have had the courage to ask some ardent Obama supporters why do they support him, at the risk of being exposed, and all I have gotten back is a bunch of nonsense. When asked to name a single significant legislative achievement by the man, they all answer along this fellow's lines to Chris Mathews in this MSNBC interview. It is also obvious that Obama doesn't have any executive experience at a major government entity (he's been no major, governor or secretary of anything). Even Jimmy Carter, the President he is most often compared to, given the similar way "from obscurity to nomination" in which both clinched their respective nominations, had been Governor of Georgia before starting his bid for the White House. Needless to say that Jimmy Carter has been consistently ranked in the bottom half with respect to other US Presidents by academics. Obama doesn't have either Eisenhower's impeccable military credentials. So lacking the legislative, executive and military credentials that have been associated with US Presidents (at least XX-th century ones), I find it quite astonishing that some many of these Stanford people like the guy so much. When confronted with these facts, the most honest amongst Obama's fans point to his academic degrees; the uber-honest point also to his "African" American background and that it's about time to have an African American President. I have put "African" between quotes because Obama isn't really an "African American" as it is understood in the traditional American sense. Obama's African background is contemporary African, he isn't related, that we know of, to the Africans who were brought to the American colonies as slaves in the centuries prior to the American Civil war. From that point of view, his alleged "African American" background is fake.

So in terms of "pure qualifications" all we are left with is a guy who has degrees from top schools. Now, how many of those guys (and ladies) are produced every year? This year, at Stanford alone, we had more than 4000 people receiving an undergrad or grad degree. Even if you take the top 10 % among those (since some people would rush to point Obama's Latin honors in his Law degree) that's more than 400 people, every year and at Stanford alone!!!!

It doesn't look very convincing to me. This Obama experience has just confirmed what I had always sensed prior to coming to Stanford as grad student. Highly smart people are to be respected for their work in the field they are experts in. When it comes to giving opinions about political candidates, their opinion is worth neither more nor less than that of the guy next door who might be a plumber (with all due respect to plumbers). Just as you surely would prefer to call a plumber than to call a Stanford Professor to fix your broken pipe, I think that you shouldn't count on the perceived "endorsement" of Obama by the intellectual elite as something to make up for Obama's lack of presidential qualifications. Those intellectual elites are as human as the rest; in our 1 person 1 vote democracy, when it comes to politics their opinion isn't worth more than that of any other person. In fact, in Obama's case, one has every reason to be suspicious of that endorsement given the consistent support of the so called "intellectual elite" to Democratic candidates.

I would like to end this post with a reference what many will find completely outrageous. In my opinion, it just evidences that highly smart people can make extremely dumb (even evil) decisions when it comes to endorsing political figures. This is an excerpt of a well known letter by Niels Bohr to Werner Heisenberg regarding their 1941 meeting:

"Personally, I remember every word of our conversations, which took place on a background of extreme sorrow and tension for us here in Denmark. In particular, it made a strong impression both on Margrethe and me, and on everyone at the Institute that the two of you spoke to, that you and Weizsäcker expressed your definite conviction that Germany would win and that it was therefore quite foolish for us to maintain the hope of a different outcome of the war and to be reticent as regards all German offers of cooperation. I also remember quite clearly our conversation in my room at the Institute, where in vague terms you spoke in a manner that could only give me the firm impression that, under your leadership, everything was being done in Germany to develop atomic weapons and that you said that there was no need to talk about details since you were completely familiar with them and had spent the past two years working more or less exclusively on such preparations. I listened to this without speaking since [a] great matter for mankind was at issue in which, despite our personal friendship, we had to be regarded as representatives of two sides engaged in mortal combat."

Apparently, the letter was never sent; it was kept by Bohr in his archives and was made public by his family in 2002. Luckily for us, Heisenberg was wrong.

Experience? Change?

Experience can be commonly defined as knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered, or undergone.

John McCain ended his career in the Navy in the early 1980’s as a Captain; from there he entered politics and Congress in 1982. He was elected to the Senate in 1986, and has been instrumental in creating highly successful polices such as campaign finance reform, and suggested controversial, but later successful, polices such as the Iraq surge.

Barack Obama, however, spent less than 6 months as a US Senator before deciding to run for President. This lack of political tenure is what Obama feels makes him a special candidate, and the best choice for President.

Yet in last weeks Saddleback forum, Obama said something that left many Americans confused. When asked which Supreme Court Justice he would not have nominated, he mentioned Clarence Thomas. His answer may surprise you. Obama said that Thomas did not have the judicial experience to take such a high seat in the judicial system. Yet Obama has the least amount of political experience than any other person ever to run for President. Doesn’t this seem like a double standard?

Somehow still, this “outsider” characteristic intrigues many people to vote for Obama. They feel with less time in Washington, he is less tainted than other politicians. Obama’s idea of “Change” comes from the fact that he can bring new ideas, and a new face to American Politics. However, according to the Washington Post, Barack Obama voted with his Democratic colleagues 96% of the time.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but I don’t see that being much of a “Change” than what every other democrat in the Senate does. The only "Change" Obama will bring, is the fact he would be the least experienced President in United States History.

Nader, VPs and Polls

Media reports that Nader believes Obama will pick Clinton as his running mate. Why is the media still listening to this guy? I can't believe he has any insight into this. Although we can thank him for getting Bush elected in 2000, it's about time he should go off into the sunset. And yes, the antecedent of he is Nader, not Obama although there are times I wonder why the media is still listening to Obama.

It will be interesting to see who Obama does pick as his running mate. Supposedly it is down to Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, and Joe Biden. If Obama picks Biden, that would really emphasize Obama's inexperience considering how long Biden has been around. Biden's knack for talking just short of forever probably won't help Obama. Being from Indiana, I think Bayh might be the best choice for Obama.

Finally, a Rasmussen poll says that McCain leads Obama, 46-43% in Florida, which is excellent news. Ohio is really close as well, and nationally, the lead for Obama is just a couple of points. These are all excellent signs for McCain, but a lot can change over the next few weeks during the conventions. Remember in 2004, it was just after the RNC and DNC that Bush really got out in front of Kerry and never really relinquished the lead.

It Depends On What The Meaning of the Word 'Defeat' Is

I'm a recent college grad and don't yet own a TV. It's times like this past weekend, when Michael Phelps won his 8th gold medal and when Pastor Rick Warren interviewed Senator Obama and Senator McCain, that I remind myself to get my lazy butt to Best Buy.

I'll leave Phelps to another blog. But really, while my feelings about McCain are different, they're just as strong. Especially after Saturday.

San Jose-born Rick Warren is the author of the best-selling book "The Purpose-Driven Life" and is an evangelical pastor of a Lake Forest, CA megachurch. His demeanor is a far cry from Jerry Falwell or other Bible-thumpers – he's direct and firm about his beliefs but has a truly compassionate, down-to-earth approach. He asked the candidates great questions and I really appreciated his openness and hospitality to both Obama and McCain.

One thing that's good about not having a TV is you're forced to scour the web for transcripts and video clips. It really gave me a feel for what the candidates were actually saying as opposed to wincing whenever they stuttered or listening to the TV pundits' takes. I was struck with the differences in the candidates' responses in answer to Warren's question about evil in the world, and I wanted to quote their answers in full here. I promise the difference is striking and it's worth reading.

The question from Rick Warren: was "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?"

Here's Obama's response:

Obama: "Evil does exist. I mean, we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil sadly on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who have viciously abused their children and I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task. But we can be soldiers in that process and we can confront it when we see it.

"Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, but you know a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."

 Rick Warren: "In the name of Good?"

 Obama: "In the name of Good. And I think one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that, you know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're doing to be doing good."

Now check out McCain's answer:

McCain: "Defeat it. Couple points, one, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of Hell, I will get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do that. I will get that done. No one should be allowed to take thousands of American – innocent American lives. Of course Evil must be defeated.

"My friends, we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century – radical Islamic extremists. Not long ago in Baghdad, Al-Qaeda took two young women who were mentally disabled and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace and by remote control, detonated those suicide vests. If that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is and we're going to defeat this evil and the central battleground according to David Petraeus and Osama bin Laden is the battles – is Baghdad, Mosul and Iraq and we are winning and we are succeeding and our troops will come home with honor and victory and not in defeat and that's what's happening. We have – and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us Al-Qaeda continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America. My friends, we must face this challenge. We can face this challenge and we must totally defeat it and we're in a long struggle, but when I'm around the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform, I have no doubt, none."

Some might say that Obama's answer is nuanced, that yes, America could use some humility in international affairs. But I don't like his use of the word "humility." Oblique Obama is suggesting that going into Iraq wasn't just a strategic or intelligence mistake, but an example of American arrogance. Now we may have been over-confident in the post-Iraq war situation – I'm with Obama on that, if that's what he means. But should we be humble and more soft-spoken or just smarter when we confront the bad guys?

McCain wasn't suggesting that defeating evil means ridding the world of it for all time, which is how Obama chose to see it. McCain riffed on the idea that our duty as Americans is to defeat those explosions of evil that crop up in our time. There will be more, and yeah, God will have to ultimately beat evil and death, but Obama could not just come out and say we should defeat evil at this moment in history.

But the worst was when Obama implied that we – i.e. America – sometimes do evil in the name of good. He didn't get specific here and stayed in the safe realm of philosophy, but he seems to have equated America's invasion of Iraq with that "evil in Darfur," as well as with abusive parents and street criminals. Huh? 

You might have thought that McCain's response sounded a lot like the cowboy-ish "smoke-'em-out-of-their-holes" George Bush. I think McCain isn't a cowboy like Bush, but I'll argue about that on another day. At the very least, in Saturday's interview McCain was straightforward and clear about his goals and America's self-image. Obama kept it vague in order to stay above our heads and insert whatever assumptions we can gather about what he meant.

 

Why I support McCain

By some accounts, I should be the biggest Obama supporter out there. After all, the guy looks like me, we have the same ethnic background...although I'm darker, fatter and I have a fuller afro. Obama's speeches have style and flair. He lights up the crowd with his energy and enthusiasm. I happen to be a musician and I appreciate a good performer that can work a crowd. But unfortunately you can't vote for a candidate basedsolely upon looks and style. If so, Paris Hilton's mock commmercial might not be so far off base and the Jolie/Pitt ticket would win in a landslide.

Beyond the style, flair and rhetoric you have to vote for a candidate based upon the candidate's experience and what they stand for.

That is why the only option for me is McCain. McCain's experience as a Senator for a vast number of years trumps Obama's 15 minutes of fame significantly. And yes, contrary to several articles recently published in papers and online, experience matters. Having the vast amount of experience that McCain has accumulated means that there is an established record of positions and behavior on key issues. True, not all of the positions over the course of one's vast career will be ones that are popular. Sometimes there will be positions which I flat out disagree with. But at least there is a clear pattern which establishes the character of the man. McCain's experience and voting record provide us with insight that he is a man who will stick to his beliefs even to the point of alienating some of his friends. History, gleaned from his experience, has also shown him to be a compromiser in some areas and a bipartisan leader. To put it simply, McCain's experience reveals that he is the type of leader who would make a good president. His experience indicates he is strong enough to defend his position against all, but aware enough to know when to compromise in order to achieve the higher good.

Obama has none of this experience. As a result, it appears as if he shifts his stance with each passing wind. I am not saying it is unacceptable to change your direction on an issue, but what is crucial is the reasoning why. With no experience to measure against, Obama's continually shifting positions appear to be the result of fear and a longing to be popular more so than a genuine conviction. Too bad we don't have much of a Senate record to analyze. Of the 148 days he was in office, he didn't even take a stand on most issues where a vote was called for, voting "present" in most occasions.

To be fair, political experience doesn't have to be the only form of experience that qualifies a candidate. I'm even willing to accept experience in fields outside government. Had Obama built up a successful enterprise from the ground up to be a market leader, that experience would speak volumes towards his leadership skills and decision making. Had he achieved some significant accomplishment in the world of science, art or medicine it would show that he was both a man of vision and execution. Regrettably Obama has no such accomplishments to put on his resume. McCain, on the other hand, has proven himself to be a leader, an innovator and yes a compromiser. He has a verifiable record of bipartisan cooperation that is etched in stone like heiroglyhpics on a Pharoah's tomb.

I really really want to like Obama more. He's such a good looking guy and I eagerly await the day America chooses her first Black President. But I want a president, regardless of color, who has the proven experience to accomplish great things and work across party lines. I want a president, regardless of age, who will not be intimidated by terrorist threats or the threat of unpopularity. I want a president, regardless of gender, who will respect me by allowing me to keep more of my hard earned money.

That is why I am going to vote for McCain.

The tide is turning

It's always fun to flirt with the edge of a cliff. We dance up to it, proud of our courage in getting so close to the that knife's edge between security and oblivion. But when we actually look into the abyss, well, that's when sensible people start getting nervous. Right now, sensible people are backing off of the abyss that is the Democratic party.

The Washington Post has just reported that McCain had his top fundraising month to date, although he's still not achieving financial parity with Obama:

Republican Sen. John McCain posted the best fundraising month of his presidential campaign in July, bringing in $27 million, but his supporters are bracing for the near-certainty that he will be operating at a severe financial disadvantage in the two-month stretch between the end of the party political conventions and Election Day.

Even the bad news in that paragraph -- that Obama is way ahead in the money game -- isn't quite as bad as it looks. To begin with, while the media has carefully looked the other way whenever someone tries to flag its attention about Obama's fund-raising irregularities, it's becoming apparent that at least some of Obama's money is actually funny money -- very funny. Thus, after spending countless hours pouring through Obama's public information, Pamela Geller discovered that all is not as it seems:

Half a million dollars had been donated from overseas by unidentified people "not employed".

Digging deeper, all sorts of very bizarre activity jumped at us. Dr and JJ continued to break it down and pull data from various sources. We found Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded in one day,

How about this gibberish donor on the 30th of April in 2008.

A donor named Hbkjb, jkbkj

City: Jkbjnj

Works for: Kuman Bank (doesn't exist)

Occupation: Balanon Jalalan

Amount: $1,077.23

or the donor Doodad,

The # of transactions = 1,044

The $ contributed = $10,780.00

This Doodad character works for FDGFDGF and occupation is DFGFDG

The more questions we answered the more questions we discovered.

This means that Obama may not have quite as much spending money as he's been boasting about. More to the point, despite having had for some months enough money to make Midas jealous, Obama simply isn't moving up in the polls the way he should. The media is in love with him, the activists are wildly excited about him, and he's spending money like water, but he just can't seem to get that bump he needs to lock onto the White House.

Obama is also facing the ever present Hillary threat. Jonah Goldberg sums up that problem rather nicely:

For months now people have been saying to me, “Do you really think they’re gone?” “Is it finally over?” “Is the coast clear?”

The questions have been in response to Barack Obama’s supposedly yeoman service in putting an end to the Clintons in public life.

My response to those who believe our long national nightmare is over has always been: “Have you seen no monster movies?”

I suspect that there's going to be a fair amount of buyer's remorse at the Democratic Convention, and that gives Hillary the chance to pop back into her "rightful" place as the Democratic nominee. When I first realized this was a possibility, I got quite nervous. After having painted Obama as the worst of both the old and the new Left, Hillary was actually starting to look pretty good. I could see conservative Democrats who had gotten fearful of Obama, and who were eying the possibility of voting for McCain, heave a sigh of relief as a palatable Democrat took over the ballot.

The problem, of course, is the same old Hillary problem: While she may be better than Obama, vast numbers of American voters deeply dislike her, and they find unsavory the thought of her husband getting a second chance at those poor White House interns. In addition, the Democrats as a whole will have a problem with disaffected black voters who will be offend that the party, having first embraced Obama, then summarily rejected him when the going got a little tough. Just as hard core Hillary voters became hostile when the party dumped her for Obama (see this blogger, for example), the African-American community is not going to appreciate seeing that same little dance played out in reverse.

In other words, the Democratic party is caught between a rock and a hard place, both of its own making. Obama's money hasn't helped his candidacy as much as it should have and the fact that McCain is starting to see real money flow in is a sign that Obama's popularity is waning as McCain's rises. Even if McCain doesn't see any more substantial sums flow in, he's already well-positioned -- not by virtue of his own policies and campaign spending, but because of the myriad failures coming from the Democratic party. It was true, then, that this election was one for the Democrats to lose.

Believe me, I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch. I know that there is still a very real chance that Obama will win and we'll see the Carter Presidency redux. Nevertheless, while a few months ago I was experiencing flat despair at the thought of the Obama juggernaut, I now feel a cautious optimism that the tide is turning and that sanity will prevail amongst the American voters.

Jon Bon Jovi for President!

A couple of weeks ago, John McCain shocked many when he released the now uber-popular Celebrity ad attacking Obama. In case you missed it, here it comes,






Some members of the pro-Obama media, ie most American mainstream media, were offended at the comparison and instead rushed to defend Obama by saying that no other Presidential candidate had been able to congregate such enormous amount of people in Germany, or any other European country for that matter, in recent memory.

That argument just shows that indeed, in the minds of many Europeans, Obama is not seen as an American politician, but guess what?; you got it!, as an American celebrity.

Having been born and raised in Spain and having lived in France for a couple of years during my undergrad (before moving to Silicon Valley for good), I am all too aware of the love/hate relationship of my fellow Europeans towards the United States. When I talked to a German friend recently whether he was embarrassed that so many of his fellow Germans had shown up in Berlin (remember that Obama never managed to surpass 100.000 people in any of his US rallies) he not only echoed my sentiment, ie that since Obama has been portrayed by the European media as an American celebrity, he wasn't surprised that so many people showed up, but he also tried to mitigate his embarrassment by adding "you have to take into account that it was one of those rare summer days in Berlin with good weather; surely the favorable meteorology pushed people outside their homes".

I want to propose the candidacy of another American celebrity for president. And no, I am not talking about Paris Hilton. Since my unscientific poll among fellow Europeans seems to confirm my sentiment that the only reason Obama is popular in Europe is because he is perceived as an American celebrity over there, I want to propose Jon Bon Jovi for President!!!

Think about it, Jon Bon Jovi is about the same age as Senator Obama (1 year younger in fact); Jon Bon Jovi has an impressive political record as Senator Obama. Given their similar political qualifications (some could argue that Jon Bon Jovi's world touring experience gives him an edge over Senator Obama but I leave that discussion for another time), I suggest we compare the rest, ie, their American celebrity status.

Jon Bon Jovi has been way more popular among Europeans and non Americans than Senator Obama will ever be (remember that One Hundred Million Bon Jovi Fans Can't Be Wrong?), Jon Bon Jovi has a superb record as philanthropist, one that Senator Obama can only dream of; plus, and I hope we can all agree in this one, Jon Bon Jovi writes much better songs than Senator Obama.

To summarize, Jon Bon Jovi is as qualified as (if not more than) Senator Obama on the political department yet his record as American celebrity surpasses anything that Senator Obama can imagine for himself, even with his exaggerated ego. I go for Jon Bon Jovi. What do you think?

PS1: I leave you with the Bon Jovi song that brings to my mind what an "Obama Presidency" would look like




PS2: Still don't believe Obama is a celebrity in the traditional sense of the word? Watch him Barack Roll'ing!!!

Does Obama Know that Russia is Not Our Friend?

I must admit that Senator John McCain was not my first choice to be President of the United States in 2008, but Senator Barack Obama’s naïve statements about the Russian invasion of Georgia is more evidence that only McCain has the experience to be a strong President. Furthermore, if you would have told me a year ago that I would be participating in one of the leading, independent blogs for Senator McCain, I would not have believed you.

That said, I am here. I am stepping up to the plate for Senator McCain’s bid for the U.S. Presidency. Why? Senator McCain is really our only choice for an experientially-qualified President. Metaphorically, McCain left his corner of the ring swinging hard for the democratically-elected government of our ally Georgia. Obama left his corner by dancing and prancing around the truth, and is continuing to modify his position.

McCain looked presidential when discussing the invasion of Georgia in the media. On the other hand, Obama and his surrogates looked weak and unprepared to respond. This is one of the many enormous differences between Senators McCain and Obama. McCain knew in his gut that Russia is an imperialist, totalitarian regime at heart; McCain instinctively knew how and how hard to spank Prime Minister Putin in the Western media.

Was Obama feeling uncomfortable that he had no poll numbers to read before responding? Yes. Does Obama know from experience that Russia is not really our friend in supporting democracy around the world? No.

Why are you voting?

In just under 3 months, America will choose the next leader of the free world. In a virtual dead heat, American voters can’t seem to decide between two very different candidates. One candidate brings to the table years of experience, credibility, and honor, while the other seems only to be able to deliver an entertaining speech. Scary, isn’t it? That America, in a time of war, economic uncertainty, and escalation of threats from abroad, is intrigued by a candidate simply by his charm, articulation, and general appearance, and know very little about the issues and how he plans to solve them.

The fact is, most American’s don’t want to spend the time to learn the issues, let alone know how the candidates stand on the issues. They will decide on how well they can warm up to someone, how well that person can merely suggest being able to help them.

For the next 12 weeks, I will bring to you a new issue each week, and explain to you the different ways each candidate plans on tackling the issue. Put the title of Republican, Democrat, or even Independent aside, and take an impartial, no nonsense look at the issues and the differing solutions. It is then that you will realize that much more goes into choosing the next President then a catchy slogan.

Hello World!

Dear all,

Following the well known tradition in Computer Programming, where the background of some us lies, we start this blogging experience with a "Hello World" first posting.

We are a group of independent bloggers passionately committed to Senator John McCain's bid for the US Presidency. We believe that his military background, experience in politics at the national level, maverickness and love for the United States makes him the better candidate to succeed President Bush in the highest political office of the world.

America's leadership in world affairs is a very serious matter. As the recent crisis in the Caucasian Republic of Georgia shows, the world needs more than ever a strong America. At the same time, Americans want a leader who will be able to tackle our more serious domestic problems, such as energy; a leader who must not hesitate to work with leaders of both parties in order to make sure that the best proposals for the future of America are the ones which become law.

Senator John McCain is overwhelmingly superior in every single important aspect to Senator Obama. Through the following weeks we will make our case to you, hoping that you too passionately embrace Senator John McCain's platform.

Yours truly,

Bloggers for John McCain

PS: We leave you with a video that shows the positive opinion held by many prominent Democrats about John McCain