How often did we hear about "change" and "transparency" from Obama leading up to the 2008 election? And while he promised both, and many sorry saps fell for it, it looks like he will deliver on neither.
Despite his promise that the stimulus plan would be transparent and free of politics, it appears that once again special interests and lobbying groups will be the ones who benefit. According to this AP article (click link to read):
•A sleepy Montana checkpoint along the Canadian border that sees about three travelers a day will get $15 million under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. A government priority list ranked the project as marginal, but two powerful Democratic senators persuaded the administration to make it happen.
• A border station in Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's home state of Arizona is getting $199 million, five times more than any other border station. The busy Nogales checkpoint has required repairs for years but was not rated among the neediest projects on the master list reviewed by the AP. Napolitano credited her lobbying as Arizona governor for getting the project near the front of the line for funding under the Bush administration. All it needed was money, which the stimulus provided.
• A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government's highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money.
• The Westhope, N.D., checkpoint, which serves about 73 people a day and is among the lowest-priority projects, is set to get nearly $15 million for renovations.
• Whitetail project, which involves building a border station the size and cost of a Hollywood mansion, benefited from two key allies, Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Both pressed Napolitano to finance projects in their state. Tester's office boasted of that effort in an April news release, crediting Baucus and his seat at the head of the "powerful Senate Finance Committee."
Unfortunately the only response any Democrat would have for this is the old "Bush did it too." My pointing this out has nothing to do with Democrat v. Republican. It's that all politicians are more interested in the rich lobbying groups than those who vote them in. Yes, even your precious Democrats who are "for the people." And even your precious Obama, who many believed was different, and that he would bring "change." Looks like politics as usual, in the White House. Except this time it's gonna triple the debt.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
3-D ultrasounds banned in Connecticut
With all the hub-bub about health care, this news got little attention earlier this year. And many might think this is of little consequence. But this is a big deal.
"Gov. M. Jodi Rell has signed a bill that bars anyone from performing ultrasounds on pregnant women unless a doctor orders them for medical or diagnostic purposes."
Seems to make at least a little sense at first glance. But there are a couple issues with it. First, making it illegal is a bit much? If you'd like to attempt to regulate these places that offer "keepsake" ultrasounds, maybe. But banning them?
Maybe they could be harmful though, right? According to webmd,
"A prenatal ultrasound test uses high-frequency sound waves, inaudible to the human ear, that are transmitted through the abdomen via a device called a transducer to look at the inside of the abdomen. With prenatal ultrasound, the echoes are recorded and transformed into video or photographic images of your baby. Studies have shown ultrasound is not hazardous. There are no harmful side effects to you or your baby. In addition, ultrasound does not use radiation, as X-ray tests do"
So ultrasounds just use sound waves and have never been shown to have any effects on the mother or the baby. So why the ban?
In 2005, a bill was introduced in the Illinois General Assembly to ban ultrasounds unless ordered by doctor. Guess who was behind the bill? Planned Parenthood, of course. The largest pro-abortion group in the country claimed to be concerned about the mother and the baby. I wonder if anyone told Planned Parenthood that abortion is much more harmful to the mother and the baby than an ultrasound is?
Truth is, this news that slipped through is a win for pro-abortion groups. A survey conducted by Focus on the Family in 2003 indicated that 79 percent of abortion-minded mothers changed their minds after viewing their baby’s ultrasound. These 3-D ultrasounds show features of the baby and disspell the myth that the baby is "just a clump of cells."
A loss in the war to defend the unborn child. We must do more to let our liberal politicians know that this is unacceptable.
"Gov. M. Jodi Rell has signed a bill that bars anyone from performing ultrasounds on pregnant women unless a doctor orders them for medical or diagnostic purposes."
Seems to make at least a little sense at first glance. But there are a couple issues with it. First, making it illegal is a bit much? If you'd like to attempt to regulate these places that offer "keepsake" ultrasounds, maybe. But banning them?
Maybe they could be harmful though, right? According to webmd,
"A prenatal ultrasound test uses high-frequency sound waves, inaudible to the human ear, that are transmitted through the abdomen via a device called a transducer to look at the inside of the abdomen. With prenatal ultrasound, the echoes are recorded and transformed into video or photographic images of your baby. Studies have shown ultrasound is not hazardous. There are no harmful side effects to you or your baby. In addition, ultrasound does not use radiation, as X-ray tests do"
So ultrasounds just use sound waves and have never been shown to have any effects on the mother or the baby. So why the ban?
In 2005, a bill was introduced in the Illinois General Assembly to ban ultrasounds unless ordered by doctor. Guess who was behind the bill? Planned Parenthood, of course. The largest pro-abortion group in the country claimed to be concerned about the mother and the baby. I wonder if anyone told Planned Parenthood that abortion is much more harmful to the mother and the baby than an ultrasound is?
Truth is, this news that slipped through is a win for pro-abortion groups. A survey conducted by Focus on the Family in 2003 indicated that 79 percent of abortion-minded mothers changed their minds after viewing their baby’s ultrasound. These 3-D ultrasounds show features of the baby and disspell the myth that the baby is "just a clump of cells."
A loss in the war to defend the unborn child. We must do more to let our liberal politicians know that this is unacceptable.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Bill Maher and I have something in common!
As a matter of fact, it may be two things.
Very recently, Maher took some heat for saying something to the affect of "American people are stupid." When it comes to politics, I tend to agree. Now his reasoning was that people may actually vote for Sarah Palin. I, on the other hand, would point to the "Democrats" in Harlem that were interviewed on the Howard Stern Show. Before the election, the show went around asking people who they were voting for. When they inevitably responded, "Obama," they were asked if they agreed with his policies, but used McCain's policies. Like if they were okay with him having a female as a Vice Presidential Candidate, or if they supported his Pro-Life stance. Of course, they were. Here's the link. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg
I'd also point to the countless people who believe that a woman killing her baby is a "choice," or that the people that believe "words speak louder than actions." You know, like welfare is good, and the Democrats are "for the people" and for the minorities, when looking at the facts says otherwise. But I guess, in principal, we agree.
I also agree with him on one other topic. The other night he said on the Tonight Show (w/Conan) that there needs to be a Progressive Party. That would be for all the Leftwing nut jobs who hate America and think we need to appease all foreign countries, that hate religion, and hate the rich and think if you have a lot the government should take it from you to take care of those who they apparently don't have enough respect for to think that they could take care of themselves. People like Maher, Janeane Garofalo, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi,and Barack Obama. While of course I would have no part of it, the idea of a strong 3 party system is a good one. Currently in the U.S., when asked what people consider themselves politically, the breakdown is about:
Conservative: 35%
Moderate: 45%
Liberal: 20%
With the two party system we have in place now, what happens is this: Republicans, knowing they won't lose many conservatives, try to appeal to the moderates to try to win an election. Democrats, knowing they won't lose many liberals, try to appeal to the moderates to try to win an election. So you've got two parties that aren't very different. Both try to appeal to the middle, meaning the very conservative and very liberal are many times happy with neither.
If we were able to employ a strong 3 party system, people would have choices. The Progressive Party could cater to the liberals, the Democrats would be the moderates, and the Republicans could then actually follow their ideologies. And better yet, extreme liberals like Obama would have little chance of being elected at all. A win, win for everyone!
Very recently, Maher took some heat for saying something to the affect of "American people are stupid." When it comes to politics, I tend to agree. Now his reasoning was that people may actually vote for Sarah Palin. I, on the other hand, would point to the "Democrats" in Harlem that were interviewed on the Howard Stern Show. Before the election, the show went around asking people who they were voting for. When they inevitably responded, "Obama," they were asked if they agreed with his policies, but used McCain's policies. Like if they were okay with him having a female as a Vice Presidential Candidate, or if they supported his Pro-Life stance. Of course, they were. Here's the link. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg
I'd also point to the countless people who believe that a woman killing her baby is a "choice," or that the people that believe "words speak louder than actions." You know, like welfare is good, and the Democrats are "for the people" and for the minorities, when looking at the facts says otherwise. But I guess, in principal, we agree.
I also agree with him on one other topic. The other night he said on the Tonight Show (w/Conan) that there needs to be a Progressive Party. That would be for all the Leftwing nut jobs who hate America and think we need to appease all foreign countries, that hate religion, and hate the rich and think if you have a lot the government should take it from you to take care of those who they apparently don't have enough respect for to think that they could take care of themselves. People like Maher, Janeane Garofalo, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi,and Barack Obama. While of course I would have no part of it, the idea of a strong 3 party system is a good one. Currently in the U.S., when asked what people consider themselves politically, the breakdown is about:
Conservative: 35%
Moderate: 45%
Liberal: 20%
With the two party system we have in place now, what happens is this: Republicans, knowing they won't lose many conservatives, try to appeal to the moderates to try to win an election. Democrats, knowing they won't lose many liberals, try to appeal to the moderates to try to win an election. So you've got two parties that aren't very different. Both try to appeal to the middle, meaning the very conservative and very liberal are many times happy with neither.
If we were able to employ a strong 3 party system, people would have choices. The Progressive Party could cater to the liberals, the Democrats would be the moderates, and the Republicans could then actually follow their ideologies. And better yet, extreme liberals like Obama would have little chance of being elected at all. A win, win for everyone!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Thank you, President Obama.....for proving our point.
“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” -- Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009
A friend sent me this article (click on link). Here are some quotes:
"The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care -- the Government Accountability Office’s list of “high risk” cases - - last month and told to shape up."
"When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.
What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?
What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?"
"But back to our storyline. Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States. We can overlook run-on sentences, subject and verb tense disagreement, even a memory lapse when it comes to facts and figures.
The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.
The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact."
So I'd like to again thank Mr. President for giving the best example as to why so many are opposed to government run health care.
A friend sent me this article (click on link). Here are some quotes:
"The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care -- the Government Accountability Office’s list of “high risk” cases - - last month and told to shape up."
"When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.
What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?
What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?"
"But back to our storyline. Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States. We can overlook run-on sentences, subject and verb tense disagreement, even a memory lapse when it comes to facts and figures.
The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.
The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact."
So I'd like to again thank Mr. President for giving the best example as to why so many are opposed to government run health care.
Kennedy asks for speedy replacement
Wow. Some politicians have no shame. This article (click on title) is about the very ill Edward Kennedy. The first paragraph reads:
"A cancer-stricken Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has asked Massachusetts leaders to change state law to allow a speedy replacement if it becomes necessary for him to surrender his seat, fearing a months-long vacancy would deny Democrats a crucial vote on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul."
Okay. So it's a very self-serving reason. But it gets better. The law is there because of the Democrats. This, also from the article:
"Kennedy's letter acknowledges the state changed its succession law in 2004 to require a special election within five months to fill any vacancy. At the time, legislative Democrats — with a wide majority in both chambers — were concerned because then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney had the power to directly fill any vacancy created as Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president."
So when it served their needs, the Democrats wanted the law there so Republican Mitt Romney could not quickly add a replacement. But now that it's Edward Kennedy, he'd like that law off the books so he could quickly add a Democrat. Classic.
"A cancer-stricken Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has asked Massachusetts leaders to change state law to allow a speedy replacement if it becomes necessary for him to surrender his seat, fearing a months-long vacancy would deny Democrats a crucial vote on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul."
Okay. So it's a very self-serving reason. But it gets better. The law is there because of the Democrats. This, also from the article:
"Kennedy's letter acknowledges the state changed its succession law in 2004 to require a special election within five months to fill any vacancy. At the time, legislative Democrats — with a wide majority in both chambers — were concerned because then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney had the power to directly fill any vacancy created as Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president."
So when it served their needs, the Democrats wanted the law there so Republican Mitt Romney could not quickly add a replacement. But now that it's Edward Kennedy, he'd like that law off the books so he could quickly add a Democrat. Classic.
How Obama got elected
Many of us who follow politics are not suprised at what we are seeing from the Obama administration only 8 months in. If you listened to what he was saying before the election, you would not be shocked. In just about all he said, he showed that, if elected, he would be one of, if not the most, extreme liberal President ever elected.
But many didn't listen that intently. Many heard "we need Change." Or the "Audacity of Hope." And they felt good about changing direction after President George W. Bush, without considering what direction that might be. And, let's be honest, a lot of people felt great about electing a minority President for the first time ever. I think many white people felt good about voting for Obama because they could tell themselves and the world that they're not racist. Whether you like it or not, that race thing still hangs over people's heads. As you saw with the conflict between an arresting officer in Cambridge, Mass. and a Harvard professor, any conflict that happens to be between a white person and a black person is blamed on race. And unfortunately our President, instead of doing the whole country some good and saying something like "We need to stop looking at the race of people every time there's a conflict. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said that we should "judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character." And that goes both ways.
But instead, Obama said, with little information, that it was clear the "police acted stupidly." Many thought electing our first minority President would help bring the country together. I guess Obama has other plans.
But anyways, back to the topic at hand. Even many liberal democrats, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, will tell you that the media fell in love with Barack Obama during the primaries and up through the election. While it’s okay for the nation to fall in love with a particular candidate, it is downright irresponsible for the mainstream media to do so, failing to do it’s job of providing information to the people. And don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of the "Fairness Doctrine." I have no problem having a Fox News for the conservatives and an MSNBC for the liberals. But you have to go actively search out those channels on cable. I'm talking about the ABC, NBC, CBS, channels that are watched by the masses.
One of the big questions leading up to the 2008 election was the relative inexperience of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Obama served only 36 months as Senator from Illinois, while Palin was only elected Governor of Alaska in November of 2006. While I’d much rather have an inexperienced Vice President than an inexperienced President with no executive experience, I thought the concerns were legitimate. And when I tuned in to ABC’s Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, it was clear he thought he should ask the tough questions the people wanted to know. Excellent! Here’s the questions, taken right from the excerpts of the Gibson-Palin interview from Sept. 11, 2008:
• Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
• And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
• Didn't that take some hubris?
• But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
• I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
• Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
• Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
• I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
• You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
Wow. It almost seems as if he’s trying to embarrass her. Asking her if it was arrogant of her to accept the nomination, and asking her questions he knows the answers to but wants her to admit on television. Tough. But that’s okay. Because the people need to be educated on who they’re voting for. So these questions needed to be asked. The problem is less than a month later Gibson interviewed Obama and was not quite as tough. But don’t let me tell you. You be the judge. Here are Gibson’s questions to Obama, taken from the Gibson-Obama interview from Oct. 8, 2008:
• We've talked to a lot of people as we've traveled around the Midwest. One woman in Dayton said to me, if either one of these guys could tell me succinctly, simply, how they're going to get us out of this mess, that guy would win. It's still to be won. And she said neither has, and it seems as if neither can.
• Somebody else said to us where's the passion in these guys. Where's the anger? People that lost trillions of dollars in their stock accounts, in their pension plans, in their 401(k)s. You said out there at this rally fear and panic cannot pervade us.
• And yet fear does right now. And people look to leaders to turn that around or to counter that.
• You also said at this rally we need new direction, we need new leadership in Washington. What would you be doing right now that's any different than what the Bush Administration has done and is doing?
• That's puts you in a position -- that puts you in a position of essentially saying trust me. I'm a 47-year-old guy with one term in the Senate.
• You got to put your faith in me.
• Change the subject for a moment. John McCain has unloaded on you in the last 72, 96 hours as has Sarah Palin. McCain is saying, essentially, we don't know who Barack Obama is, where he came from. I'm an open book, he's not.
• Were you surprised, A, that he didn't bring it up last night at the debate and use that line of attack? And, B, since you must have prepared for it, what were you going to say?
• And, finally, she's come at you, Sarah Palin has come at you because of the Bill Ayers connection.
What happened to our hard-hitting reporter with all the tough questions? Wouldn't the people want to know if Obama was experienced enough? If he knew enough about international affairs? If it took some "hubris" to accept the Democratic nomination? If he had ever met a foreign head of state? Not only does he not ask them, Gibson even says McCain and Palin “unloaded” and “attacked” Obama, and gives him an opportunity to answer questions that he didn’t get to answer “last night at the debate.” Care to take a guess which way Charlie Gibson from ABC “News” leans?
I think it's very clear that Obama's executive inexperience is already showing. Look at health care. He tries to pass through a 1,000 page health care reform before congress goes home in August. He's getting extreme pressure from the American people at town hall meetings, so now his cabinet is floating out there that the "public" option may not be necessary. Now his own liberal Democrats are threatening to vote against him if the "public" option is not included. He is clearly not leading at this point.
Being a history teacher, I see my job similar to the media in many ways. I have an audience, my students. My job is to present the facts, on both sides, and encourage my students to use all of the information they have to make an informed decision. In early U.S. History I teach that Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had two very different views of the role of government. But I don’t teach the one I like the most. I teach both, and ask the students to explain who they believe and why. When I teach the electoral college, I produce the positives and negatives and let the students decide. I present the facts and let my audience make an informed decision. This should be the role of the media, but clearly it’s not.
The problem is, many people get their information from television, and wrongfully assume that they are getting all of the information they need to make an informed decision. And of course, they’re not. I am not saying that if everyone educated themselves than they would be conservative. I know there are liberals out there that truly believe that there way is correct. What I am saying is that it is flat out misleading to let the media get away with this blatant favoritism, and I do believe that people should be given all the facts and be allowed to make an educated decision on their own. Not just the facts that make the liberal media feel right.
But many didn't listen that intently. Many heard "we need Change." Or the "Audacity of Hope." And they felt good about changing direction after President George W. Bush, without considering what direction that might be. And, let's be honest, a lot of people felt great about electing a minority President for the first time ever. I think many white people felt good about voting for Obama because they could tell themselves and the world that they're not racist. Whether you like it or not, that race thing still hangs over people's heads. As you saw with the conflict between an arresting officer in Cambridge, Mass. and a Harvard professor, any conflict that happens to be between a white person and a black person is blamed on race. And unfortunately our President, instead of doing the whole country some good and saying something like "We need to stop looking at the race of people every time there's a conflict. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said that we should "judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character." And that goes both ways.
But instead, Obama said, with little information, that it was clear the "police acted stupidly." Many thought electing our first minority President would help bring the country together. I guess Obama has other plans.
But anyways, back to the topic at hand. Even many liberal democrats, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, will tell you that the media fell in love with Barack Obama during the primaries and up through the election. While it’s okay for the nation to fall in love with a particular candidate, it is downright irresponsible for the mainstream media to do so, failing to do it’s job of providing information to the people. And don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of the "Fairness Doctrine." I have no problem having a Fox News for the conservatives and an MSNBC for the liberals. But you have to go actively search out those channels on cable. I'm talking about the ABC, NBC, CBS, channels that are watched by the masses.
One of the big questions leading up to the 2008 election was the relative inexperience of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Obama served only 36 months as Senator from Illinois, while Palin was only elected Governor of Alaska in November of 2006. While I’d much rather have an inexperienced Vice President than an inexperienced President with no executive experience, I thought the concerns were legitimate. And when I tuned in to ABC’s Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, it was clear he thought he should ask the tough questions the people wanted to know. Excellent! Here’s the questions, taken right from the excerpts of the Gibson-Palin interview from Sept. 11, 2008:
• Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
• And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
• Didn't that take some hubris?
• But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
• I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
• Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
• Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
• I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
• You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
Wow. It almost seems as if he’s trying to embarrass her. Asking her if it was arrogant of her to accept the nomination, and asking her questions he knows the answers to but wants her to admit on television. Tough. But that’s okay. Because the people need to be educated on who they’re voting for. So these questions needed to be asked. The problem is less than a month later Gibson interviewed Obama and was not quite as tough. But don’t let me tell you. You be the judge. Here are Gibson’s questions to Obama, taken from the Gibson-Obama interview from Oct. 8, 2008:
• We've talked to a lot of people as we've traveled around the Midwest. One woman in Dayton said to me, if either one of these guys could tell me succinctly, simply, how they're going to get us out of this mess, that guy would win. It's still to be won. And she said neither has, and it seems as if neither can.
• Somebody else said to us where's the passion in these guys. Where's the anger? People that lost trillions of dollars in their stock accounts, in their pension plans, in their 401(k)s. You said out there at this rally fear and panic cannot pervade us.
• And yet fear does right now. And people look to leaders to turn that around or to counter that.
• You also said at this rally we need new direction, we need new leadership in Washington. What would you be doing right now that's any different than what the Bush Administration has done and is doing?
• That's puts you in a position -- that puts you in a position of essentially saying trust me. I'm a 47-year-old guy with one term in the Senate.
• You got to put your faith in me.
• Change the subject for a moment. John McCain has unloaded on you in the last 72, 96 hours as has Sarah Palin. McCain is saying, essentially, we don't know who Barack Obama is, where he came from. I'm an open book, he's not.
• Were you surprised, A, that he didn't bring it up last night at the debate and use that line of attack? And, B, since you must have prepared for it, what were you going to say?
• And, finally, she's come at you, Sarah Palin has come at you because of the Bill Ayers connection.
What happened to our hard-hitting reporter with all the tough questions? Wouldn't the people want to know if Obama was experienced enough? If he knew enough about international affairs? If it took some "hubris" to accept the Democratic nomination? If he had ever met a foreign head of state? Not only does he not ask them, Gibson even says McCain and Palin “unloaded” and “attacked” Obama, and gives him an opportunity to answer questions that he didn’t get to answer “last night at the debate.” Care to take a guess which way Charlie Gibson from ABC “News” leans?
I think it's very clear that Obama's executive inexperience is already showing. Look at health care. He tries to pass through a 1,000 page health care reform before congress goes home in August. He's getting extreme pressure from the American people at town hall meetings, so now his cabinet is floating out there that the "public" option may not be necessary. Now his own liberal Democrats are threatening to vote against him if the "public" option is not included. He is clearly not leading at this point.
Being a history teacher, I see my job similar to the media in many ways. I have an audience, my students. My job is to present the facts, on both sides, and encourage my students to use all of the information they have to make an informed decision. In early U.S. History I teach that Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had two very different views of the role of government. But I don’t teach the one I like the most. I teach both, and ask the students to explain who they believe and why. When I teach the electoral college, I produce the positives and negatives and let the students decide. I present the facts and let my audience make an informed decision. This should be the role of the media, but clearly it’s not.
The problem is, many people get their information from television, and wrongfully assume that they are getting all of the information they need to make an informed decision. And of course, they’re not. I am not saying that if everyone educated themselves than they would be conservative. I know there are liberals out there that truly believe that there way is correct. What I am saying is that it is flat out misleading to let the media get away with this blatant favoritism, and I do believe that people should be given all the facts and be allowed to make an educated decision on their own. Not just the facts that make the liberal media feel right.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Democrats, party of the......rich and elite?
Yes, it's true. If you want to know you're talking politics with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, let them spew the standard "Democrats are for guys like me, the working man, and Republicans are for the rich and the corporations." That has been said so much, it's assumed true. But let's look at the facts.
---See welfare statistics below. Welfare has done more harm than good, yet the poor, urban continue to vote Democrat.
---In 2002, A Washington Times editorial reported that "rich or deep-pocketed givers" supported the Democratic Party. By how much? Of the donations of $1 million dollars or more, $36 million went to the Democratic party. How much went to the Republicans? $3 million. Clearly, the rich and elite in this country favor the Democratic party, and by a 12:1 margin. (credit: Rush Limbaugh).
---The Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer (D-NY), blocked legislation to make hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as the rest of us (currently we pay up to 35%, while hedge fund managers pay only 15%). Why? According to Fortune Magazine, "these new Greenwich/Manhattan billionaires happen to be donors, friends and constituents of Democrats-not Republicans" (credit: Dick Morris/Eileen McGann in Book Fleeced.
---In the 2008 election, the highest financial demographic ($200,000+) voted for Obama (52%) according to CNN exit polls.
---The 10 wealthiest states (CNN, 2007), and how they voted:
Maryland...Obama
NJ.........Obama
Conn.......Obama
Hawaii.....Obama
Mass.......Obama
NH.........Obama
Alaska.....McCain
Cali.......Obama
Virginia...Obama
Minn.......Obama
---Okay, so you're thinking it was a landslide vote and many states voted Obama. Here are the 10 poorest states (CNN, 2007), and how they voted:
NM.........Obama
Montana....McCain
Tenn.......McCain
Kentucky...McCain
Louisiana..McCain
Alabama....McCain
Okla.......McCain
Ark........McCain
WV.........McCain
Miss.......McCain
---So 9 of the 10 wealthiest states voted Democrat, and 9 of the 10 poorest states voted Republican.
Looks like it's time, once again, to put away our perceptions and look at facts. Democrats, the party of the elite in our country.
And while both parties are filled with self-serving politicians, if there's a party of the "people," it's the Republican party.
---See welfare statistics below. Welfare has done more harm than good, yet the poor, urban continue to vote Democrat.
---In 2002, A Washington Times editorial reported that "rich or deep-pocketed givers" supported the Democratic Party. By how much? Of the donations of $1 million dollars or more, $36 million went to the Democratic party. How much went to the Republicans? $3 million. Clearly, the rich and elite in this country favor the Democratic party, and by a 12:1 margin. (credit: Rush Limbaugh).
---The Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer (D-NY), blocked legislation to make hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as the rest of us (currently we pay up to 35%, while hedge fund managers pay only 15%). Why? According to Fortune Magazine, "these new Greenwich/Manhattan billionaires happen to be donors, friends and constituents of Democrats-not Republicans" (credit: Dick Morris/Eileen McGann in Book Fleeced.
---In the 2008 election, the highest financial demographic ($200,000+) voted for Obama (52%) according to CNN exit polls.
---The 10 wealthiest states (CNN, 2007), and how they voted:
Maryland...Obama
NJ.........Obama
Conn.......Obama
Hawaii.....Obama
Mass.......Obama
NH.........Obama
Alaska.....McCain
Cali.......Obama
Virginia...Obama
Minn.......Obama
---Okay, so you're thinking it was a landslide vote and many states voted Obama. Here are the 10 poorest states (CNN, 2007), and how they voted:
NM.........Obama
Montana....McCain
Tenn.......McCain
Kentucky...McCain
Louisiana..McCain
Alabama....McCain
Okla.......McCain
Ark........McCain
WV.........McCain
Miss.......McCain
---So 9 of the 10 wealthiest states voted Democrat, and 9 of the 10 poorest states voted Republican.
Looks like it's time, once again, to put away our perceptions and look at facts. Democrats, the party of the elite in our country.
And while both parties are filled with self-serving politicians, if there's a party of the "people," it's the Republican party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)