Well hello! Glad you've dropped by. Feel free to have a good read, but you should know that
I'm no longer writing on this blog. The new blog is over here: Pursuit of Redemption.

Tag: McCain

Ha! The Best Rick Roll Ever.

Posted by – 11/12/08

Election 2008: Semi-live Blog

Posted by – 11/4/08

6:09: My prediction: Tomorrow, the MSM will stop hating McCain. He’ll become a favorite again, and analysis of his campaign will even be sympathetic.

6:19: 41 minutes until the campaign ads stop. Finally.

6:21: Looks like so far, McCain has the lead in both electoral college and popular vote (8 to 3, 53% to 46% respectively). I guess the polls close early in the racist states.

6:28: Ace: Biggest loss of the night? Megyn Kelly is not wearing the glasses. I thought she was saving them for the rally night.

6:30: Teh Burl is drunkblogging. More…

McCain's only saving grace is… the media?

Posted by – 10/28/08

I think Obama will probably take the Presidency here in a week, but the disparate polls should bring us pause. How is it that consistently over the past few weeks there have been some polls with Obama up by as much as 12 points and other that put the two candidates firmly within the margin of error of each other? Obivously, there are discrepancies in the way that different polling organizations present the data, but what I want to look at is the undecideds. My hypothesis is simple, short, and may prove to be completely right or way off base here in a week. 

With all the media coverage and fawning over Obama that we’ve seen, my guess is that if someone hasn’t made up their mind about Obama yet, they probably won’t now.

They’ve certainly had ample opportunity. Why are they still undecided? Are they holding out for more information on Obama or are they waiting to see if McCain loses all his marbles? I suspect the latter, and so if McCain proves sane over the next week, I think you’ll see the vast majority of undecided voters break for McCain. The big difference maker will be this: are the polls giving Obama a huge margin right or are the ones showing a dead-heat correct? Only one of the scenarios will have my theory giving McCain the presidency. It’s quite an uphill battle for him.

In response to a debate on refundable tax credits

Posted by – 10/22/08

This blog is a response to a post on Facebook that simply grew too large to continue there. The original message, which was not made by me, touched on the hints of Socialism in Obama’s refundable tax credits. From there, a back-and-forth occurred with several different people, and the applicable portion of the latest comment is quoted below.

I definitely understand that Obama is not infallible and that some criticism of him is not baseless. In this case the criticism is misleading at best. All of the tax credits proposed are to go to people who work. For one, “welfare check” implies money from the government for those who don’t work. Those that do work still pay social security taxes and medicare taxes, as well as excise taxes on the gas you use or your telephone bill. These tax credits are designed to somewhat offset these taxes in particular. Currently, according to http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/813/, the government is giving nearly $53 billion in the same type of tax credits to some 57 million people who fall into the zero or negative income tax category. This has been supported strongly by republicans in the past because it helps to keep lower income people who work off of welfare and gives them more of an incentive to work. More…

Obama's polling slips

Posted by – 10/20/08

Not that I’ve ever put much stock in polls, but some of you simply require them to be the center-point of your argument — as if the sheer popularity of a candidate disproves all his negatives. For you, I present this:

RCP Average on 10/14/08: Obama 50.2, McCain 42

RCP Average on 10/20/08: Obama 48.8, McCain 44

Only 6 days ago, Obama was up 8.2 points. His lead has since dropped by 3.4 points, putting him at a 4.8 point lead.

Not that I care about polls.

The Problem with McCain, Republicans

Posted by – 10/17/08

I’ve hesitated in writing this. Not because I feel I shouldn’t speak a word against McCain, but because I knew this thing was going to be a whopper. I haven’t much free time these days, and I wasn’t sure I wanted to invest a few hours in this topic right now. Typically, my more lengthy pieces have been small comments I knew I wanted to make that grew as I wrote them. Having mulled over and discussed the following for some time now, I knew this was not going to be a perfunctory post. However, I’ve promised this to several of you, and it’s high time. You can think of this as the I am not a Republican counterpart to my previous I am not a Democrat. More…

Another truth nugget of tankie-ness

Posted by – 10/5/08

Patterico details the LA Times’ response to McCain saying he’d fire the SEC Chairman, how they were wrong, and how long it took them to correct it.

The correction comes 10 days after I sent my letter — and too late to do much good. Because the L.A. Times and Jake Tapper failed to issue quick corrections, the public will likely remember this as a gaffe by McCain — one in which he foolishly spoke of exercising a power that he wouldn’t have as President.

I know it’s impossible to prove a negative, but seriously, is there any way the vast majority of major media outlets are not in the tank for Obama?

In Response to Larissa

Posted by – 9/29/08

This comment response grew to the point of absurdity in length and earned itself the status of a post. It is in response to my friend Larissa’s comments here about Braceletgate. Wait, I promised not to do that.

Well! To which comment shall I respond? First, glad to have you here. I always enjoy a lively debate.

I haven’t gotten an opportunity to really opine on the happenings of Friday night’s debate yet as I’ve been working and getting sick all weekend. The one probably led to the other.

In short, my thoughts are this: reactions to the debate are absolutely all over the place. Pundits have a mishmash, smorgasbord of opinion. A poll can be found to agree with almost anyone’s perception of the debate. Diehard Republicans and Democrats, a group to which I believe you reside, seem to be sure their respective candidate wonderfully trounced the other and came off looking great. In the last two days, I’ve seen and read The Faithful of both camps feverishly repeating the rhetoric from spin alley, and the broad spectrum of polls taken after the debate, both scientifically and otherwise, seem to reflect the defined positions of those being polled more than anything else. What’s funny is that much of the criticism of the candidates could be, and actually is, applied to either. You mentioned that you thought McCain was rude and disrespectful. I’ve heard the same argument leveled at Obama for his continuous interruptions and references to McCain as “John.” (I had actually not read the arguments about McCain being disrespectful anywhere until I looked up network news coverage of the debates to get their poll numbers. Seems that was a common thread amongst former Democratic operatives like Stephanopoulos.) What a person saw in the debate depends largely on the political lenses through which they watched. More…

Prediction on First Debate

Posted by – 9/26/08

My prediction for tonight’s first presidential debate: Obama comes off looking childish and ignorant. Why? Because he’s taken 3 days to study up on foreign policy — you know, so he doesn’t make any more powerful declarations like the one concerning the US not having enough Arabic translators in Afghanistan. Because of the recent economic turmoil, the topics of the debate will shift dramatically to issues of economics rather than foreign policy, and Obama doesn’t have his trusty teleprompter tonight.

On a somewhat related issue, apparently the meeting at the White House yesterday saw McCain showing quiet support for John Boehner and the House Republicans’ plan to have Wall Street bail itself out rather than force Main Street to foot the bill. But here’s what’s ridiculous: The Dems agree with Bush on this bailout, and they’ve got a majority to pass this bill. Hear me: there is no need to have Republican support for this bailout, they’ve got the votes to pass it. So why do the Dems act as if it’s necessary? Because they know it’s a bad idea that’s being rushed through to make Congress look effective, and in a year or so when history proves it, the Dems don’t want to have gone down in flames all by themselves. They’re setting it up so they can rewrite history on this bailout just like they rewrote history on the failed policies that caused this problem in the first place.

So, that's TWO now

Posted by – 9/19/08

For the record, there are now two major issues on which McCain is proven to have been right, while Obama was wrong. Or at best, “present.”

Number One, The Surge. At this point, I think we can all agree that McCain’s push for a troop surge in Iraq was the best idea at the time. The best admission of being on the wrong side of history we can get out of Obama was during O’Reilly’s interview:

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

It’s safe to say that Obama’s wildest dreams were that it would end poorly, increasing his chances at election. The Dems derided the surge then just like they’re cheerleading the economic instability right now. Lame.

Number Two, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I’d say this WaPo editorial pretty much sums it up.

In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – while Mr. Obama was notably silent. “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,” Mr. McCain warned at the time.

Obama certainly has shown a lack of judgement in choosing his advisors, especially if he’s going to play the “I’m not part of the Washington establishment” game.

Whoops. I’m really starting to wonder about the intelligence possessed by the Obama camp. Is Obama really so naive/shortsighted/mean-spirited? Or can so much of the campaign missteps be blamed on the unending string of staffers he inevitably throws under the bus? The latter, of course, would call into question Obama’s judgement regarding advisors and staffers with whom he surrounds himself. Either way, not looking good. And regardless, his dubious connections are merely tangential to the real problem with Obama: bad, small, ineffective ideas for the country. If you’re confused or disagree, go back to the top and start over.