Obama and Biden obviously have some clear differences in position on some critical issues for the United States.

The recent outburst by Biden on coal demonstrates some fissures in their team unity effort.



This outburst is interesting for several reasons.

First, Obama and Biden are either not communicating with each other about critical issues or Biden simply does not care that Obama supports clean coal. Or maybe Biden knows that Obama does not support clean coal development and is simply pretending to be in support of the clean coal technology to win over a segment of moderate and conservative voters.

Democrats around the country had to jump on this issue right away to assure voters that Obama is in support of coal.

Next, Biden was asked the question about coal by a young women who seems to be leftward leaning. When watching the encounter, Biden seems almost hostile to her. He actually grabs her by the shoulders and points his finger at her, gets in her face and does not recognize her body language, which seems to indicate she is a bit taken aback by his aggressive response to her question.

Third, the exchange clearly demonstrates Biden's frustration with the campaign and his position on the ticket. Biden is a guy with a reputation for thinking he is one of the smartest guys in the room. He seems to be increasingly frustrated playing second fiddle. He seems to be seeking and needing credit- the finger pointing and explaining that he is the guy who introduced the world to global warming 22 years ago ( I thought Al Gore discovered Global Warming or Global Climate Change or whatever we are calling it today)...Biden needs people to know that HE is the guy who first introduced solar energy bills 26 years ago...

It has to be hard for Biden to know that half of the Democratic Party wishes he wasn't the person on the ticket. The comment that Hillary might have been a better pick for VP, the misspeak that FDR took to the airwaves to be honest with the people when the stock market crashed in 1929 and his clear derailment about coal all raise red flags.

Biden appears dissatisfied with the way things are going. Either his speech writers are struggling or he is speaking off the cuff. Biden definitly seems to be willing to tell people what they want to hear, even if he knows he is misspeaking.

Biden is not rising to the occasion- he seems to lack control and composure. Biden is becoming a weak link and will need to regain his balance as we head towards the debate. He has had a long career- it is sad for him that he is not living up to the hype.

Obama received $105,849 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie ( although that is significantly less than Senators C. Dodd, D-CT and John Kerry, D- MA who received $133,900 and $111,000 respectively.)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a disaster in the making and people in DC knew the end would come years ago.

A statement by Senator John McCain, May 25, 2006:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. 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.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

This Reform Act was sponsored by 4 REPUBLICANS (McCain, Hagel, Dole and Sununu) and didn't pass.

While Obama was taking campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie, McCain was telling his fellow Senators to wake up and join him in efforts to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the Congress failed to act.

Reports that many people think Obama will be better able to address economic issues than would McCain only serve to point out how far removed from reality many Americans remain. This may be due in large part to the fact that many Americans receive their news from left-leaning journalists who use their power to control what news their viewers and readers see and hear.

There is Nothing Cute About Michelle Obama's Petty Comments

I have been wondering what happened to Michelle Obama and suddenly there she is...

Thanks to Breitbart for posting an AP article:  "People shouldn't make a decision this time based on, 'I like that guy' or 'she's cute,'" M. Obama asserted. The Democratic crowd went wild and then M. Obama suggested she was talking about herself. As she is not a person for whom we may vote, the addendum rings hollow.  Perhaps the Obamas are a little hesitant after that pig joke backfired...

Does she think that conservatives are voting for a McCain-Palin ticket because Palin is "cute" as opposed to competent? 

M. Obama hasn't been seen lately and perhaps she should go back to her hiding place.  Her continual efforts to belittle the intelligence of conservative voters is at best tiresome. Her husband's campaign ought to tell her that she doesn't help their efforts to take the high road with her jealous, junior high comments.

We, the people see through their petty antics and we will vote.  The Democratic frenzy will continue as the party of the patronizing elites struggles to figure out that smart voters care about issues and policies not innuendo and pathetic attempts at "cute" humor.

Allegations of Racism Become Democrats Last Hope

For a party that claims that race should not be a factor in the campaign for the Presidency, the Democrats and their media supporters seem to bring it up with a growing frequency.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius raised the issue on Tuesday.  She asked an audience, "Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African American?"

The Democrats are unwilling to think that the same people who voted against John Kerry because he was a far-left liberal will not vote for Obama because he is a far-left liberal.   No, it must be racism...

Then we have the very impartial Jack Cafferty asserting that "Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election..." 

Cafferty goes on to note in the above linked blog entry that the impartial (my insertion) Time magazine's Michael Grunwald says "race is the elephant in the living room."

The real problem: Democrats cannot admit that Obama's problems with voters are policy-based. They can't acknowledge this fact because acceptance of that fact would force Democrats to acknowledge that their own policy positions are out of the mainstream.  That is just not possible in the liberal world in which these people live.

Race is not an elephant in the living room for conservatives. Conservative love elephants.  For the conservatives I know, race is a non-factor.

Race will, however, be an increasingly important issue to Democrats. None of their spaghetti has stuck to the wall so now they are going to the big guns. The threat of increasing racial conflict may be the last available weapon in their arsenal. 

In their growing desperation, Democrats will try anything to win this election. This includes painting every anti-Obama voter a racist.  

Why Does PBS Receive Taxpayer Support? 

Ridiculous interview with Drew Westin, author of the Political Brain, on the PBS website. 

Westin was interviewed for the September 12th episode of NOW, a political program, on PBS. 

While he does compare Obama's ability to respond to questions in an interview or debate to the ability of Dukakis, he also acknowledges he likes Obama... 

His assessment: Many voters vote with their hearts. He actually asserts that Democrats "hide their values in the fine print of their policies. Republicans always start with their value statements. They come out and say "This is what I believe" and then they say some words about what they're going to do about it if they ever get there and then they conclude with something that is emotionally powerful and compelling."

He goes on "Democrats almost always start the other way around."

Drew Westin and I must live in parallel universes.  The Democrats offer NOTHING but talking points and 5 second sound bites. Take for example Nancy Pelosi on the financial crisis facing the United States.  The Hill reported : 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”

Westin goes on to describe how he thinks that feelings drive the brain.  This may be true for many people.  In fact, far too many people, women especially, start their reasoning process with feelings and then never get beyond those "feelings" when deciding how to think about an issue. These feelings are often rooted in a gut level reaction to a situation- like when a child throws a tantrum in the grocery store because the child wants a bag of candy. 

Some parents gladly buy the candy to solve the immediate problem- no matter that tomorrow will be filled with more tantrums- maybe even louder more demanding tantrums.  And others will bargain- offer a smaller bag of candy or even just a piece of candy.  These people also encourage tantrums.  In political terms, this would be like feeding the pig. This response to a tantrum is also rooted in emotion.  This sort of response feeds a sense of entitlement.

On the other hand some parents have a philosophy that buying the candy will encourage future tantrums.  These parents will tell the child "No" and either leave the store immediately or apologize to those around them, pay as quickly as possible and then leave without the candy. These parents don't respond on an emotional level no matter how emotional they are feeling. This is the political equivalent of voting against pork.

I would contend that many people who are actually conservative develop their feelings about an issue based on what they know about an issue.  It may even be- and this may shock some- that religious teachings influence a conservative's feelings about an issue.  

This may be at least one place where Democrats go wrong: They often seem to think that religious teachings are rooted in emotion and therefore not a valid basis for an opinion. I think that there is often an elitist perception that thinking people can simply not be religious in the way that, say, Evangelicals are religious.   

Some other points made by Westin:

While he calls Sarah Palin an excellent marksman in terms of her speech delivery, he notes that the Dems failed to peg her as an "incredibly reckless, cynical choice by John McCain."

He asserts Obama blew it- he should have gone on the attack immediately.

Westin stuns with the conclusion that the debates will be critical.  He advises Obama to start with emotion when asked about the economy: "I want to see 'Made in America' again." 

He notes the McCain campaign and the right wing has conspired to convince Americans that Obama is not like them.  News flash: He is not like most Americans. 

Most interestingly, Westin explains that conviction is important. "If you don't put out your principles and speak them with conviction, people look at you and think 'you know- these people are weak and lacking in conviction.  I don't think I'll vote for them.' "

He then explains how Obama should hoodwink people:  Obama should not start out saying he wants universal healthcare.  No that doesn't sell.  Instead, he advises Obama to tell the people that he believes in a family doctor for every family. 

Westin actually thinks that these two things are equivalent. Does he not understand that universal health care leads to a lack of access to a family doctor- just ask people in Canada how long they can wait to see a family doctor. 

Or he suggests Obama lead with "I believe people who work for a living ought to be able to take their kids to the doctor when they are sick and that is the difference between me and John MCain."

Yeah- because John McCain definitely does not think working people should be able to take their sick kids to the doctor.  UNBELIEVABLE!!!! Can anyone publish a book?!!?

He then asserts that "Democrats have really mainstream values, they just never talk about them." 

It's true- Democrats don't talk about their "values"- they just criticize Republicans for theirs. As Westin observes: "The Republican Convention was a Hatefest." 

Obviously the debates will offer each candidate the opportunity to inform voters about their positions. Of course this would require Obama to actually develop a position with which he can live- a seemingly impossible task when he has to speak to a diverse audience.

After watching Westin's interview for PBS, it is now especially clear to me why liberals want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine while continuing to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They will both silence the conservatives and force them to pay for "experts" like Westin to shill for the DFL.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's financial request for Fiscal Year 2010 and 2011: $450 million and $483 million 

WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!

Charlie Rangel Holds On Even as Pelosi Tries to, Quietly, Pry His Fingers From The Ledge

The cover of the New York Post says it all- the picture, inflation adjusted, is worth at least 5000 words. Rangel, sleeping on a lawn chair on a white sand beach...

Charlie Rangel, the Democratic Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, should be ashamed of himself, but shame is not a feeling many Democrats recognize. 

Yesterday, according to the Crypt, the story from Camp Democrat was Pelosi would not ask Rangel to step aside. The Dems rallied around Charlie even though his failure to file his taxes appropriately and his failure to consistently report the value of his property and his failure to seek a mortgage that required the payment of interest and... all became public fodder.  That has gone over like a lead balloon... 

Now the Democrats are facing a situation that could escalate quickly into a campaign nightmare- Obama wants to people to believe that he is for change in Washington but he has yet to come out with comments suggesting Rangel should go.  Where is the Democratic leadership? 

Rangel's problems are symptomatic of the problems on the Hill and his attitude reflects the audacity of those in power. 

This is a problem that we, the people can see and understand without the help of a forensic accountant.  We, the people are not as ignorant as some in power would like.

Republicans should keep up the pressure until Rangel is ousted.  

Women Who Think

Women Who Think

Drudge is "must peruse" because it links to things that would be impossible to find otherwise.

My favorite link of the day: Scientists Discover Eating Veggies Shrinks the Brain...

This explains so much about the crazed zealots increasingly present in our nation's colleges and universities.  The increasing prevalence of vegans and vegetarians in American high schools and post-secondary ed institutions can be directly correlated with the rise of liberalism.

The real question for the liberal elites who encourage this behavior amongst our nation's developing minds: WHAT DID THEY KNOW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT?

While many of us have long suspected that these picky eaters were not all there, we now know it is true: they are literally losing their minds...

Lehman Brothers, the 4^th largest investment bank in the country, is declaring bankruptcy. While the average person may not be affected by this particular financial crisis, the storm is just beginning for many people. 

LB is not a commercial bank insured by the federal government but as it is a giant in the investment industry, the news should be equated with a hurricane watch for all Americans.

The general disaster in the mortgage industry, including the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and now the crisis in the investment banking industry have been brewing for a decade.

How did all of these financial crises take root? Here is the perspective of a fairly typical American woman with a bunch of kids who will be saddled with the consequences of our behavior:

As the economy of the 1990s grew, some advocacy groups began pushing for a relaxation in lending standards to ensure that all potential buyers had a better shot at securing a mortgage. An interesting article about the extension of mortgages to lower income and minority homebuyers can be found at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4126/is_11_85/ai_57894563/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

When researchers in the 1990s found a discrepancy in the mortgage approval rates between whites and people of color, a presumption was made that racism was at the core of the denials. 

http://www.consumersunion.org/finance/accessw400.htm is just an example of one article discussing the need for lenders and the government to find a way to expand mortgage opportunities for people of color. 

Perhaps if one compared the financial circumstances of those denied mortgages, the general truth would have been clear- the denials were based on a lack of credit-worthiness.  While there most-assuredly were individuals behaving in a discriminatory manner, the fact that more people of color were denied credit does not automatically lead to an accurate conclusion that the disparity was rooted in race.

Too often, allegations of discrimination were inserted into the discussions to prevent people from questioning the lowered standards that would come into widespread use in the sub-prime mortgage industry.

Efforts to increase homeownership in minority communities also increased home ownership amongst lower income Whites.  While expanding homeownership seems to be a great goal, on a strictly emotional level, the potential problems of extending credit to those people without the necessary income (regardless of race) at the time of the qualification was shortsighted. The availability of sub-prime mortgages drove our economy in a disastrous direction.

It can and must be argued that the increase in mortgage availability to people who should not have been approved drove up the value of homes in a clearly predictable supply and demand analysis: more buyers = more demand = increase in housing value.

The increasing value of homes did two things- encouraged homeowners to refinance their homes to draw out the “equity” that emerged as a result of the increased demand and also allowed people who were not credit-worthy to get mortgages that they did not have the resources to pay. 

The equity drawn against home values was not necessarily used to pay down other debt, but instead used for items or activities that had no lasting value on a financial spreadsheet.  Because many people actually took out loans that were greater than the value of their homes, they are now deeper in debt than they had imagined possible.  These increased loans have left many homeowners upside down on their houses- they owe more than their home is worth so they can not sell, even if they need to move.

The use of both balloon payment mortgages and adjustable-rate mortgages emerged as a way for consumers to put off paying today what they probably wouldn’t be able to pay tomorrow.  Many of the people who took out balloon mortgages cannot qualify for a refinance because they are in either a no better or diminished financial position today and their home value has dropped.

A USA Today article dated 3/30/2005 clearly recognized the potential risk of ARMs but buyers continued buying from lenders who wanted to lend.

No one cared…

In 1998 the journal, Economic Inquiry, published an article by Theodore E. Day and S. J. Liebowitz that predicted the outcome we are in fact seeing today in the mortgage industry. The article, titled “MORTGAGE LENDING TO MINORITIES: WHERE'S THE BIAS?” noted: “The currently fashionable "flexible" underwriting standards of mortgage lenders may have the unintended consequences of increasing defaults for the "beneficiaries " of these policies. ( JELJ7, G28)”

When we use race or socioeconomic wedges to drive policy based on emotion, we are driving on the wrong side of the road.

Now, we see the failure of the investment banks as a result at least in large part because of the over extension of these questionable mortgages.

There can be no question that the failure of these investment banks that relied heavily on investments in mortgages will send many people running to their computers to figure out whether they are personally affected by this mess.

What people may not be seeing is the bigger storm that is yet to hit. The credit card industry will be next in the line of failing businesses as consumers struggle to pay their debt.

As banks used ratios of payment:income to issue credit, those lower mortgage payments fed into the distribution of credit cards to those with questionable ability to pay the resulting revolving credit balances. 

Also, in 2005 Congress passed bankruptcy reform legislation that limited a consumer’s ability to walk away from credit card debt.  This encouraged credit card issuers to give credit to people who would not have previously qualified.

I don’t buy most of the charges of predatory lending in the mortgage industry but I do think that predatory lending in the credit card industry is rampant and must be dealt with immediately. The credit card industry must take steps to prevent its collapse immediately.

Some examples of problems created by credit card companies: 

People get a card with a low “introductory” interest rate and make purchases.  They make payments based on the low rate and then, with 15 days notice, the credit card company unilaterally changes the interest rate. Now a person who budgeted payments at a 5.9% interest rate gets socked with payments at 19.9% or 23.95 or possibly 29.9% or, worse yet, 33%.

These rising interest rates do not have to be linked to the consumer’s behavior in regards to that particular card.  Citibank can raise a cardholder’s rate based on an issue with Capitol One. Rising interest rates can also be attributed to random and unpredictable changes in the bank's standard to determine an interest rate.  My mother just had a credit card raise her interest rate raised because her credit score is now 1 point below a threshold the card company just established.  She has never been late, never been over her limit.  Yet her monthly payment has now increased with no warning.

Credit card companies send out bills with payments due before the end of the billing cycle and then charge ridiculous late fees designed to prevent consumers from paying down debt. 

Rather than deny a charge, banks allow charges that take a consumer over the limit and then charge fees because the consumer is over the limit. 

A quick example of how changing credit card rates is impacting overall financial stability in the United States consider the following:

A person with $10,000 debt at a 5.9% interest rate could reasonably expect to have a payment of approximately  $150.00 per month.

At 9% interest the payment jumps to just over $180.00.

At 23% the payment becomes about $290.00.

At 33% the payment moves to over $370.00.

This scenario spells disaster for people living on the edge financially.  Double the consumers' trouble with rising gas prices further eating into the pocketbooks of the average American family and now, guess what- people can’t afford to pay their mortgages. Which takes us full circle to the mortgage collapse.

The perfect storm has been building. The bankruptcy reform of 2005 fueled the foreclosure crisis as it encouraged financial policies that undermined more and more Americans who just wouldn’t be able to pay it all.  We are now about to see the eye of this storm tighten.

The credit card industry is bailing water but it cannot bail fast enough. Soon, those companies will be knocking on Congress’ door seeking the same bailout those who came before them received.

This has got to stop.  Perhaps before we bail anyone out, Congress must tell lenders to reform their policies immediately.  One quick strategy: the lenders should try dropping the interest rates to Prime plus 1 or 2 or 3 or even 5.

For the average American, this would drop credit card payments.  Then tell consumers that the rate is locked in as long as they make their payments on time.  If a consumer is late, meaning 30 days late, then that particular credit card company should freeze their credit line at where it stands.  That is fair.

It is not fair for credit card B to punish the cardholder preemptively.  This piling on by the credit card companies is leading an increasing number of borrowers to question why they should pay at all.

I believe that most people want to pay their debt.  If credit card companies don’t try to meet consumers half way, an increasing number of people will no longer feel obliged to pay their debt.

In conclusion, we need to be prepared for the fact that the worst is yet to come.  The truth is that people of color will be affected in greater numbers, as people of color are more likely to be economically disadvantaged. This is not the result of racism. The coming financial crisis is not fueled by racism. It is fueled by an over extension of credit to consumers who have not demonstrated an ability to pay.

The coming crisis is fueled by irresponsible personal behavior by borrowers, predatory credit card lending and a convergence of the problems caused by poorly thought out mortgage industry policy and practice.

Congress will be tempted to step in and take over with more regulation and more oversight.  That will be the easy solution, but it will be the wrong solution.  Congress should not bailout the investment industry and it should not bail out credit card companies. 

Bailouts will lead us closer to a centralized banking system.   Bailouts lead to a more powerful and more intrusive federal government. Bailouts encourage irresponsible behavior by all parties because they create a safety net that removes individual risks.

Our country is in a financial mess and almost everyone is to blame. Now is the time for creditors to look at their policies and begin to act, voluntarily, in ways that will slow down the storm. Consumers must also step up to the plate and commit to paying what they can and forgoing what they can’t afford. 

The people must work to solve this problem before it is solved for us. I guarantee the solutions that come out of Washington during a crisis will not be in the long term best interests of we, the people.

Obama's claims about sleazy campaigns defy reason if he is actually asserting that any reference to his actual voting record is off limits.

If Obama thinks that the term "age-appropriate sex education, including information on rejecting advances by sexual predators" does not open up kindergartners to sex education taught by far left teachers whose view of age-appropriate may differ from views of the vast majority of Americans, then his cry "foul" is an even clearer indication of how out of touch he is with Middle America.

If the legislation that came out of Obama's committee in the Illinois Senate would have limited sex ed to teaching children about avoiding all child predators then there would be nothing to discuss. In fact the language was not limited because Obama doesn't think the teaching should be limited.

In a speech to a Planned Parenthood audience he showed his true colors on the issue of whether or not teaching should be limited to predator awareness. After making fun of those who question his position, he affirms that it is right to teach age-appropriate sex ed and he reiterated his cautioned that teaching sex ed  should not be limited to "abstinence- only" and needs to be countered by other perspectives.   

If Obama thinks that average Americans parents, and specifically the conservative parents he is making fun of in his comments,  think Kindergartners should receive even abstinence-only education he is tragically mistaken.

Teaching children about safety from predators is not sex education. Sex education does not belong in kindergarten.  

Obama seems to laugh a condescending laugh at we, the people whenever we disagree with his elitist positions.  We, the people will be crying if we don't begin to realize just how extreme this man actually is and then spread the word about these beliefs with the goal of derailing his candidacy. 

The only sleazy thing happening in this campaign are the efforts of Obama, his handlers and his supporters to hide his real positions while besmirching the reputation of John McCain.

After years of training by the Chicago machine, maybe telling the truth is beyond Obama's pay grade.

An AP headline blares:

"Whites lift McCain to slim lead over Obama in poll"

The byline credits Alan Fram with the brilliant deduction, made after noting that "lopsided support from working-class and suburban whites have lifted Republican John McCain to a slender lead over Barack Obama..."

The poll results showed that McCain holds a 13 point lead with men and seniors and a 23 point lead among rural voters. 

I wondered if the AP poll identified the gap between Obama and McCain among black voters so I sought out the poll.  While the headline indicates that White voters tipped the scale, the poll itself doesn't seem to extrapolate percentages based on race.  

I decided to try to do some deductive calculations using voter ratios from the last election. It seems fair to conclude that for many election cycles, Black voters have voted in lock-step with Democrats.  (This in spite of the Democratic party's continued effort to push policy positions that undermine all people who seek to improve their station in life, regardless of color.)

CNN election results from 2004 summarize voter ratios based on race.  In 2004, for example, 11% of voters were Black and approximately 88% of Black voters voted for the Democratic candidate.  If 88% of the black voters in the AP poll vote for Obama than Obama will secure just over 9% of the overall vote.

If Black voters were to vote in a bi-partisan manner, similar to White voters, the shift would be dramatic, even if one allows that the majority of Black voters would vote Democratic. 

In 2004,  58% of White voters voted Republican. Assume, therefore that 58% of Black voters would vote Democratic. This would shift Obama's secure vote from 9% to 6%.

In this very tight election season, a shift in the very lopsided Black vote would shift the poll results from McCain 48 - Obama 44 to McCain 51 - Obama 41. This would no longer be a close election.

As the polls tighten, the inevitable undercurrents suggesting White voters are racist and won't vote for a Black nominee have begun.  

All of the conservatives I know would welcome with open arms a conservative Black candidate. One might consider a challenge facing conservatives who hope that more people of color will open their minds to conservative ideology: The absolute ostracism of people of color, by people of color, who profess support of conservative positions.  I believe there are many brilliant conservative people of color who choose to remain outside the political fray because the cost of involvement is simply too high in their community.

I digress...

The refusal of conservative White voters to consider Obama as a reasonable alternative to McCain has NOTHING to do with his race and everything to do with the fact that he is the most liberal Senator in office right now.  His policies will move the U.S. towards bigger government and more reliance on UN policies to drive our foreign policy. His support of the Global Poverty Act should be enough to convince anyone that Obama is the wrong man at the wrong time.

So, perhaps the title of Mr. Fram's article should have been:

"Blacks ensure Obama stays competitive with McCain in poll"

“In 1982, John McCain goes to Washington…”

Obama’s new TV ad would have we, the people believe that John McCain has learned nothing in the last 26 years.

Does Obama really think that John McCain doesn’t know how to send an email?  Perhaps McCain prefers to talk to people directly- to hear the tone of voice, to look into people’s eyes?  Perhaps McCain knows that people communicate best when the communication is direct.

Does Obama’s ad, which credits a post by a liberal blogger -Sasha Issenberg- as though it is a news piece, really mean to give the impression that McCain doesn’t understand the American economy?  The more people read and hear about the differences between McCain and Obama the clearer the choice will become. 

Obama has big plans for the American taxpayer- a massive redistribution of wealth.  That sounds great if you are the person on the receiving end… People would do well to remember, as Jefferson noted: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”

McCain is unwavering in his support of small business owners.  He favors an overhaul of the tax system but his goal is not to increase taxes on any one group.  McCain’s goal is to minimize everyone’s tax burden.  The trick for all politicians is clearly to reign in entitlement spending while continuing to provide those limited services and programs that are necessary at the federal level. We have yet to see many politicians willing to tackle this problem. 

As Obama’s never-ending list of potential programs grows by the speech, no one should think he will even attempt to control spending.  He cannot control spending and grow the programs he openly endorses.  It is not possible.

Perhaps a McCain ad could start:

“In 1982, Barack Obama attended Columbia University- the University that invited the extremist Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to campus, but bans the ROTC.  

A lot of things have changed in the last 26 years, but Obama hasn’t.

Obama, like a lot of students who attend liberal universities, still thinks that punishing small business owners by imposing higher taxes will grow the economy. 

Obama can use a computer to write speeches. Obama knows how to send emails to big donors and far-left college professors.  He even knows how to send emails to community organizers.

But does Obama understand the economics that face working people? Does he know that socialized medicine has failed around the world? Does he understand that the dictators at the UN seek to undermine the United States because the U.S. offers hope to people around the world?

Obama isn’t a college student anymore, but his policy positions are still laced with sophomoric rhetoric.

John McCain- a leader with 26 years of experience standing up for average Americans. A leader ready to start changing Washington on Day 1: January 20, 2009. 

What is more insulting to Americans- the comments that Democrats make or the comments the Democrats make when trying to explain the comments they made that they shouldn't have made?

As some in the DFL clearly begin clucking like Chicken Little- either with lipstick or without- it seems there is a growing fear that the man who would be King might actually be just a guy who isn't up to the job.  Panic leads to chaos and we are seeing it.

Example 1: 

Lots of politicians have talked about the pig with lipstick still being a pig.  The only problem: the context in which previous statements have been made was completely different.  Clearly, everyone in the country with a TV or radio heard Governor Palin's joke about pit bulls and lipstick.  As Obama gave a speech talking about putting lipstick on pig, he actually paused to let the line reverberate with the crowd.  As this partisan crowd laughed, he continued- clearly pleased with himself for hitting the right note with this audience.  Those in attendance obviously caught the joke.  As news of the comment leaked out to the real world- it was clear to all what he meant.  Those outside the far-left saw the comment for what it was- a cheap shot one might expect from a junior high bully.  As Obama tried to convince we, the people that the media and Republicans over reacted- he simply looked more ridiculous than he had the day before.  If he really didn't know how his comment would be taken one must wonder about his ability to assess the political landscape.  A man with this sort of judgement may be vulnerable to making such mistakes in other circumstances.  I wonder if his appearance on Letterman, in which he continued his audacious effort to explain away his lipstick comment, will help him with non-lefty voters or further cement him as the candidate of hype and celebrity...

Example 2:

South Carolina Democratic party Chairwoman Carol Fowler noted that Palin's primary qualification for being the VP nominee was that she hadn't had an abortion.  IS SHE KIDDING?

This woman should be canned immediately.  Once it became apparent that the comment was in outrageously bad taste, Ms. Fowler apologized and tried to dig herself out of the abyss by noting that she was talking about single issue voters.  Her admission that her statement was clumsy may be one of the season's biggest understatements...

Example 3:

The new talking point: Democrats like Steve Cohen D-Tenn, and Donna Brazile have now reminded voters that Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Governor. Unbelievable...

The liberal left wouldn't exist without the community organizers.  It is not bad to be a community organizer.  There are millions of community organizers.  I myself like to think at times I help to organize a community of conservatives to counter the community organizers of the left.  The point of the criticism of this aspect of Obama's resume is that community organizing is not a job that qualifies a person to be the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. As Obama's resume jumps from the job of community organizing to the position of state senator to his current job as a U.S. Senator, there are no bullet points on his resume demonstrating a skill set that might lead to the position of the Chief Executive of the United States.  

The frenzied speeches and silly comments indicate the Democratic Party is struggling with the possibility that the election will no longer be a coronation. The more the Democrats talk, the worse things become. Based on the three examples noted above,  Obama's camp would be better off asking all of their talking heads to take a vacation. Obama did well when he was vacationing in Hawaii...

Which brings us to the sad reality that Obama can give a great speech and that is actually the one skill he has that a President should have. The problem that many in his own camp are beginning to recognize: Speech giving, with a teleprompter, is his only actual skill.  

I would suggest that if we, the people want a President who can merely give a great speech, we should consider Bill Pullman.  Everyone who has seen Independence Day would acknowledge that Pullman's speech to the pilots getting ready to go fight alien invaders was incredible.  He didn't even need a teleprompter...

The next eight weeks will be filled with challenges for both parties. Republicans must try to keep the conversation focused on issues because it is clear that the Democrats have nothing to say about issues. Democrats need to find a way to keep Obama's foot out of his mouth as he seems to have become his party's greatest challenge. 

What is next? The lawyers are now invading Alaska, looking for any Palin problem the media has yet to uncover.  They will look for the tiniest shred of a possible problem.  The American people are not this stupid- they will see through the efforts of the few.  The efforts to bring down Palin skirt a very fine line.  Barring an obvious and clear transgression by Palin, the Democrats will continue to look petty and small in their quest.

Democrats will, most likely, continue to insult the average American by trying to spin their wobbling talking points even as those plates are falling to the floor..  A few points Democrats may want to note: 

Conservatives will stop referring to Obama as a former community organizer when liberals stop referring to Palin as the former Mayor of a small town. 

A smart politician stops digging the hole as soon as s/he realizes s/he is in it.

Apologies must be sincere to be believed.

Americans don't like to be insulted. 

As a woman who is fairly politically aware I continue to be stunned by the "feminist" reaction to Sarah Palin. 

How do the "feminists" claim that Palin not represent real women?  Palin is a more typical woman than any leader of the NOW crowd could ever claim to be.

Feminist leader Gloria Steinem has an issue with Palin because she is a member of the NRA. Apparently women in the United States should be opposed to the Second Amendment if they want to curry favor with "feminists".

Steinem is opposed to Palin's belief that the U.S. must take a "use it all" approach to energy as we develop long term clean solutions to our energy disaster. Apparently "feminist" theory requires we all try to find a way to bicycle our kids to soccer practice and hockey games.

Steinem is opposed to Palin because Palin believes the "theory of evolution" should be taught alongside creationism. Apparently all those bitter, Bible-totin' Christians should ignore the public school efforts to undermine religion while the children of the "feminists" get to remain blissfully ignorant of one of the most read and written about books in the world.

Steinem is opposed to Palin because Palin questions the validity of global warming.  Has Steinem failed to note that even the most die-hard global warming zealots now use the term global climate change because the truth is the earth's temperature has stabilized and may be entering a cooling pattern?  Also if the new findings and fears about sunspots hold true- we may need all of the warming we can get as our world and agricultural strategies adjust to the climate change that results from the "dead face" of the sun. (click here for chart of sun spot frequency) 

Steinem is opposed to Palin because Palin is pro-Life. Steinem misrepresents Palin's views by asserting Palin "supports government control of women's wombs" rather than framing the issue as Palin wants women to control their own behavior and then take responsibility for the consequences of their conduct.  Palin also understands that women who are fully informed about prenatal development may make a different choice than Steinem and her "feminist" followers think best. It is Steinem who wants to keep women ignorant.

Steinem is opposed to Palin because Palin doesn't support "stem cell" research.  Steinem and her fellow "feminists" continually use incorrect terminology to attempt to undermine their political foes. Their efforts to convince ignorant people that all stem cell research is the same cuts to the core difference between liberals and conservatives today.  

Liberals like to speak in broad terms that pull an emotional punch and conservatives want to have legitimate, detailed discussions about policy.  Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research because in her view an embryo is a human being with the potential for life.  Steinem's misrepresentation of Palin's opposition to a specific type of stem cell research- embryonic- to suggest a total opposition to ALL stem cell research is at best disingenuous.  

Steinem's pro-abortion position colors her ability to talk truthfully about stem cells: There is no study to date that offers hope that embryonic stem cell research will yield any solution to any medical problem.  On the other hand, ADULT stem cells have led to very important treatments for leukemia and other cancers.  Additionally,  there is a growing belief in the vast potential for stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood to lead to treatments for disease. One might think it logical to spend limited resources to expand upon success. Maybe "feminists" like Steinem prefer to pour money down drains that perpetuate their pro-abortion positions rather than into coffers that may actually lead to success in treating those with disabilities.

Steinem opposes Palin because Palin supports "abstinence- only" programs in school.  Some "feminists" have even suggested that Palin's view is the cause of her daughter's pregnancy. Actually, perhaps the problem facing teenagers and their parents is that the schools clearly undermine parental efforts to encourage abstinence only behavior by presenting non-abstinence as a more normal and natural occurrence.  Additionally, as society has become more tolerant of sexually explicit content on TV and in the media in general, any study purporting to draw a conclusion about the success or failure of "abstinence-only" programs must carefully attempt to sort out the influence of these external factors on children and teenagers.

The far-left positions of Steinem and her "feminist" followers are not in the mainstream and undermine the stability of the United States by undermining the stability of the American family.

I consider myself "pro-woman" and I know that women with children can make choices to secure both their families and their careers.  Strong women seek life partners who will support them in their quest to build a family and often a career. While Steinem may find this shocking, there are men out there who actually believe their wives can and should work, who will do laundry and cook dinner, who will do car pool and supervise play dates.  Some of these men actually volunteer to be the primary caretaker.  

I want my daughters to believe they can choose the life they lead but also to know that every choice they make will have a consequence.  I hope my daughters are strong enough to accept those consequences with grace and humility and integrity.

Steinem clings to her 1970s rhetoric and I have a message for her: Women have moved on, Gloria. The main issue for intelligent women is not whether women can have sexual relationships with whomever they want, whenever they want or even whether or not women can secure an abortion for any reason.

Some of us choose to read. Some of us choose to think beyond your talking points.  A growing number of us recognize this election is about more than party politics- it is about the future of this country and its ability to stand strong in a world of empowered dictators.  This election is about whether or not our country will develop a comprehensive strategy to achieve energy independence.  It is about whether our government will use tax policy to encourage the development of small business or undermine small business. It is about whether the government will begin to cut programs that encourage irresponsible behavior. It is about whether our government becomes becomes more involved in our daily lives or less involved. It is fundamentally about whether the people of the United States want a larger federal government or an empowered populace.

Gloria et al- This election is about so much more than  to your pro-choice, pro-sexual revolution policies that I could go on and on...

Instead I will simply conclude that after reading Steinem's position on Palin, I can honestly assert that women need Steinem's brand of feminism like a fish needs a bicycle...