Posts Tagged ‘clinton’

A few months ago a slim, tall, pleasant looking, highly educated black man strode to the forefront of this nation’s Presidential election cycle. For a time there it certainly looked as if this nation was not only ready, but also willing to elect a man of color to the Presidency of the United States. When compared to the latter part of the twentieth century and the racial strife marring that period, the twenty first century looked like a dawn of a new era in this nation. To further magnify the achievements of the twenty first century, only 8 years of age, is the legitimate candidacy of a woman for the Presidency. This nation has come along way in acceptance of people “for who they are” and not “what they are”. It appeared that we had finally seen through a black man for his talents and message and actually did not see him as black, just as a presidential candidate with a soaring message of hope for all. Barack Obama was on an express train to the White House.

Obama’s message of bi-partisan involvement, coming together as a unified nation, care for those less fortunate, and those who have hit set backs of life presented him as a multi-cultural leader for all the people. Suddenly, he stopped his train to explain some unusual behaviors of his pastor and his involvement with his pastor. While stopped, a different Obama began to emerge. We have begun to see a man as highly educated, as highly articulate, and as smart as Bill Clinton start to parse his words, just as Bill Clinton has done for oh so many years. We have heard a number of variations explaining away his association with a very questionable church leader. This alone is troubling, but what is even more troubling is we now must begin to question his soaring message.

Bill Clinton was a well packaged candidate while on the campaign trail. His explanations were smooth and believable. His delivery depended on using just the right phrase or word. His moniker of “Slick Willy”, while a moniker of disdain, was also a moniker of grudging respect for his talents to mask the truth. So too are we seeing a Barack Obama begin to use equivocation to explain his questionable judgment. If you listen carefully to each of his explanations, you will hear a message very different from the one that has captured so many hearts and minds. This man – not seen as a black man – supported by people from all walks – women, men, young, old, black, white and many of the other origins of people in this country was accepted as a legitimate Presidential candidate. Listen carefully, and you will hear him now begin to educate us on how we have to treat race, how we get past our prejudices, and heal the racial divide. This same man, who is preaching to us about dealing with race and who had already been accepted by millions who easily put race aside and only saw a man, not a black man, running for President. This man is now lecturing the typical white person how they think and should think.

For all his education and for all his rhetoric are we to believe that he did not notice that in the twenty first century we had gotten past the black / white thing in the most important way that this nation can. We were earnestly considering him for the most important leadership position of the free world without regard to his color. We were simultaneously considering a woman for the same position. How much has this nation grown? Yet his explanations smack of a man who is not what he claims to be. They smack of a man who might actually believe the message of his pastor. Now we move on and we still consider a woman and only now we consider a black man for President – not a man, but a black man because his explanations revealed him to be just that, a black man running for President – not simply as a man of the human race. Time will now tell, as the vetting continues on all candidates, who he really is. Is this another well packaged candidate? Do we need to call him “Slick Barack”? No wonder Bill Clinton was out in front of this story about Barack Obama. He was able to see himself in Barack Obama’s shoes well before anyone else could catch on.

Read Full Post »

What if Hillary Clinton, feeling that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the far left, decides to form a new political party in her run for President? I took a look at that scenario and was surprised to see my findings. The approach used to come up with the findings is far from scientific and could not get anymore low budget, but there is some reasonable rationale to the approach.

I started out with the simple premise that three major candidates and one minor candidate will be on the ballot in November – Obama, Clinton, McCain, Nader. With Obama and Nader sharing the far left, Clinton and McCain sharing the moderates, and the conservatives voting for McCain, since they have no horse in the race, the vote would be heavily split and winning a state’s electoral vote will not require a majority.

The next premise was that strong red states will continue to go with the Republicans and John McCain. The blue states were a different matter. In those states I looked at either the primary results or the polls where primaries have not as yet been held. When looking at the blue states, only a few battle ground states appeared and they will be discussed later.

538 electoral votes are at play and the Electoral College is not based on proportional votes and there are no super electors. 270 votes are needed to win the Presidency. The analysis of the primary results, polls, and voting history provided the following:

McCain wins Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming for a total of 191 electoral votes.

Obama wins Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin for a total of 131 electoral votes.

Clinton wins Arkansas, California, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for 172 electoral votes.

Two states are very hard to figure do to the split votes and they are Florida and Michigan. After the Democratic Party primary debacle it is anyone’s guess as to how these states will go especially with four candidates on the ballot. Even so they represent 44 electoral votes, less than what any of the candidates will need to clinch. Despite some disagreement with how a state might fall, there seems to be no mix to give anyone candidate 270 electoral votes. Now what? It goes to the House of Representatives. The difference here is that the House votes by state and each state has but one vote – more infighting.

The following is an excerpt from the National Archives and records Administration web site: If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#270

If the respective state delegations follow the way their state fell, with no candidate getting a majority, then McCain might garner 22 votes including Florida; Clinton 9 votes; and Obama 19 votes including Michigan. I believe that the decisions, within each state delegation, are not readily apparent and anything could happen. Even though Senator Clinton would have the fewest states, she could win as a long shot.

As ludicrous as this all seems, the Clintons may realize that forming a third party and continuing on, if Senator Clinton does not receive the Democratic Party’s nomination, as a candidate for President may just work.

Read Full Post »

Sounds confusing, doesn’t it. The cry around this country to “get those dastardly corporations – they are the cause of all our troubles” is so misplaced that it is almost like saying don’t put prisoners in prisons, because prisons are unsafe because there are too many dangerous people in prison.

Have I now cleared all this up? Okay it is simple, even if Senators Obama (now President) and (now Secretary of State) Clinton appear to not get it. Corporations factor in the income tax rate into their cost of sales and thus the price they set on what you buy at the point of sale. So, go ahead and tax the living day lights out of these corporations, they just collect their income tax for the government from you. There is one hiccup with this plan. These corporations are unable to incorporate their income tax into the price on sales overseas or in Canada and Mexico.

Senators Obama (now President) and (now Secretary) Clinton, please pay attention here as this is important and you act like you have never heard this before. When you tax a corporation and it cannot pass on that tax it either cannot survive internationally or it adapts by closing plants in the United States and opening these plants in another country. Are you still listening? When they do this, they create jobs in other nations and terminate jobs in the United States. This is called free enterprise. We could try to regulate corporations and force them to keep the jobs in the United States, but then they will not make any money and the investment capital will move to a company in another country and not here. It is like squeezing a balloon. Squeeze one end and it gets bigger on the other end – squeeze too hard and it breaks.

Our tax code and the fact that we tax our corporations at the second highest rate internationally may have something to do with out trade deficits and the loss of good paying jobs in this country. So yes, when we tax a corporation they bill us for the tax through domestic sales or sell us merchandise made in another country where the bulk of the profit is taxed at the other country’s favorable rate and the taxes go to the other country.

Senator (now President) Obama has a socialist solution for this conundrum. Instead of lowering taxes on domestic corporations so they can manufacture in the United States and create good paying jobs. These are jobs that make you more financially viable, jobs that make our economy healthier, and jobs that help us export to other nations. Senator Obama’s solution is to support the Patriot Employer Act. This act is right out of the socialist play book – we all know that the socialist economic system is failing all over the world. It is the second worst economic system, on how people benefit, only when compared to communism.

The Wall Street Journal quotes Peter Merrill whom they refer to as “…an international tax expert at PriceWaterhouseCoopers…” as saying “…Apparently Mr. Obama believes that by making U.S. Companies less profitable and less competitive world-wide, they will somehow be able to create more jobs in America.” http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120407121574294919-lMyQjAxMDI4MDI0ODAyNzgxWj.html

Honestly, they must have taught international economics at either Columbia or Harvard when Senator (now President) Obama attended. If he knows better and is sending us down the wrong path just to get elected, then he does not deserve to be President. If he does not know better, then he does not deserve to be President. The same should apply to Senator (now Secretary) Clinton. The solution, Senators Obama and Clinton, is to help these corporations become as competitive as we possibly can and then turn them loose on the world. This will create the right kind of jobs for this nation – we will not have to settle for jobs where you must learn the phrase – Do you want fries with that?

Senator (now President) Obama, drop your support of the misnamed Patriot Employment Act which is a form of reverse protectionism – it protects the world from us – and lower or eliminate corporate taxes. Yes, we all will personally pay more income tax which will be offset by lower prices for goods, since the tax will no longer be included in the price. This will stimulate domestic production of all kinds of goods and improve our standard of living by allowing us to hold better jobs. Aren’t you and Senator (now Secretary) Clinton about jobs?

Read Full Post »

MSNBC’s debate last evening focused on three themes. The health insurance debate, of which there is little difference between the plans of Senators Clinton and Obama, non-issue oriented questions of both moderators, and how NAFTA is ruining Ohio. First, the loss of jobs in Ohio is tied to the extensive use of technology in manufacturing, and the worldwide competitiveness of a multitude of manufacturing nations and our governments failure to prepare us to compete in a fierce worldwide trade market. It has little to do with Canada, whose manufacturing industry is on the decline, and Mexico which is responsible for only 11% of our imports – these two nations are NAFTA. Do you think one moderator or candidate might have pointed out the trade problem distinction – if the candidates did not know the distinction, then find new candidates, because neither is ready to be President?

Beyond this apparent gaff, I can tell you I have had about enough of debate questions designed to incite. I would hope that moderators would refrain from asking – How do you feel about your opponent’s attacks on you? The moderators clearly either don’t want to do fact checked follow-up questions or are just not knowledgeable enough to do these necessary questions. I need to be fair and point out that the overall news media in general, not just MSNBC, has not served this nation well with the choice of moderators for most of the debates. They seem more inclined to talk feelings, attack ads, and gotcha quotes. Often the political leaning of the moderator falls out all over their desk like a spilled can of red paint. It is noticed. Does anyone with a brain really care what these media types think and how they lean politically?

Why can’t we have a debate where tough questions are asked that test the knowledge, readiness to lead, the judgment of the candidate, and the enterprise to work through the political mine field to achieve a goal? Why does it appear that questions are tailored for the candidate, either to make them look poorly or to make them look presidential – okay, we might know the answer to that question? Of course, the positions of the candidates need to be learned; however, these positions are usually on their web site or in their campaign handouts or can be found in their opponent’s attack ads.

One moderator, last night, did make an attempt at asking the same hypothetical question to each candidate, but the question had a predictable answer before it was asked. It had something to do with – if Iraq asked us to leave, would we leave. Duh! What candidate, in their right mind, after the U.S. has recognized Iraq as a sovereign nation, would say – no we will stay anyway. Of course they would say – yes we will leave. This is the best this highly trained moderator could come up with?

Perhaps each candidate should be asked different questions, perhaps placed in envelopes chosen at random by each candidate. The moderator points out that these are tough question with no easy answers.

  1. The moderator opens the envelope and then asks the hypothetical but realistic question: Senator, as President, you have pulled out of Iraq, Iran has filled the void in Iraq and has now taken control of the Strait of Hormuz. It now controls 60% of the world’s oil exports. Iran is refusing oil shipments to the United States. How do you respond to this threat?
  2. The moderator opens the next envelope, selected by the next candidate, and asks: Three years from now, Iran hits Israel with a low yield nuclear tipped missile, 10,000 are dead, and Israel is mobilizing to go to nuclear war with Iran. How do you respond to this crisis?

These questions are realistic, the solutions are cloudy, but the depth of a candidate’s response to the question will tell us a whole lot about the candidate. When will we start to ask tough questions of these candidates? The media today is not providing any help in picking candidates. The media is more fixated on what Bill Cunningham said, who released the goofy picture of Senator Obama, or printing a story on page one that there is rumor and suspicion that Senator McCain may have possibly had an affair with a lobbyist and possibly or perhaps could have done favors on behalf of that lobbyist, like send a letter to the FCC asking a government agency only to make a decision – not how to make the decision. What are they teaching in journalism school – Tabloid 101?

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: