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

Tag: McCain

Foresight

Posted by Kevin Smith – 9/17/08

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. 

Hmm. Seems like the current presidential candidate who said this over two years ago might have the kind of far-looking perspective and judgement we’d want in our country’s leader. On the other hand, we could choose a leader who makes rousing, inspirational speeches in which he illogically blames the opposition party on the credit problems, despite what the record says. But, eeeh… who wants to bother with facts, right? He makes me feeeeel good about the country for the first time in my life!

UPDATE: Feel free to peruse this article as well, where the Bush Administration proposed oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae over 5 years ago for the very purpose of avoiding the situation we now find ourselves in. And guess who opposed it? The Democrats in Congress. And why?

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Yeah, doesn’t sound like buying votes at all. There’s a reason most of these low-income people shouldn’t have been buying houses. History tells us that those are the people most likely to default and go into foreclosure. But who wants to learn from history when you’re so progressive?

[I]f by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind… then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

- JFK

Thanks for the mess, Congressional Democrats.

Obama might be able to email, but can he Google?

Posted by Kevin Smith – 9/12/08

Whoops. Apparently the hard-hitting, character assassinating ad recently released by the Obama camp never did the research to find out why John McCain might not be able to use a computer:

The reason he doesn’t send email is that he can’t use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. . . . McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes.

Yikes. So he cites running a major presidential campaign as being the kind of experience he needs to be POTUS, right? Hmm… doesn’t look like that’s going so well. Think what would happen if he didn’t do his research before meeting some foreign head of state! Aren’t you impressed with that cool hand of judgement Obama has during times of crisis?

UPDATE: As it turns out, the media was intrigued by the 2000 McCain campaign’s web savviness. So not only is the ad grossly distasteful to a tortured POW, it was patently false:

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate’s savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. “She’s a whiz on the keyboard, and I’m so laborious,” McCain admits.

This was from 2000!

Come on, libs, admit it. You’re frightened because suddenly your star has jumped the shark at the first sign of trouble. I applaud your unblinking, blind faith. Somehow, in a way I’ll never understand, you still want to elect that guy.

Good Gravy

Posted by Kevin Smith – 9/9/08

Anyone who saw John McCain speak would be surprised by these poll results. The convention wasn’t much of a boost to the base, apparently. And it comes as a little surprise that his support among Democrats rose from 9% pre-convention to 14% post-convention. But among independents? He sits at a startling 52%! That’s up 12% from before the convention, and 15% more support from independents than Obama holds!

I can’t wait to see the Democrats try to claim voter fraud again this year just because America chooses not to elect the party of hate, division, and small ideas.

Prediction: The US Presidential Election Winner

Posted by Kevin Smith – 9/8/08

The ticket to win the election come November will be the ticket who is speaking a message, not responding to what the other ticket says. Historically, the “we’re not the other guys” argument wins very few elections, and right now, Obama/Biden are on the defensive. You can see the results in the polls — taking into consideration, of course, that the Republicans are experiencing a convention bounce.

I’m not declaring a winner so much as pointing out that whoever is consistently on the offensive for the next 60 days will win the election. If the Democrats want to take it, they’d better quit merely responding to John McCain. And while McCain does seem to have lifted him campaign theme directly from Obama’s playbook, he also appears to be getting away with it. Responding with, Nu uh! I said that first! won’t win it for you, Barack, and you might want to layoff with the McSame rhetoric, while you’re at it. Apparently 54% of likely voters aren’t buying it. Time to change strategies.

McCain's ratings better than Obama?

Posted by Kevin Smith – 9/5/08

THIS I did not expect. Palin? Sure. No one knew her, and lots wanted to find out who she is and what she has to say. But McCain? I suppose he’s fortunate that his lead-in was the opening game of the NFL season, non?

UPDATE: And here’s the reason the Democrats have legitimate reason to worry. According to Rasmussen in a poll out today…

Among unaffiliated voters, favorable opinions of McCain have increased by eleven percentage points in a week — from 54% before the Palin announcement to 65% today.

Cry and scream all you want about how unqualified she may be. From a strategic standpoint, this is a problem for you. Why? Because people not only seem to really like her, but the Democrats constant comparison of her to Obama has gotten people thinking. And that’s lead to this:

However, following the Wednesday night speech, voters are fairly evenly divided as to whether Palin or Obama has the better experience to be President. Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say Palin has the better experience while 48% say Obama has the edge. Among unaffiliated voters, 45% say Obama has better experience while 42% say Palin.

Palin's ratings bested Obama

Posted by Kevin Smith – 9/4/08

So, in keeping with the Dems’ constant comparison of their ticket leader with the Republicans’ veep, I present this Nielsen report. Apparently, Obama’s speech garnered an impressive 38.4 million viewers. Certainly nothing to sneeze at. But the still virtually unknown Palin pulled in over 40 million. I submit that this obviously doesn’t bode well for the Obama/Biden ticket, but could even end up being a problem for McCain if he doesn’t play his cards right. I suppose, though, if there are enough people like me out there — people hoping that, at most, he’s a one-term president that can launch her into an 8 year term and are voting for the ticket because of that hope — he doesn’t really care.

UPDATE: Despite the complaints of Democrats about how much of a meanie she was in her speech, Rasmussen released these polling results on 9/5/08:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters say that Palin’s speech helped McCain’s chances of becoming President while only 10% believe it hurt those prospects.

And this:

Forty percent (40%) now say that Palin is ready to be President, if necessary. That’s up from 29% last week. Forty-nine percent (49%) say the same about Biden.

However, following the Wednesday night speech, voters are fairly evenly divided as to whether Palin or Obama has the better experience to be President. Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say Palin has the better experience while 48% say Obama has the edge. Among unaffiliated voters, 45% say Obama has better experience while 42% say Palin.

Think about that. Only 40% of voters think Palin’s ready for the Presidency. Impressive for a newcomer perhaps, but damning for Obama considering that same poll revealed that people are divided on who’s got more experience — comparing a Presidential candidate to a Vice Presidential candidate! Clearly not a glowing endorsement of Obama.

Too much on being a POW

Posted by Kevin Smith – 9/4/08

I think we can all agree that McCain’s speech wasn’t nearly as good as Palin’s. No need to run a poll on that. (To be fair, just as with Obama and Biden, their roles in speechmaking are entirely different. But still.)

My brother is in the Navy. I have great respect for the armed forces, and would do nothing to minimize their service. But from a politically strategic point of view, he’s beating a dead horse. Most of the country knows about McCain’s ordeal in Vietnam, though I’ll concede that they may not know the hairy details. But at this point, it’s too much. He’s talking about his experience in place of talking about policy. It’s something Obama’s been avoiding for quite some time now, and if McCain/Palin has any chance of taking it in November, they need to tell Americans what they’ll do that’s so much better than the other guys.

Except for the last minute or so, the speech had the tone of a lecture. I suppose that would’ve been fine if he’d been dealing out facts, if he’d begun with something like, “Alright friends, let’s talk details…”

But he didn’t. The text of the speech would imply the kind of emotional narrative that Obama recited. The Obama camp is totally right on one point: McCain and Friends desperately need to talk policy in detail. (As much as a politician on the campaign trail can, of course.) Obama has been notoriously ambiguous. McCain’s won over as many as he can with the POW story. To beat Obama come November, he needs to get specific with not just what he’s gonna do, but why that’s the best course for the country.

Dems, on the wrong side again

Posted by Kevin Smith – 8/27/08

It turns out, when the media isn’t day in, day out reminding us how horrible things are in Iraq, Americans tend to think things are improving. And the recent results in this ongoing poll by Rasmussen suggest that the Democrats are on the wrong side of the debate again. Perhaps the Democrats are totally right. Their correctness here is totally irrelevant. But their being at odds with the American people on yet another issue is one more nail in this election’s coffin. So here’s on more reason they’ll lose come November:

Fifty-four percent of American voters have confidence that America and her allies are winning the War in Iraq. That’s the highest it’s been since Rasmussen began tracking confidence in the war only a year after it began, in January 2004. Americans seem to be able to separate the War in Iraq from their appreciation (or lackthereof) for the President. Only 30% credit him with doing well in Iraq.

So this doesn’t bode well for a party that continues to hoop and holler about getting out of Iraq. Again, whether they are right on this issue doesn’t matter. With their very negative vocal message about Iraq, one would assume that they’re preaching to an America filled with people fatigued by the War, and that’s just who their rhetoric implies they are targeting. But according to Rasmussen, this is only 17% of voters. Down from 47% this time last year. Yipes. Looks like the Dems just keep have bad timing with their platform.

Pelosi continues to argue, in less than a welcoming fashion, that drilling here will only produce a $0.02 drop at the pump 10 years from now, even after Bush’s symbolic release of the Executive Order against drilling has so far dropped prices by over $0.43. (Their argument is short sited anyway. It assumes that for some magical reason, we won’t need oil 7-10 years from now.)

Apparently they want the country’s energy needs to be powered by hopes and dreams, just like Obama’s increasingly lackluster campaign. They certainly don’t want to use clean, cheap nuclear. They preach the solution to energy prices is in renewable energy. But even renewable energy isn’t “green.” And as furiously as it’s rolled out, it’s not enough to meet the government mandated minimum. Sure, an energy system with a diversity of sources is a great solution; you just can’t cut out the vast majority of sources (oil, coal, nuclear) and expect the economy to not collapse. (Even the most hopeful goals for renewable energy peg it around 33%.)

Obama chose Biden, and even ardent Obama supporters are upset. The polls are showing it, too. Since the Democratic VP pick, McCain for the first time overtook Obama in the polls. That’s pretty astounding considering Obama held a 15 point lead over McCain only two months ago.

The Dems seem to be so agenda-driven (so much of it a result of drinking Al Gore’s kool-aid), yet continue to claim to be the party of the people, of the working man. But to a person who can barely make ends meet, their carbon footprint is the last thing on their mind.

So my prediction is that, amazingly enough and after 8 years of people complaining about Bush, the Democrats will lose this election too. It could be thanks in part to the wonderful job the Democrats have done, no promises kept, since they took power of Congress two years ago. (Congressional approval is at a staggering 18%, sooooo much lower than the President’s.)

Talk about catering to special interests. Democrats, you have made yourselves irrelevant. Get ready to hand the Presidency over to McCain as a result.

If I say it over and over, that must make it true!

Posted by Kevin Smith – 8/13/08

You know, the willful ignorance that so many liberals show toward the idea of drilling absolutely befuddles me. Take Bob Herbert and his op/ed for the NY Times a few days ago.

As Senator Kerry and many others have pointed out, it would be nearly 10 years before any oil at all would be realized from new offshore leases. So your adorable 7- or 8-year-old would be just about 17 and clamoring for a license when this new oil started coming online.

Ok. Well, first off, they’re wrong. Drilling technology has come a long way since the 70′s, and it may take as little as 3 or 4 years to see some actual oil. But so what if it does take 10 years? If the Clinton Administration hadn’t blocked us from drilling 10 years ago, we wouldn’t be in this problem now. The shortsightedness is really quite astonishing. Not only would it drop prices sooner than 10 years from now, it would also provide for the Americans of 10 years in the future. Which will be us. So let’s think ahead, people.

Maximum capacity from these new leases wouldn’t be reached until 2030, when that 7- or 8-year-old is approaching 30, finished with college and graduate school, and very likely married with children.

And even then — after more than two decades and who knows how many graduations, weddings, funerals and family cars — even then, the amount of oil expected to come from these leases would have little or no effect on the price of gasoline at the pump.

Again, even if it takes that long, that alternative you’re offering is… what? Just wait it out? To have cars that run on Obama’s hopes and dreams by then? Please…

And to say that it will only have very little effect on gas prices ignores even our current situation with the deafest of ears. Like I’ve said, the only change in the last month has been the lifting of the Executive Order against offshore drilling. No new oil. Not even the lifting of the Congressional ban. Just a symbolic lifting of the Executive order. And oil barrels have dropped an incredible 23% from $147.27 to roughly $113.40. The average price at the pump dropped from $4.114 to $3.787. Almost $0.33!! To ignore this is engaging in a buffoonery of the highest order.

He then quotes the Energy Information Administration, a statistical agency that provides official data for the federal government. Given their dubious association, it’s not hard to believe they’re wrong:

“Because oil prices are determined on the international market … any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”

Wrong. See above.

I wonder how [the chanting bikers at the McCain rally] would have responded if they had been told that lifting the offshore restrictions would risk serious environmental damage to the U.S. coastline over the next several decades while having no significant effect on the price of gasoline at the pump.

They’d know the second part was a lie given the prices they’ve seen with their own eyes at the pump lately, which would make them laugh all the more heartily at the first part. Seriously, how oblivious is Herbert? Has he not swiped the card himself at the pump lately?

Jimmy Carter, for all his faults, was on the case when it came to energy. He saw the challenge as “the moral equivalent of war,” and dared to ask the public to make sacrifices as part of a coordinated national effort.

Ah, yes, I’ve heard many stories about his daringness. I believe it only exacerbated the energy crisis, if I’m not mistaken. Obama’s energy policy seems eerily reminiscent of Carter’s plan. And as such, the Obama machine is hard at work trying to get people to rewrite the history of both the Carter and Reagan Administrations.

Former Vice President Al Gore has tried, more than any other public figure in recent years, to raise the consciousness of Americans by dramatically illustrating, not just the enormity of the energy challenge, but creative and practical ways of dealing with it.

I suppose no one has ever accused Gore of being a pragmatist. In his devising of creative ways he does seem to ignore the largest contributors to energy. Oil and coal. And nuclear. This new wave of radical environmentalism, backed by junk science, greatly exaggerates the current effectiveness of alternative forms of energy. Wind and solar are great, but even Captain McGreenie Al Gore can’t power his house using only alternative forms of energy. That’s why we need a multi-facted energy policy that encourages new technologies without first abandoning the only sources that currently produce abundant energy. That’s why McCain’s plan makes more sense. And why Obama is quickly headed in the same direction.

By wide margin, Americans are against a redistribution of wealth

Posted by Kevin Smith – 6/28/08

I don’t really have time for a write-up on this just yet, but I saw it and thought it interesting. Gallup poll:

Americans’ lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

See the results here.