Allen Weh, so normal he drives a pick-up

The New Mexico “Independent” also recalls one of the hallmarks of the Massachusetts Senatorial Bid of one Scott Brown in Allen Weh’s third commercial. I really wish I didn’t have to link to the “Independent” since in this case independent means news organ of Bill Richardson and hopefully Diane Denish. Weh hasn’t gotten around to posting the ad on his web site yet so alas, democrat house organ I must go with.

Personal observations and biases aside, this ad targets Denish for using state funds for riding on a state jet for not so much state business. It’s important that voters understand this kind of thing but it can’t be surprising to anyone that doesn’t close their eyes and plug their ears that Denish seems to think she is entitled to treat state funds as her own. She’s democrat and is the same as Bill Richardson. So duh on that part, so this part of the ad is a home run.

And then it get’s sticky. Scott Brown notably earned points because his old, beat up pick-up had as many miles as one of those illustrated in an old Toyota commercial. So at the end of the ad, Weh stands in front of his beat up looking (because Dodge Dakotas look beat up, not because of any noticeable wear) pick-up and exclaiming that if he has to go somewhere he’ll take his truck. The thing is that the comparison doesn’t work. It’s cute but Scott Brown wasn’t a rich dude and his truck was old. In the commercial Weh tries to come off as a regular dude, But… Someone who can afford the following (Pardon the “Independent” again):

With another $250,000 donation to his campaign in the last month, GOP candidate for governor Allen Weh has reached $1 million in self-loans.

Just doesn’t seem like a regular dude. I couldn’t loan myself a million bucks, and not a lot of people can. Regardless, I have a better vehicle than Weh and would rather travel in comfort than in a Dakota. Anyway, the commercial just rubs me the wrong way. The commercial should have led to a pledge to not use state resources for unrelated activities. Instead of trying to copy someone else in creating a photo op and false representation.

Susana Martinez on the Bob Clark Show

On a side note I am posting this late because I decided to play the Sean Hannity “Literally” drinking game this afternoon and after half an hour and Sean’s fiftieth use of the word “Literally” to describe something that might or might not be literal, I hit the floor. I had to turn off the radio and listen to Deftones “Around the Fur” as part of my weekly listen to all their albums after their latest dropped last week. Anyway, on to my thoughts from this morning.

This morning Susana Martinez, Dona Ana County District Attorney (since 1996) and Republican candidate for New Mexico Governor was the 9 AM guest on the Bob Clark show on 770 KKOB AM Radio. Unfortunately for me, I was unable to listen to the complete interview because of a meeting that I could not re-schedule. Every attempt was made to listen to as much of it as possible and then relay my thoughts on the candidate based on the interview and other news relating to Martinez campaign.

Introduction
Like me, Martinez has allergies that come into full affect in Albuquerque. Martinez has a lot of ads right now and is gaining a large amount of endorsements. She did well at the primary convention and feels that her campaign is full of momentum. Her experience as a DA translates to the Governor’s office starts with a career of delivering results. The voter wants someone who not only talks about what they have done but delivers such as dealing with corruption, securing the border and balancing a budget.

Notes
- How to deal with the borders? First get rid of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Second, make NM less attractive to illegal immigrants by removing sanctuary policies, law enforcement should be able to inquire about citizenship in legal contacts. Third we should not allow scholarships to illegal immigrants that graduate from local high schools. It is a mistake for the current executive to court illegal aliens.
- Would she adopt the AZ law? The law in AZ is changing because of issues with it. She wants to see the finalized version. Before any new laws Martinez would adopt her outlined three steps. She also supports similar efforts in Oklahoma. Martinez clarifies the intent and what exactly are the legal ramifications of the AZ law.
- How to deal with corruption and how it affects the economy? Martinez believes that the favoritism and pay to play corruption exhibited by the executive branch in our state leads to an unpredictable state in regard to the economy and hurts it. This is because it results in changing policies and does not allow for business to find a stable environment when it comes to identifying what works and what does not in their interactions with state government. She has heard that her ads sometimes seem as though she is running for state AG instead of governor and has tailored her ads in this way because corruption has become so commonplace now that enforcement and change to this environment is very important.
- Martinez believes that Political appointments must be limited and that the current administration has done too many favors for friends and insiders. State employees must be judged strictly by their qualifications and not because of who they know.
- She would not sign the domestic partnership law. She would veto it.
- Our state keeps losing business, what do you plan to do? Reduce business taxes. There are only 6 states that tax on more business things than NM. So that makes NM uncompetitive to businesses. Business to business transactions are taxed, known as pyramiding, and leads to increased cost to the consumer. This needs to stop. There is now a back door secondary income tax that also needs to be stopped.
- She was a democrat in the 90s, why did she change? She did what her parents did. Later she met with Republican friends and talked about issues and thought of her own values and realized that she was a Republican. It was not a political decision, running as a Republican in Dona Ana County is not easy. This is an easy thing to understand. My dad registered as a Democrat because my Grandpa told him to and my Mom did because my dad was one. In my early twenties I spoke to my parents about the issues and values and that resulted in both switching to the Republican Party. It happens. I have always been one because my parents and grandparents encouraged me to be thoughtful and explore what was important to me. Additionally, my grandpa, my mom’s dad was a Republican so I didn’t feel what can be a paternal pressure (as much as that exists in this state) to become a Democrat because of tradition.
- Because I missed some of the interview because of a meeting I went to the candidates website and clicked the ‘On The Issues’ link to learn more. This may not be the best way to really judge a candidate but a good candidate can really stay on message and the composed way that Martinez is in an interview I think reflects this and so I think that the candidates official statements are sufficient.
- On the state budget Martinez opposes raising taxes to solve budget deficits because it will hinder economic growth. She believes that the problems are a result of poor financial decisions and little to no planning. In good economic years money should be paid or refunded. She will cut programs that don’t work and establish a relationship between spending and revenue.
- On health care, Martinez believes that decisions should be made more locally and not at the federal level. She will pursue tort reform to stop junk lawsuits that hurt physicians, incentive based approach including individual tax credits and support insurance purchasing across state lines. I hope that this means that she will push the AG to sue the federal government over ObamaCare. If not, then her goals are impossible.
- On education, Martinez will stop just throwing money at the state education infrastructure. Under Richardson spending went up 40% and 40% of students in New Mexico do not even graduate. That is a depressing set of statistics. She will fight for the education of children first starting with pushing to ensure that students go to class, going so far as to holding parents accountable.

Conclusion
Turning on the radio this morning I was looking forward to it as Martinez is one of the two candidates that I plan to vote for. After following her campaign and listening to her plans if she were to win I thought that Martinez would make a worthy Governor. After the interview I was impressed but not as much as I thought I would be. Martinez interviewed well and her answers to the questions of the host and listeners were complete and detailed. I was hoping for more specifics but in the radio format and from a candidate there is only so much you can really expect. So, for that I understand. Also, as a long time District Attorney, Martinez’s perspective is very much lined with legalese and tied to law enforcement which is a good thing but does not lead to much fire or charming rhetoric. Martinez is also experienced in running a campaign and it shows. I do wish there were more details in regard to specific policies and legislation that she would pursue on the campaign web site. There are short descriptions of her approach to several issues which is helpful but as a specifics type person I would prefer these (what I see as) introductions have links to white papers or some such thing.

It remains my opinion that Susana Martinez is one of the top two candidates running for Governor this election. It will be difficult to choose between her and Doug Turner. Hopefully one of them wins and if not at least Pete Domenici, Jr. is acceptable and I wouldn’t mind him winning. Janice Arnold Jones interview is Monday and I am not inclined to vote for her. And Allen Weh, I really would not like for him to win, more on that in a bit. Good luck New Mexico. Voting for Diane Denish is simply an extension of the Richardson administration.

On Diversity and the Supreme Court

Because I only play a lawyer when arguing insurance inanities with Presbyterian I am not exactly in any position to really understand all the finer details of a legal career and how that career leads to a Supreme Court appointment. This lack of knowledge does not preclude one from noticing something genuinely intelligent and thought provoking though. From the Weekly Standard:

President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, the current U.S. solicitor general and former Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan, is being touted as a “diversity” choice because she is a woman, while there are currently just two women on the Court in a country in which women make up more than half the population.

Previous choices to the Court have been similarly touted as bringing diversity to that august institution. Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s previous appointment, was hailed because she is a woman and the first Puerto Rican appointed to the Court. Justice Scalia was the first Italian, Ruth Bader Ginsburg the first Jewish woman, and Clarence Thomas only the second African-American appointed to the Court, filling the vacancy of Thurgood Marshall. Yet the diversity on the Court always seems to stop at considerations of race, gender, and ethnicity.

On other important grounds, the Supreme Court appears as a surprisingly monolithic group of justices. Nearly all attended elite colleges and proceeded from there to a few Ivy League law schools. They come from either a few northeastern states or from California. Considered as a group, the absence of genuine diversity on the Court is more than a little stunning.

Reading this column, it makes a lot of sense. Think about it from the perspective of yourself and your peers. From my own perspective a lot of the people that I went to college with that pursued the same or similar studies are noticeably similar in terms of career and values. And, not all of them are near six foot tall dark and handsome Hispanic men like me. Normally, I would not tout the diversity of the people that I know because it’s an absurd habit. Reality is that New Mexicans have a history of being diverse and being proud Americans without prodding from the government.

Drive without fear in Las Cruces, starting Thursday

Over the next few days, traffic enforcement cameras at two Las Cruces intersections will be shut down…. the cameras will be deactivated at midnight Wednesday.

And in a strange comment on this news:

Las Cruces Police Department spokesman Dan Trujillo warned motorists police will continue enforcing traffic ordinances in all parts of the city.

So, does that mean that Las Cruces Police Department spokesman Trujillo thinks that residents are so unintelligent as to believe that once the cameras come down, the roads become anarchy? What a condescending and silly comment.

What is Bill running for?

Apparently Bill Richardson is looking to curry favor with some unknown constituency for some unknown political office for that day he’s out of work next year…

Gov. Bill Richardson has directed the New Mexico Human Rights Division to assist any New Mexicans who are worried about traveling to Arizona in light of the controversial, recently-signed immigration law. The office could help New Mexicans by “giving them the information they need to protect themselves from unlawful detentions and investigations, assisting them in any legal action should they be unlawfully detained or investigated, and referring them to individuals and foundations, both private and charitable, that are willing to help.”

Richardson must know that the law is not yet in effect, no? And what problems would New Mexicans have traveling to Arizona anyway? Did Bill Richardson forget that New Mexico is a part of the union and therefore citizens of New Mexico are United States citizens? What garbage.

Look, the only reason why any New Mexican has to worry about having the wrong paperwork is because of the policies of the Bill Richardson administration. His support of giving illegal immigrants driver licenses is completely fallacious and means that our state’s primary form of identification is worthless as a means of proving legitimacy. So, that means we have to use passports. Thanks Bill.

Doug Turner on the Bob Clark Program

This morning on the Bob Clark show, New Mexico gubernatorial candidate Doug Turner was the guest at the nine o’clock hour. Unfortunately I was unable to listen to the entire interview because of another commitment so my impressions are from about twenty minutes into the show. There is a debate on 27 May for the candidates. It will be from 7 to 8 on channel 4, KOB TV and simulcast on 77 KKOB AM radio. He worked with Gary Johnson, on his campaigns. I did not listen to the introduction so I went to Turner’s web site to read more about the candidate. He was the Chairman of the NM Judicial Standards Commission under Johnson. He was also Chairman of the Albuquerque Development Commission. He started a public relations firm twelve years ago, which has 24 employees. No mention of the company’s name. From Wikipedia the company’s name is DW Turner. Below are my notes from the interview and following that is a conclusion.

Notes
- What do you want to do with the red light cameras throughout the state in the context of bad accidents in the city? This was a silly question. Turner answered that even if you put red light cameras on every corner, bad drivers would still exist and that the cameras are not the answer to bad drivers. Good answer. Clark steered the conversation in another direction after this.
- Benefits plans for state workers. Defined benefit plans are separate of market conditions; it should be based on contributions or move to benefits starting at federal retirement (SS) age. He seemed very knowledgeable of the deficits of the state plans and needs.
- There is too much state bureaucracy, what can you do about it, including thing like Tax lightning? The legislature creates a lot of laws and often there are unintended consequences. State govt grows and grows and exists to continue being large. It should be lean and become smaller. There are too many people working for the state.
- Budget under Gary Johnson was half of what Richardson’s last. What is a reasonable number that Doug thinks works? 4 and a half, 5 billion? The population and the services provided are not bigger or better. Many state agencies need to be eliminated. Do not raise taxes, remove redundancy.
- Denish and her spending. She has like 8 million in a war chest. Turner talks about her spending money even though she is unopposed and that he is not worried about her saving and that even though she claims to be an outsider she is really not. Money alone is not a deciding factor in this climate.
- What would you undo in terms of energy from Bill Richardson? The role for government is to be more of an advocate instead of an over-regulator. Turner mentions that the state has tough mining regulations and lost a lot of natural gas production. For energy he would push for everything, and not remove oil, gas and mining. He would also promote wind and solar as well as nuclear.
- In regard to the number of state employees, would he consider a law for mandatory retirement at qualification and then freeze hiring. There are more than 262 employees for every 10000 NM residents. He would institute a hiring freeze immediately. Mandatory retirement is not legal and a bad idea, because if someone is a good employee and relatively young when they can retire, the goal should be to keep them on. It is not a good policy to encourage retirement. Attrition is the best policy. There can be a loss of 5-6 thousand due to attrition in a couple years. Salaries need to come down and political appointments need to be eliminated. From the 450-600 appointees now Turner wants to trim that considerably to 167.
- Would the Oklahoma law on illegal immigrants work for New Mexico? Unemployment went down in OK after that. How about like AZ? Or are there plenty of laws on the books? Turner responded that the laws should be followed, employers should use e-verify, probably no new laws need to be used. There have been successful work programs for immigrant workers, on a temporary basis that should be looked at. Sanctuary policies like driver’s licenses should be revoked.
- Turner is from New York and his wife is a supporter of Hilary Clinton, what does that mean for the Turner campaign. Dumb question, Turner is from Albuquerque he has worked all over the world and met his wife in an Albuquerque middle school. He believes that he can appeal to democrats, anyone who believes in smaller government and common sense policies.
- Rail Runner, what to do about it because it costs much more than it was supposed to. It was not cost effective. Public transportation is never cost effective. Find a way to make it less of a burden or moth ball it until it can be less of a burden. It cannot be sold. Unfortunately the state will be burdened with it because of commitments to it such as right of ways and rail usage signed by Richardson.
- He would seek to re-instate the death penalty. New Mexico has been judicious in using it and it may not be a deterrent but should be used as a tool.
- Would he be willing to make public contacts with any business or contributors to campaigns looking to do business with the state? While laborious he is open to it.
- What would he do to cut spending k-12 schools and move from the unions? Public education protects the status quo and he would like to see good teachers get paid a lot and he believes in competition and charter schools and school choice.

Conclusion
So, what do I think of Doug Turner as a candidate? Biased before this interview I had seen previous interviews with Turner and thought he would be a good governor so I was already leaning towards him as one of two Republican candidates that I would decide between. This interview did nothing to change that. It is true that he does not have the most experience but that might be a good thing. On balance there are not a lot of political regulars in the Republican primary and that could benefit Turner. What I am impressed with in interviews is the way that Turner handles himself. He is clear and confident in his responses to questions. His platform is clear and he can communicate ideas in a complete way. When questions are tough or silly he does not sulk or complain. So far his ideas and methods for running the state are the most palatable to me and so I consider Turner to be a top tier candidate. After listening to Susana Martinez’s interview I will read more and make my final decision on whom to support.

Allen Weh on the Bob Clark Program

This morning New Mexico Gubernatorial Republican Candidate Allen Weh spent an hour with Bob Clark on 770 KKOB. Below are my notes on the interview and following that is my conclusion.

Introduction
Spoke mostly about his campaign and not his qualifications. He worked hard on his campaign going around the state and getting feedback on how to be an effective candidate in a state where there are more democrats and independents than republicans. Also talked about silly skirmish with Diane Denish. Of course she uses taxpayer dollars for inappropriate things, she's an acolyte of Bill Richardson and a democrat.

Notes on the Interview
- Cap on rate of payday loans (stupid question) - He tap danced around this question
- What happens when stimulus money runs out? Blames denial in Santa Fe in regard to funds. Has to cut essential services. Cites building paint job as as non-essential versus cuts in schools or police. Cuts to museum hours. Cuts to unnecessary boards and commissions, no specifics.
- Budget question. 6 billion under Richardson, 3.9 under Johnson, what number? Danced around this question, north of 4 billion based on inflation. He does not know.
- Border security He said Arizona did the country a favor. I agree. He does not state how or why. Only that they drew attention to the problem. He will remove sanctuary policies with the state police not turning over to ICE. He thinks NM does not need a similar law to AZ. He thinks Licenses to illegals is dumb. New policy, immigrants must be legal. Duh. Termination must coincide with termination of visa. Border security is a national security issue. A secure border is an absolute requirement for the security of the country. Weapons, human trafficking, criminal elements cited as problems. We must intercept them before they get to far into the country. Border must be tight. Must use all state resources, unencumbered, add to the southern part of the state.
- Bicycle and Pedestrian safety. Punted as municipal decision.
- Red light cameras in state. Punted as municipal decision. On state roads, not neccesarily a proponent.
- Listens to the people is something a good governor should do not just what he wants.
- As state Republican chair, he could relieve county chair but was rebuffed by state and triede anyway. Does he believe that he can ignore rules and policies as he can. He blames it on unfriendly callers in political season. Claims 31 years of business as proof of being good at building coalitions. Does not name business and how he built coalitions and with whom.
- What can he bring to the table that other candidates can not? Another dumb question. States that all candidates have integrity. He states his experience, age, military experience (doesn't specify what) and his business (no specifics) and that he has managed money.
- State Govt cannot be run as a business states a question because it is not for profit. He says they are wrong because you have to be responsible, you have to set a budget, you cannot spend more than you take in. Govt has forgotten that they work for the people. He wants to manage state govt like a business.
- As chair did you push Steve Pearce to run against Heather Wilson? He said you can't and that they made up their own mind. Dumb question.
- Family issues, he is against same sex marriage and he is pro life.
- Bronze star, Silver star and purple heart military awards brought up as character plus by caller. Obviously a supporter, he asked why Weh does not bring these up more. He tries to balance his campaign. He vetoed the use of the word hero in his campaign. He spoke some about his military experience.
- If elected, what is the future of the rail runner? He will put guys on issue, peel back the onion and leave anything on the table. Last resort is shuttering and would like to make it at least sustainable with small govt subsidies.
- He will work with the legislature to re-instate the death penalty.
- Will he impose fines on business that knowingly hire illegal aliens? He says that if all the laws already on the books we would not have this problem so he should not have to.

My Conclusion
Before the interview I wasn’t inclined to vote for Weh and after the interview I know that I will not vote for him. For the most part he seems like a nice person and all but I am unimpressed with his campaign and his qualifications. For the most part he seems to be campaigning on his 31 years in business but never goes into any details. I had to look up that he and his wife have owned CSI Aviation, a charter flight company, since 1979. I’m not sure how large the company is and what his experience really is with it. Another tenant of his campaign is that he is not a politician. While it is true that this is his first political campaign he was the chairman of the New Mexico Republican party from 2004 to 2009. Perhaps unfairly I consider that to be a political position. The interview did nothing to change my perception of Weh and I could not vote for him in good conscious because I do not think that his vague answers and stances bode well to the office of Governor.

The New Mexico Gubernatorial Primary

The primary election for Governor here in New Mexico is coming up soon, the first of June to be specific. Currently there are five candidates on the Republican ticket while the Lt. Governor, (read Bill Richardson’s third term) Diane Denish, is running unopposed on the democrat ticket. As I find everything done by Richardson to be indefensible and offensive I think that it is important to tie Denish to his administration. Denish’s campaign has involved attempts to separate her but I don’t think that will work. She has been the Lt. Governor for all eight years of the train wreck that this state signed itself up for by electing a narcissist like Richardson. Her public comments and actions from the last eight years have done nothing to prove Denish to be anything other than a carbon copy of the shameless, life-long politician Richardson. As such, there is nothing there for me to vote for, therefore I will be concentrating on the Republican side to determine who I would prefer to lead our state for the next four years while correcting the mistakes of the last eight.

770 AM KKOB’s Bob Clark show has been doing me a great service by hosting the nominees during the 9 O’clock hour which allows for listeners to learn about the candidates outside of their campaign materials. In this space I will list my thoughts on each candidate as they are interviewed and I go through the process of determining who I think would best serve as governor of our great state.

I listened to but did not take any notes on Pete Domenici, Jr’s interview this week as decided to start doing this today. What I can say though is that Domenici was impressive in his interview. At the start of his campaign I made the mistake of assuming that he was all name recognition, a gift from his long time senator father. I am happy to report that I was wrong and that Domenici seems to be someone well aware of the issues facing our state and capable of governing. In his interview he came off as a person of principle and with ideas that will be helpful to the future of our state. Because of this interview I move Domenici into the maybe column.

Coming back home

Up to November 2008 I had been a regular contributor to this blog and then all of a sudden I left. Part of it was due to work commitments that made it difficult to find the time to put into words the points I wanted to make and then even remember to do anything with those words. Additionally at that time I learned that I was to be a father for the first time. I thought at first that I would be able to continue with my life mostly unchanged. I was wrong and as Bill Engvall says; “Here’s your sign”. My son was born in July of 2009 and is nearing his first birthday, changing in an amazing way every day.

The biggest contribution to my dereliction of duty however had to do with the election of 2008. To me it had denigrated into a playground incident between seven year olds. The media was all in for Obama and ignored important things from his complete lack of meaningful experience including anything even related to the private sector to his radical associations and stated positions. John McCain was completely incompetent as a presidential candidate and Sarah Palin was sacrificed to the national scene and unfairly caricatured. To me, the campaign was just name calling of the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate, bumbling by McCain and a bunch of nonsense touchy-feely BS from the Democrat ticket. I read a lot and devoured everything I could about Obama. To many he was a fresh face but there was a lot to his history and at a relative young age, had authored two biographies full of evidence that he could not be trusted in executive office. His thin resume as a United States Senator existed of many rants of a leftist tilt, running for President and he was elected by luck as a friend allowed for the unsealing of private divorce records of his competitor who was leading. He is and always has been a community organizer. Simply put a rabble rousing, professional victim finder and exploiter. Knowing this, I could not fathom how a person like Obama could be elected to be President. Alderman, nutbag congressional district Representative, sure. But President, I did not think it was possible. As it became ever more apparent that he was going to be elected my mood became dark and I just didn’t care anymore. I worried about the future, mostly because I had a son on the way. When he was elected I was shocked but not. It was disheartening but I was not surprised. After all, in a country where many of my peers get their news from a blowhard like Jon Stewart how could I be surprised?

In all, I just wasn’t sure that I cared all that much for politics anymore. Pessimism is easy. Over the last year and a half the policies that have been put forth by this President and the Congress have been worse than I even imagined. It is as though our country is being run from an office complex on the yellow brick road. Those in charge of our government haven’t a care for the opinion of their constituents and treat the citizenry as infants. Every time our governor, Bill Richardson does anything I am in complete disbelief as to how a person of no character and utter incompetence could be elected for two terms. A ray of light has occurred recently. Last November, the seeming mayor for life of Albuquerque was defeated soundly by a responsible person. Massachusetts elected a Republican to the Senate. Perhaps the most impressive governor in our country runs New Jersey of all places.

It is time that I get back to hashing out my thoughts. Who knows if anyone cares about what I think but it is time, if only for myself, it is time that I finally get back at it. I plan to get more into local politics this time around because, it all starts at home.

Happiness Is ... Being Old, Male and Republican

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090516/sc_livescience/happinessisbeingoldmaleandrepublican

This is why we are screwed

And also why we lost. There's a split between social conservatives and libertarians that's been festering for a while, as you can see in this post on Mike Huckabee's attacks on libertarians.

These two sides will duke it out, and the loser will join the democraps and Ballsack Obama's change we can believe in. :( I hope the "compassionate conservatives" lose. I'm getting older, more libertarian, and more federalist. Let the states decide social issues, peeps.

alright world, congratulations, great, wonderful, now let's get to work

When Obama did say "we are the United States," it does make me feel good and realize we are by far the best country on the planet, far more superior than everyone else in every category possible, and capable of having a verbally violent campaign leading to peaceful results.

That being said, however, as we look back, the bottom line fact is this. No President in the history of the US has been more disrespected than Bush. Even including Reagan and Nixon and Clinton.

People can learn a lesson or two from Paul Ryan (Wisconsin House Republican). The last 8 years proved one thing. When Bush wanted to reach to the other side of the aisle, the Democrats did not work with him. The last 8 years proved bipartisanship in DC is impossible. The bottom line is Bush proposed bipartisanship and *both* sides abandoned him. Republicans can't stand Bush because he chose Miers, didn't send the right amount of people to Iraq/no exit strategy, allow amnesty, NCLB, tax cuts weren't enough, not privatizing health care, etc. Democrats can't stand Bush because he chose Alito/Roberts, would not withdrawal from Iraq, won't open borders fully/give out driver's license, not enough funding for education, tax cuts too much, not supporting SCHIP, etc. See the point here? Bush is blamed for everything yet the Democratic Congress of the last few years gets a pass. How can Bush pass anything when he has vehement opposition? The last 8 years proved the only way you can win is to run on your views - and *stick* with them. That's the way Obama will be successful - but the key is to see if people are willing to accept his left liberal viewpoints. Time will tell there. But if Obama moves to the center, his Democrats in Congress will be angered and the Republicans will say he's not really conservative anyways. Presidents should stick with their viewpoints, and the members of Congress needs to swallow their pride and work with the President. Obama may get that lucky break considering most members of Congress agrees with him. Bush didn't have that break as he had almost the same members that would disagree with every little thing he said. Time will tell what Bush's legacy will be. It's way too early to analyze.

Now how do Republicans bounce back? Simple. Why do we have to stand on just one sub-issue of conservatism? There are people out there that's all of the above: Social conservative, economic, national security. Choose that one person and get Sarah Palin involved, get Mitt Romney involved, get Tim Pawlenty involved, get Bobby Jindal involved, get Michael Steele involved, get Grover Norquist involved, get Mike Huckabee involved, get Newt Gingrich involved, etc. or maybe one of them is the one. Get the "DC usuals" involved like Putnam, Boehner, Blunt, Pence, etc. Listening to the center has gotten us nothing. Conservatives may split amongst one another on sub-issues, but they will all rally together behind THE conservative. Independents only come on board if we are liberal on several issues. And as described in the previous paragraph, that ends up sinking the Republican party which essentially near-happened yesterday. And also come out positive. No need for depression like most of the Democrats' campaign themes have been. I know there are plenty of Republicans out there that think we should reach out to moderates and independents, and I respect that opinion, but I think we’ve seen that tried over the last 10 years now…and look what happened.

Now, liberals shouldn't be super confident come 2009. The culture war (whether one agrees/disagrees is not the point) still exists and they will not win the "right" by sticking with their original viewpoints. If Obama is asking for prayers from Christians, good Christians will do it, but Obama will need to think long and hard about his views on life and family if he's going to get full support. Democrats were able to get in mainly because of the economy conveniently near-crashing just a month before the election. Democrats capitalized and showed the world that you are all depressed - vote for us and you'll be happy again. McCain simply put ran a bad campaign and I've said that already. McCain himself distanced from Christians, Hispanics, and Suburbia and it was almost over at that point. And the campaign energized finally with Palin coming on board. Of course it helped most of the media were on the side of Obama, but that's beside the point. And after all that, may Republicans learn their lesson over the past couple of years. They came to Washington to "change it" and instead really it changed them and if anything, the party of fiscal responsibility threw it out the window. They didn't lower taxes enough and now we're witnessing outsourcing at record proportions. They, as well as Clinton, forced banks to give loans to pretty much anyone without logical discrimination. But like the economy, parties are cyclic, the Republicans will bounce back again.

And since economy has become the issue, how exactly will Democrats handle this? Well, the fact is most people are very negative about the future of our financial market. What we will see is the Democrats (let's just say that since they're in power now) will continue interfering in everyone's affairs, make government even bigger than it is now and as a result, continue the economic downturn. Congress showed (including Republicans of literally yesterday) they don’t know anything about the economy whatsoever, as well as other citizens in America. Some financial institution or an insurance company is in trouble. So what's the solution? Let government takeover *even more* and make matters worse. Democrats (yes they too) support the billions and billions and maybe trillions now of "relief" (note the quotes) to Wall Street and turn capital cheap. No one (McCain failed here probably because he too supported it) faulted the Congress of the home mortgage crisis that happened (Fannie/Freddie).

In order to restore confidence, they simply need to get out. That is really the only way. Stop taking on the liquidity and credit problems and let markets be truly free. If there is something stimulated, it's only temporary for a very short term. That's not exactly a recovery. Financial institutions are simply giving out in droves. Let them fail. It's really the only way something bounces back. But, they're not the only ones to blame, but also individuals that don’t know their financial boundaries and fall for the predatory schemes. Home values really need to reach a certain level. At those levels, new people who *can* afford will then buy. In the future, construction will start again. And if the economy grows, assets will go up.

Now how to get the economy growing again? Government *could* do something and that's to provide just enough liquidity so the markets continue to function. That can maintain markets. Again: just enough and this isn't a "bailout." And then promote economic growth by doing what Obama will *not* do and that's cut marginal rates on corporate as well as income taxes, and capital gains taxes as well. Investment spending will occur, jobs will be created, wealth will be generated. These are principles that Obama bluntly disagreed with in the entire campaign. Thus this is why I said the economy will continue to languish over the years

Consumers and workers ultimately pay corporate taxes. High corporate taxes does not produce jobs and reduces foreign entities of doing business here. It needs to go down from today's 35% level. As McCain said, it's the 2nd highest in the world - and it is

And here's the ultimate sacrifice: consumers must not be reckless with their finances. *and* Congress must reduce the debt. And this can be helped by economic growth

Congress should stop with all these "stimulus" packages. They're just rebates and they don't help the economy

Congress needs to stop helping people who got into the situation they were in to begin with. That is bluntly wasting money and not helping recovery. Banks should be able to decided whether or not to make deals with people and get the government out and pull away from the stupid law that was made back in the 90s forcing banks to give give give

Congress needs to stop making DoTre give equity to companies or unions because of the debt they caused to begin with

Congress *and* Obama needs to decrease marginal tax rates and allow free trade

Congress needs to stop this constant Union secret balloting legislation

And on top of *all* that, the Democrats will cut the DoD budget by at least 30% (that's said, so realistically it's gonna be more)

Congrats to President Obama: race and age is one thing, but policies is what matters

So it's done

Hey guys, I made a vow to disappear and divest myself of anything election-wise until today. If I got too invested, it would have been bad for business, plus I'm in the middle of a job hunt and I'd rather focus on that than this election. Now that it's done (the election, that is), I can finally weigh in.

This election, I was surprised to find out that my wife was a lot more gung-ho for McCain than me. I'm actually a registered independent now (long story), which sucks, because now the ACLU sends me crap and calls me. Yesterday, I resisted the temptation to pull the lever for Bob Barr. I usually lecture others about sissy third party antics, so I went and voted McCain.

So, the big question is, now what? I'm honestly proud of my country for this moment, and I think we should all reflect on that. I still think that Obama has this weird cult persona and hasn't done anything that qualifies him for the presidency, but the guy at least ran a flawless campaign and appears to have the temperament for the job. I'm going to be cautiously optimistic for the next couple of years. We're not going to be rounded up and sent to reeducation camps or anything, and I don't like the fearmongering on our side about what an Obama administration will look like. He'll be a left-wing president, but the American people are not stupid. As long as the press does its job (I have faith that they will end the 24/7 blowjob of this guy sometime next year) we'll be fine.

I have 2 great fears for the Obama presidency - 1) he will be assassinated or someone will make an attempt and 2) there will be a major terrorist attack on this country that he will be forced to respond to. The major reason for fearing both is obvious - they are greatly destabilizing. But I get the feeling that this guy is a lot like FDR and could use things to his advantage when it comes to unconstitutionally expanding his power. The first thing we should worry about is the credit crisis and his response - if he responds like FDR did, we'll be set for a long, extended depression with inflation highly likely. Personally, in the middle of my job hunt, I bumped government jobs up the list because those will likely be the most stable.

Anyway, guys, I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll be fine. The new reality is that we have a left wing government for at least a couple of years, but at least we're not nearly as bad as the other major powers of the world. Let's set aside party differences and congratulate the new President elect, and bask in this historic moment. I'm personally very proud to be an American right now.

surreal....

viewpoints from tonight:

---Wow, pretty historical...Interestingly and maybe this just happens to me, but when Republicans win, most of us conservatives nod, move on, and get to tasks. When liberals win, we know about it. In other words, liberals act, well, immature. It's like, yes, we know Obama won, now you rub it in? You can't get any of them to debate because they get too emotional. Probably because most of them don't know what Obama is gonna do and uneducated about policies. I took a risk, I've always said it's either Obama wins close or McCain wins close. And I'm wrong. But let's face it. Who's never wrong? No one. Obama won in a landslide due to the EV. Popular vote seems close (there's still time though), but EV-wise, yes Obama will eclipse 300. Let's just wait and see how Obama governs. Let's see if he moves to the center. Let's see how he handles terrorism. Because his past record clearly shows he's to the extreme left. I personally don't care about race. I care about what kind of policies he'll enact. With an extreme left Congress...we'll see. But bottom line, I said and now say congratulations to President Obama. Granted, it's more than likely I'll disagree with most of what he'll do, but we'll see. I just don't want to hear it from liberals - you got your President. Be mature about it. And Republicans? You only have yourself to blame. You had your chance for the last 8 years, well, really 6 years...and you didn't capitalize. May you learn your lesson.

---For me, the minute Obama won Ohio, I felt Obama was gonna win this election. The minute Obama won Virginia, all bets were off

---One thing I never understood is how networks (all of them) pick a candidate with only 1-2% of the precincts reporting and the results are like Obama 5,000 to McCain 4,000. Fox did that to Ohio tonight with 2% of precincts reporting and they went straight to Obama. They called New Mexico 1 minute after they closed. And if I remember, they called Udall and Pearce was ahead? I guess stations took their chance this year. They did this in 2000 and Florida bit them. I seriously think states should wait til they're 95% counted to declare.

---'nother thing I noticed. Democrats (well, at least Murtha and Obama) were coming out early declaring victory. I can't remember the last time candidates coming out early to declare victory already...

---Just realize this state went full Democrat. Gubernatorial, Senate, House, even the southeast NM voted Democrat...

---This election was really more anti-Bush than pro-Obama

---This is the first time the polls actually got something right in 8 years.

---Ahhh, watching all the young people get excited. I'll bet none of them know a single thing about policies

---I wonder what Israel is thinking at this moment...

---Obama: I wasn't the most likely candidate. [BS, the media set you up 2 years ago]

---Again, let's see what happens in 2009 (policies). Let's also see if he really does reach out to the other side. It'll be tough for conservatives because clearly the last 8 years the Democrats did not reach to the other side. Strength of arms is not his choice apparently. This could be another Carter term when it comes to foreign policy

Scare Tactics for a Democrat Win

When I lived in Arizona, I liked to be a good grandson and call my grandmother every few weeks. In these conversations my grandmother would often lament the dangers of the city, often stating a desire to stay home all the time. The source for these fears was the local nightly news and their sensationalized stories that only had the affect of scaring the elderly.


Today in the mail I received a political advertisement from one Victor Raigoza, New Mexico state senate candidate in my district. It was hard to find the sender as it was on the lower right of the addressed side in what appears to be about 8 pt font. The sender was not completely unobvious but it was curious that Victor’s opponent’s name appears eight times on both sides of what is a hit piece. The front page states that “JOHN RYAN is a CRIMINAL and a CRONY…was convicted of a felony, but was pardoned by then-Governor Gary Johnson (a Republican).” Reading the back of the page the reader is also alerted that Ryan works as a lobbyist and that he serves private interests while serving the state.


The tone of the ad was quite distasteful and the front of the ad features a copy of Ryan’s State Senate bio picture with a MS Paint (not quite good enough to be Photoshop or if it was, they paid too much for their capabilities) appended mug shot booking collar. All this made me curious. I moved into this district in March 2007 so I didn’t vote for Ryan nor did I have much an idea of his work in the Senate. A felony criminal record and a lobbyist? It sounded incredible that someone like that were elected and was running for re-election.

So, is John Ryan a criminal? Well that’s a judgment call and has to take into account what happened:

In 1980, when he was in high school, he and others broke into a North Valley home and stole family portraits which were held for ransom. He was indicted for extortion and convicted of felony burglary charges.

What Ryan did in this case was not acceptable behavior however two things struck me in regard to the explanation. First, he was in high school, it seems as though it was a prank, one that went too far as evidenced by the burglary part.1980 was almost thirty years ago, Ryan was sentenced to three years probation so when he was pardoned by Governor Johnson he had already served his sentence. Second he states that family portraits were taken. Victor Raigoza claims that he stole ‘paintings’, to extort someone. Strong language, the grandmothers of the North Valley are shaking.

So, how about the lobbying part? This question does not even pass muster at all simply because there is simply not enough information in the attack ad from Raigoza. It is true that Ryan is a lobbyist, but at the federal level:

Ryan is now a professional lobbyist at the federal level. He got started in that field in 1996 when he was hired by the City of Los Angeles to represent its interests in Washington. His next client was the National Rural Electric Co-op Association. … “I am a registered lobbyist in Washington DC and I pick my clients very wisely,” he explained. Those include The Southwest Power Group, which is trying to establish electrical transmission lines for solar and wind generators delivering power to Arizona and California, and a water pipeline project in the Clovis-Portales area that needs federal approvals.

Interesting, so the company, according to Raigoza, paid Ryan thousands of dollars to sponsor beneficial legislation required federal and not state approvals?

Nothing stated in the ad sent by Victor Raigoza has any reference and the type and words are clearly intended to scare elderly voters just like the nightly local news. Voters that won’t get the truth from someone like Victor Raigoza.

Who is Raigoza anyway? Other than the typical democrat website ‘who’s who’ and AFL-CIO endorsement information there isn’t much out there except vague platitudes alluding to what he supports (economy, education and affordable health care, and of course the Easter Bunny). What is known is that Raigoza is a financial advisor at Edward Jones and is proud of be a” community activist”, stopping the Wal-Mart that would allow me a five minute walk to obtain strawberry whoppers instead of a ten minute drive.

So Victor is a typical democrat, vague, ignorant of the issues, supported by labor unions, spiteful of business and subterranean in his capability to distort truth as scare tactics. And on top of that I bet he’s active in the Vista Del Norte homeowner’s association that’s the bane of my existence.

District 10 deserves better than someone like Victor Raigoza. John Ryan has the experience and is respected by his peers and the community he represents. The Village of Los Ranchos web site states:

The Village of Los Ranchos is fortunate and proud to have John Ryan, NM State Senator as a resident.

Don’t let sleaze peddling power seeking dishonest presumptive politicians like Victor Raigoza win.

Economic Questions to Consider

So, President Presumptive Obama, donkey Congessional cush seekers and all the democrat hit group commercials blame the current financial panic on President Bush and extend that blame to anyone who dares seek office as Republican. Before spreading their nonsense in hopes of baiting the possible economic unlearned watching syndicated television, did they consider logical reasons? Of course not. There is no such thing as logic when the most important thing is the accumulation of power. In this case the only item of importance is election and there is no tactic considered out of bounds. The Wall Street Journal's opinion page today asks tough economic questions, based on logic withough demonization, some of the key points:

The market is forward looking. If it is unhappy with a president, it does not wait almost eight years before the numbers reflect it. If it really anticipated good times under Mr. Obama, the market would have gained 40% in anticipation of the transition. By losing that much, it seems to be saying the opposite.

To state the obvious: The valuation of an individual stock reflects the collective expectation of investors about a company's future profits, dividends and appreciation, and the same is true of the market as a whole. These profits, in turn, are greatly influenced by government policy on taxes, spending, subsidies, environmental and other regulations, labor laws, and the corporate legal climate. Investors have heard enough from both candidates in the last month or two to conclude that prospects for a flourishing, competitive, growing and reasonably free economy in a McCain administration are bad, and in an Obama administration far worse. (In fact, the market's bearish behavior over the last couple of months pretty closely tracks Barack Obama's gains.)

Have you thought of what a gradual doubling (and indexation) of the minimum wage, sailing through a veto-proof and filibuster-proof Congress, would do to inflation, unemployment and corporate profits? The market now has.

Have you thought of how the nationalization of health insurance, the mandated coverage of ever more -- and more exotic -- risks, the forced reimbursement for excluded events, and the diminished freedom to match premium to risk would affect the insurance industry? The market now has.

Have you thought of Energy Czar Al Gore's five million new green jobs -- high-paying, unionized and subsidized -- to replace, at five times the cost, what we are now producing without those five million workers, and what this will do to our productivity, deficit and competitiveness? The market now has.

If the rise in the price of oil from $70 to $140 was due to "greed" (the all-purpose explanation of the other side for every economic problem), was the fall from $140 to $70 due to a sudden outbreak of altruism?

If a bank is guilty both for rejecting a mortgage ("redlining") and for approving it ("greed" -- see above), how might a bank president keep his business out of trouble with the law?

If the financial turmoil of the last year or so was caused by inadequate regulation, which party has controlled both Houses of Congress and all of its financial committees and subcommittees (where such regulation would originate) in the last two years?

A Pleasure

Considering I'm working some extra hours to make up some time to take a Haloween vacation to New Orleans my civic duty seemed best suited to absentee ballot this election. So, I'm done and soon to be accounted for, of course I did vote against the country clerk whom the thing's addressed to, so you never know. Just kidding, I hope. Anyway it was a pleasure to vote against the "Regional Transit Gross Receipts Tax", AKA the Rail Runner Slush Fund. Of course, it is my tendandcy to vote against anything that is not street light, sidewalk or defense related. But public transportation will always occupy a special place, ok so I pay for it in taxes and then pay for it if I were to use it?

don't count McCain out yet

if anyone turns on the TV, you'd think Obama won already. But it's still possible McCain can win.

the states I think Obama for-sure will win are: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Washington DC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawai'i. So far that's 255

for McCain: West Virginia, Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska - that's 261. Contrary to all the polls, I think McCain will pull off NC, FL, OH, IN, MO, Dakotas, CO, and NV, but I really wouldn't be surprised if Obama takes one of these states away from McCain.

here are the 3 states I didn't write down:

New Hampshire - almost guaranteed for Obama, but very McCain-friendly area

New Mexico - our home state decided the candidate by mere hundreds of votes since 2000. The closest state nationwide in the past presidential elections

Virginia - like New Hampshire, I don't think it should automatically go to Obama quite yet.

Of course if Obama gets all 3, he got it with 277. But all McCain needs is Virginia...ought to be an interesting election night. Either way, I think it's gonna be close and not the landslide many are predicting. And with an Obama victory, the good thing is we can hope for a conservative resurgence in 2010 and 2012. Let's just hope Obama won't be able to choose a SC Justice during his term *gulp*

2012

Let's face it. Even if McCain wins, there'll be a new Republican running in 2012. More than likely Sarah Palin would run vs Hillary Clinton in 2012. But if it's Obama winning next week, it's safe to start thinking 2010 in Congressional takeovers (Obama is gonna have another Carter administration with Israel or Iran attacking each other). 2012 will be another election. Who is that Republican that everyone should get behind and take over again? My choice? It's still early of course but for now, I'm thinking the only conservative soul in Massachusetts: Mitt Romney.

I like Fred Thompson but he'll be pretty old by 2012, Romney is the near-total package. Conservative, image (and not a Democrat this time), eloquent, knows domestic issues (including economy) as well as the foreign affairs (if not more than McCain). He's got the name value as he ran this year, and he still has $ left over.

Anyways, has anyone else noticed Obama up on every poll there is? It's as wide as 15 to as narrow as 1 which proves polling organizations have no credibility whatsoever. That reason makes me want McCain to win even more. That way polling orgs and the media will know what their foot tastes like. But that's wishful thinking. Dan Rather choked in 2000 saying Florida went to Al Gore after counting 6% of the state...and the mainstream still exists.

Straight Ticket

As has been the case with just about every presidential/congressional election cycle in my 29 year-old memory and not unexpected when there's a candidate raising $600 Million, most non-programmed television lately seems to be some ridiculous political ad. Leaves one thankful for a DVR and waiting for November 5th.

New Mexico, for whatever reason, is once again a "battleground" state and there are some wealthy organizations out there that want everyone to know that candidate republican likes to kick small children, rob gas stations, spit on the elderly and plays solitaire while on the clock. Yes, I'm talkin about the so called "Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee", also known as the reason why I yell at the television every ten minutes.

Their stupid, infelicitous and annoying nonstop commercials (scroll down to NM ads, if you haven't seen both, and live in NM, you must be living in the desert without any human contact and aren't reading this anyway) have led me to a place. And that place is Straight Ticket Republican land.

One ad begins "The failed Bush economy, how did it come to this?". How stupid. What failed economy? Yes, there is a financial panic right now. And there was one roughly two decades ago. And another roughly two decades before that. And so on, cyclical is what I think it can be described as. Do these imbeciles even understand what the term "failed" means? If this country's economy "failed" all three hundred million plus of us would have to disband and join other countries. There would be no country. Today I bought a three dollar pretzel and scoffed at a five dollar frozen latte thing. The twenty mall stores I walked past to get the pretzel were all open, employees chatting on cell phones and yes, playing solitaire. Traffic was ghastly and I was cut off by a trucker and rode past a hundred more on my 7 mile commute this morning. That, DCCC, is not a failed economy.

Anyway, why will I go the extreme of voting only Republican? There is no rational reason, just a burning coming from inside, every time I see the DCCC ads, which thanks to some deep pockets is every few minutes, on every channel. Am I being somewhat naive, silly even? Sure, whatever. Are there some deserving local donkey's out there that might share my ideals? Doubtful but possible, I'll never know. And I don't care anymore. I would rather watch a whole season of Grey's Anatomy in a single sitting than watch another DCCC ad.

I was going to vote for Darren White anyway, Martin Heinrich, not a chance, never. But the ads still bother me that much. And the ads against Ed Tinsley, who is outside of my district, those ads are doubly annoying.

Something Positive

Of all that has transpired over this election season, the worst to me has been the open season declared on President Bush. Something I wrote about in an earlier post was self disappointment in not campaigning for John McCain. Well, there's mostly lame excuses for that with the least being my tepid, but unwavering, support. Elections are about choices, right? Anyway, in 2004 I was a very active and avid campaigner for our President. He is a person I admire and believe has served our country with honor. Perfect, no. But there is no such person. Of course there are valid criticisms however, in my opinion, he is a very good President. I know that oft referenced poll ratings may put me in the minority, whatever.

The bottom line is that President Bush does not deserve the things that are being said about him. The dishonesty and the bashing of a sitting President for political gain is despicable. This morning though, I read something that started with a look at the current political climate which started with:

President Bush’s dismal poll ratings have descended to those of Harry Truman’s when he left office

Six decades following his time in office, President Truman is highly regarded with good reason. The odds were against him and he was thought of as unready and inexperienced. His accomplishments stood out in history. I believe the same to be true of President Bush, always thinking that as history reflects on him it will be kind and just.

The strangeness of it all

Sunday night I was driving home through the quiet road that runs through Corrales and after the second time seeing this (forgive me but my sensibilities do not allow for embedding the image here), in my opinion the most disturbing political sign ever seen, and I thought about how strange this year's presidential campaign is.

In the beginning, when John McCain gained traction in the primaries, I thought about the fact that I didn't even vote for him for senator, instead voting for John Kyl twice. Of course, it didn't matter then. There was no way that John McCain was going to lose his senate seat in Arizona. Not a chance. I'm not the type of person who wanted to vote against someone so I thought more about the work John McCain has done and even though I don't agree with everything he's done, so what? It's not me voting as a senator or representing anyone. How could I agree with everything? The key thing was that for me, nothing he's done has really been objectionable. Some of the 'across the aisle' things are annoying, especially campaign finance reform. However, in the end he has been a dedicated and honorable public servant.

In this campaign, John McCain and his chosen running mate have been subjected to the worst of smear tactics. Anything that could be used against them has. McCain has been treated as if senility is settling in and so-called feminists have willingly set back the clock on their purported cause to attack Sarah Palin. And all of this at the behest of a politician. That's it, not a savior, not a saint, not someone who's ever really even helped anyone but himself.

That's what got me about the sign. I've read something that described the way that some blindly support this politician. The conclusion warned about the consequences of such blind support for like candidates, running on nothing more than the empty rhetoric of 'change'. Nothing sticks to this candidate. Associations with the most corrupt of society, switches in campaign promises, lack of specifics, irrelevance in stated experience. There's an incredibly long list, a list that should disqualify anyone from the office sought. It just doesn't seem to matter in this case.

Is this the way our country is going? Politics a contest of personality, regardless of judgement? The sense of entitlement that is out there today, just talk to people and it comes out. It's uncomfortable to sit with a group of people who don't believe in personal responsibility disparage those who do. These politicians have done a phenomenal job recently dividing this country. And what will happen? 'Fairness' in taxation is nothing more than a veiled stab at class warfare. In the end everyone will just be more miserable and a strange new society will emerge. How's that for pessimism? A month of nonstop democrat advertising and the apparent coming of legislative and executive government by them does that.

Debate Observations

after seeing all 4, it's clear. No matter how great McCain did, Obama did just as great, if not better. His policies are devastating, but he can deliver for the most part. Even if it takes a couple of minutes.

---Obama can never clearly specify what programs he'll cut. It's because he's planning to overspend.

---on multiple occasions Obama eloquently brushes aside McCain's "personal" or hurtful comments (hurtful comments geared towards McCain that is, special needs, segregation claims, etc.). But McCain acknowledges Obama when he's hurt.

---Obama said take a look at the polls, the ones the 3rd moderator conducted. The 3rd moderator works for PBS. How can you expect this to be factual Obama? He'll readily attack Fox News, but the rest are okay.

---Obama said he won't accept public financing, but he is now. He didn't repudiate it. In fact, he rarely repudiates anything

---true, most Americans care whether or not $ is coming into their account, but Obama's associations is just as much as an issue to me.

---Obama repeatedly groups McCain with the Republicans. If anyone, McCain has distanced himself from them on many occasions. McCain should've repeatedly bring up the fact that Obama, as well as his cohorts Dodd, Frank, etc. caused this financial mess. If Obama is gonna connect McCain to Bush, McCain refutes that and should've connected Obama to the liberals in Congress who has even a lower approval rating than Bush.

---CEOs support McCain because Obama will tax them, eliminate jobs in the long-run, redistribute wealth, etc. At this rate, I'm just not gonna work next year because money will just come to me.

---Biden is a fringe liberal who always votes on the wrong side of foreign affairs. That's experience?

---Obama, there ARE ways to help people without getting government involved with everything. Obama proved during the debates he's a full-fledged Socialist

---so Obama is now looking to drill. Why did you vote against it? So now Obama is a pork fighter. Why didn't you before you ran for President?

---way to attack Detroit Obama. If they vote for you, Detroit's dumber than I thought...

---after what Obama said, health care is gonna go through the roof

---anybody coincidentally notice things started downfalling when the Democrats took over Congress 2 years ago?

---McCain, you're not gonna get points for voting for Ginsberg and saying you will not appoint conservative judges, just to show how bipartisan you are. If you're conservative, say it, mean it, you'll win

---Obama's combat to everything is to laugh it off, and make a totally non-related point

---everytime foreign affairs pops up, it goes back to the economy. The moderators want Obama to win. McCain should've mentioned how Obama will raise all taxes, remove FICA cap, capital gains, dividends, Bush expiration, gas, etc.

---McCain sounded more genuine than Obama did. In fact, a lot of what Obama is saying is just regurgitating his talking points

---Obama tried to paint himself as a moderate. Records don't lie. He'll be spending near trillion dollars for his programs

---finally, Obama lied, virtually 95% of the debates

---where it seems like Obama won...I relish the fact that Kerry did better than Bush in a lot of aspects in the 2004 debates, but still lost an election. One can hope. Or maybe Ann Coulter is right? Elect the Democrat and let's have a conservative resurgence in 2010

President Obama

Unless if we see a miracle (no substitute in words, I say a miracle), it just does not look good at all for McCain. Even FOXNews is singing his demise now. I know McCain probably has the best shot at beating Obama as I said months ago, but he certainly wasn't my choice. The only other candidate in the primaries that would've been a worse choice is Giuliani. But these two really had the name and the best chance of winning.

If we see a President Obama come January, BANK on these things to happen at some point in the next 4 years, I promise you (Pelosi and Reid will still be in power). Maybe this is supposed to happen. Maybe people will snap in 2010 and 2012 and realize what kind of damage liberals can do to this country. I smell a "Carter" term here...history sure does repeat itself. Hell this election even looks like 1976 (Carter comes along as the "outsider" that hasn't been around for a while, Ford is the quiet demeanor, like McCain, etc.):

---He will meet with leaders of all nations without preconditions and will even sign a non-agression pact with Iran

---He will pull out of Iraq eventually and we will see basically a giant Iran (Who's in power in Iran? Shiites. Who's in power in Iraq now? Shiites. Another edict of Bush I disagreed with. I understand spread of democracy, but the Middle East is different. Allowing elections only empowers terrorist organizations and we've seen it legitimatized under Bush)

---He will create the funds as he promised (guess where the funds will come from?) to help people and innocent homeowners refinance their mortgages. Hell at this rate next year I'm just gonna screw up badly, buy a $500K house because Obama will come to my rescue

---All the tax cuts you experienced for the last 8 years will be expired, gone. Something he doesn't say at all for the last several months.

---He will realize raising taxes on all the Donald Trumps of the country is still not enough to fund his social legislation. So he'll trickle down in the brackets on raising people's taxes and cutting defense and intelligence budgets even more (sounds familiar? 1990s?)

---He will implement universal health care, pretty much negating all small businesses everywhere with tax hikes to pay for it. This will be available to all illegals in the nation as well

---Speaking of illegals, he will provide amnesty as well

---He will enact legislation for carbon-friendly cars...the end for the US auto industry

---He will advance the federal hate crimes legislation, affirmative action by reincarnating the "women and minority-owned businesses" money, and make the Employment Non-Discrimination Act a law which means homosexuals will slowly start being official

---He will spend billions and billions of $ in foreign aid to try to eliminate global poverty

Observations from the Door

So I have become "that dude." I am the guy who bangs on your door, ask who you're voting for, and hands out propaganda. McCain is not my pick from the Republicans, but he is far better than Obama and his empty promises. The Democrats have run a really dirty campaign and it makes me ill. As they pitch it, they are the "open minded party," which is total crap. Some of the incidents that I have hear of while volunteering were some college Republicans were beat up at UNM, McCain signs being torn down, and Democrats volunteering at Republican headquarters and trying to throw a wrench from the inside.

I understand that what I am "selling" is not very popular (ie religion, politics), but they treat me worse than a serial killer despite being friendly. A few encounters that I have seen that I found interesting were an African American man I ran into and some lady in a Mercedes.

The African American man was basically voting straight ticket Republican with the exception of Obama. I thought this was really odd, because he was conservative until he had the opportunity to vote for another Black man. Another instance of the race card being flipped, was when my co-worker was picking up his wife from CNM the community college, formerly TVI, and some African American guys were campaigning asking who passers by were voting for. My co-worker witnessed a man a few feet away, who said that he was not voting for Obama, was called a racist. We have probably beat this like a dead horse, but it worries me that we, Americans, are willing to vote for a man based upon "packaging" and not who he is, what he stands for, or what he hopes or plans to do. I am confident that Obama will attract more "non traditional" voters than we have ever seen.

I was leaving flyers at some lady's house when she rolled up in her late model Mercedes, the last few years have killed her portfolio. I approach her and politely speak to her about the election. Due to my association with Bush, whom I did not mention at all, party wise, received one of the rudest "get off my property" responses that I have gotten in all of my encounters. Some Obama supporters were polite and told me what they thought, which I can respect, but being associated with Bush is almost equivalent to being Dahmer's assistant. Where I am going with this is that the forces that be, read media, have made Bush into the boogie man. What bothers me the most about this is that they do not consider the alternative: Gore or Stacie (read Kerry). If Gore was president during 9-11 I'm confident that things would have been much different. With Stacie I cannot even begin to start where we would be.

So I am worried about the outcome, but on the bright side, this may lead to a resurgence of the Republican party.

A depressing morning

I recently changed jobs and when I used to work for my now previous employer I often rode my bicycle to work. I often was lauded for being 'green' by those who just want to give mother earth a hug, even though the real reason was not to offset carbon output but nacho intake.

Anyway I wrote that to write that I happened to ride through a part of Albuquerque called "Nob Hill". A section of the city whose inhabitants like to consider themselves 'trendy' and 'hip' (I once lived in this neighborhood). I would get depressed riding everyday because in this area the Obama signs out numbered McCain's at about a 30 to 1 ratio.

Anyway, reading through the daily sites today made me more depressed, about the consequences of an Obama victory, and rationalizations that try to step away from inevitability.

Dammit, I just moved into a new tax bracket and wanted to retire eventually, also what would be wrong with helping my parents retire? Ugh. I wonder what the demand for electrical (jack of most trades) engineers in New Zealand is?

simple solution

so now everyone and every media outlet is expecting Obama or McCain to have an economic plan to solve the current situation. Simple:

1) cut taxes

2) cut Congressional spending

3) and that's it.

We live in such a "Great Society" today that everyone is expecting the President to solve the economy. Don't people realize that that is the last thing we need right now is for the government to take over the economy? The market should be free without the excessive regulations we're seeing today. As for this mother of all bailouts, it shouldn't have happened. Would we see a worldwide economic depression? Sure. Why not? May teach people to be more fiscal and responsible with their activities. The market will correct itself. So what we have here is Bush stuck between a rock and a hard place with this government bailout. Because if he did nothing, then I can near-guarantee you Obama would win in November because it'll unfortunately look bad for the Republicans. I smell 1992 deja vu...

But typical McCain. What did he do? He joined the Obama brigade and crucified Wall Street. What McCain should've done is targeted Obama in how he and the Democrats have a lot to do with what's been happening the last few weeks. Go back to the Clinton days.

Comments welcome.

Michael Yon

I think it was Muz that turned me onto Michael Yon. This guy has been indispensable in his coverage of the Surge in Iraq, and now he is in Afghanistan. Be sure to read his latest report.

I didn't keep up with the news well enough to know just how bad the situation in Afghanistan had deteriorated until I read about it in one of his reports just a few months ago. We're not out of the woods yet in Afghanistan, but the nice thing about having problems there is we will get less resistance internationally and from the Dems at home when it comes to supporting the force we have there.

Cuba

Last night, the U.S. men's national team played its first game in Cuba in over 60 years, beating the Cubans 1-0. While I watched part of this game (holy crap, our national team looks terrible), it got me thinking about our stance towards Cuba.

We've had a trade embargo with Cuba for years, and it made a little sense during the Cold War. But Cuba no longer has its Russian enablers, and yet the embargo still exists. This embargo has been completely ineffective - there have been zero signs of reform in Cuba. Opening trade with a totalitarian country leads to a freer country, as the citizenry can observe what freedom is to the nations they trade with and demand the same things from their government. It's time to lift (or at least ease) the embargo on Cuba.

This is an issue that Republicans are usually wrong on, though, because they are beholden to the mistaken idea from the Cuban-American population in south Florida (that they need to get elected) that this embargo is necessary to be "tough" on the totalitarian regime. In the meantime, their families continue to suffer.

In general, however, the Republicans get it right on free trade. A few weeks ago, I read an article about "reverse illegal immigration" - basically, illegal immigrants in south Texas were going back to Mexico because of more favorable economic conditions down there. This is something that, I believe, NAFTA can take credit for.

Anyway, as an aside, read this story about a Cuban with some honkin' brass cojones.

Western Conservatism

Admittedly, I initially wasn't as excited about the Palin nomination as others, and my gut reaction to it was that it was pandering and tokenism. The buzz about her speech has pretty much passed me by, as I make it a point to not listen to convention or State of the Union speeches, since I think they are full of the typical political boilerplate. However, the more I learn about Palin, the more I like.

This article best sums it up for me:

Hailing from Arizona and Alaska, the Republican ticket has a chance to rekindle a western conservatism different from the old Yankee paternalist sort or the Bible Belt version. They like their guns out there (some still kill their own food) and they are pro-life and deeply pro-America, of course. But at a time of grave challenges, the themes of economic freedom and opportunity, the resistance to the idea that government holds all the answers, could resonate with voters.

If there's a politician that I can identify with in terms of worldview, it's Barry Goldwater. His viewpoints basically mirror mine - a sort of "conservative libertarianism". This sort of "rugged individualist" conservatism seemed on the rise in the Western US, but it is completely foreign to people out here, and it's depressing. To people out here, conservatism isn't something that you can defend intellectually, and it's fruitless to even attempt. I honestly didn't see any hope, as I figured this individualism would slowly be suffocated out by what I see around here (indeed, parts of the west coast are being swallowed by it). But Palin embodies these principles, and is probably the first politician to really do so since Reagan. Bush sure as hell has forsaken them.

Anyway, I'm still not excited about the election, but of course I want to see McCain win so I can mock the dour faces around me with loud, cathartic guffaws of joy.

ironic, but not surprising

McCain accepts the Republican nomination...but attacks his own party several times tonight. Which isn't really surprising coming from McCain...and some of it rightfully deserved I hate to say. I enjoyed Bush's run, but there were plenty of issues, events, etc. over the past 8 years under Bush and the Republicans that made me vomit. They're not fully at fault (especially after 2006), but they still got Washington-ized.

Will McCain really bring change to Washington? Bush said he would in 2000 but it still remains somewhat the same.

My dream is if Palin, Jindal, Rice, Pawlenty, Pence, Romney, Burr, Cantor, Putnam, Thune, Ryan, McCarthy, Kirk, and more, all these "new wave" conservatives to take over. The media is calling them "partisan." That's exactly what we need. Don't pander to the "Hillary voters." We don't need them. They're the N.O.W. feminazis, not real ladies. Reagan won because he was conservative, contrary to what everyone says "he reached across the aisle." They weren't called Reagan Democrats for nothing because they were a different breed like most liberals today. Although most of them hated Reagan.

What happened in Georgia

I think I posted this in my facebook profile a week or so ago, but not here. It's a long read, but a good one, and I wanted to point you guys to it in case you hadn't seen it yet.

Michael Totten meeting with a couple experts on the Caucasus do discuss what happened between Russia and Georgia:

Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. “The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia,” the Associated Press reported over the weekend in typical fashion.

Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.

In other words, there was a KGB style propaganda war to cover up a coordinated effort revealing the true imperial intentions of Putin. Surprise, surprise.

Climate Change on the Horizon?

I posted before about how a shock to our food supply could have a devastating impact on our standard of living. While it was in the context of the potential of a catastrophic collision with space debris, the impact that the solar cycle has on our climate is not well understood and could potentially be the source of such a shock.

The sun has decreased its activity greatly in the past month, and prior:

The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.

Here's a plot of recent sunspot trends, and a longer term history:























The sunspot cycle has been extremely predictable for centuries, as can be seen on the plot above. If we don't see that above plot start eking up, it could be worrisome. The "Maunder Minimum" corresponded to the "Little Ice Age", a time of bitterly cold, long winters and all the consequences that follow for a population dependent on agriculture.

The relationship between the sun's cosmic rays and our climate is not well understood, but the coincidence of sunspot minima and lower overall global temperatures, I think, shouldn't be ignored. Especially when a few harsh winters (with the concomitant bad growing seasons) could make food scarce enough that while the developed world might consider it an inconvenience, the third world could be severely impacted.

what the RNC needs to hammer on

I know most of the country is sick of it, but they need to focus on national security. I know the country is gonna whine "why not domestic issues?" This just proves how the country is too dependent, but the country is fine as it is now from the Census bureau statistics last week. Could be better but any country could always be better. McCain needs to tell the world how Obama will gut the DoD and intelligence. It'll be just like Clinton. Obama cuts DoD, cuts intelligence, and thinks he can walk into Tehran and:

Obama: why are you upset with us brutha? What's up with that?

Ahmadinejad: your policies Mr Messiah

Obama: okay, we'll get out bro. Why are you enriching your nuclear ambitions?

Ahmadinejad: we need electricity

Obama: 'aight, ah hell, rock on, I can handle that, let's shake hands on it. Praise Allah.

It'll be a flashback of Clinton and Arafat. So basically this gives Ahmadinejad the green light to attack Israel, but of course, that's not our problem I guess *shrugs*..........that may be enough to get us involved, but if we don't do anything, which is likely the case under Obama, then they get enough launchers easily in the northern African Muslim nations and the ICBMs will reach the eastern US. Iran is already on a clear path of building medium/long-range missiles by next year or the next to get Israel and potentially the US afterwards. And with Obama gutting missile defense, who knows if Alaska or Hawai'i will still protect us from North Korea

Overall, McCain needs to mention specifics of what he's gonna do and explain how Obama is, quite frankly, a threat to society.

nice...

so McCain chose Palin. And of course right off the bat Obama blasted the McCain campaign. Saying "zero" experience. Good job Obama. In 1.5 years as governor (executive), she was responsible for at least 20 conservative bills passing and you Obama, was just some Senator with the only accomplishment of running for President and you did good enough where a bunch of fools fell for you. How do you preach "change" Obama when you decided to pick some DC crony with an extreme-left background. I just don't know how he's gonna win in November. We've never had a liberal win in the modern age (JFK, Carter, Clinton ran moderate campaigns and LBJ got in because people thought he was gonna follow JFK). Why now? She won in a state defeating Murkowski AND Knowles in one year - these are 2 out of the 3 most popular politicians in Alaska. Obama won in an already-liberal state beating an outsider.

Palin is an awesome choice. She was in my 5 fave: Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Condi Rice, and KB Hutchison. Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty wouldn't be too bad, although the only ones that would've really excited me are Palin, Jindal, and Rice (and she ain't running). McCain is thinking long term. If he becomes President, surely Palin will be the 2012 frontrunner and you know who she's going up against in 2012: Hillary. You know Obama/Biden behind closed doors were laughing a storm and everyone is laughing everytime they talk debate of Biden vs Palin. The double image is already showing up all over the MSM. I've studied politics to know Palin is not a rookie and I think Biden is overlooking her. All Biden is good at are one-liners and yelling. How are people so confident he'll "crush her" when he can't even get 1% of the vote during the Primaries? If anything, this should hopefully fire up the conservative and Christian base. After all, they're really the largest voting block. Just have to get them out.

Just gotta love Obama's speech last night. How are you going to "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cuts when he's gonna blast us and small businesses? The country will be in even a bigger deficit next year with his plans. Then he had the gall to blast McCain about Iraq and Afghanistan where McCain had the right strategy from day one (and Obama of course voted against any war resource increase). Sure, Obama keeps saying the rhetoric of cutting taxes for 95% working families (define working Obama), but Clinton said the same thing in 92 and ended up to this day raising taxes to its highest levels in history. Furthermore, Obama decided to use the "$5 million" joke McCain used in a serious fashion. McCain bluntly said tax cuts for everyone. Then Obama lied about McCain's health care plan in that it would raise taxes where in reality it would give tax credits for families. And yes, McCain voted 90 or 95% of the time with Bush, but Obama likewise did so with Democrats, so what the hell is your point? Finally, he said he will bring change to DC. How when you're following the same 60s Socialist policies and you picked Biden as your VP? And zero mention of how he will not confront Iran, how Hamas is almost endorsing him, and how he's pretty much gonna screw every business out there.

Although on a comical side, Palin looks like the teacher from Varsity Blues

so how are the socialist programs going to be funded?

so Obama said it:

close corporate loopholes ***cough*** screw small businesses ***cough***

go line-by-line the federal budget and cut unnecessary programs ***cough*** cut the DoD and MDA ***cough***

he forgot to mention raise everyone's taxes

all kiddings aside, I might be looking for a new job come January - LOL!!!

DNC

After watching the most glamour-hyped crapfest in the last 4 days, McCain will be on fire next week.

1) How many minutes into Obama's speech was bashing and NONE of his policies were mentioned

2) James Carville even said this had no message. Go figure

3) I don't care about you Obama, I care about policies

4) Whether they want to admit it or not, this party is nothing without the Clintons

5) Chris Matthews and Keith "Dumbass" Olbermann probably jacked off to all this

6) it's painful for the Democrats to say "last EIGHT years." Last EIGHT. That must mean Bush did something right I guess...

7) they keep preaching no or big oil. Okay DNC: How did you get to Denver?

8) Please tell me how the housing trouble is Bush's fault? How Russia invading Georgia was Bush's fault?

9) Hillary basically paved her way at the DNC to run in 2012, no matter who's the President. Probably Warner too. In fact if Obama wins in November, it'll be just like Carter where he had a record number of people challenging him

10) Barack, how are you going to fund all these socialist programs of yours?

11) I'm surprised at Invesco Field, they didn't have a chopper lower Obama down a cross or something. Why didn't Obama come out in a robe? He's Messiah after all

12) Bill's speech is summed up in one way: Barack, follow me and you will be successful

13) It's just so damn funny that Hannity asked over and over and over and over again specific examples of Obama's leadership and no one, including Dukakis and Kucinich and Sharpton, could answer

14) Obama, how come you didn't accept McCain's invitation to debates? You gutless worthless yellow coward

15) Finally, Obama, you can fill seats with worthless lazy asses, but so did McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. and they all lost. Good luck Socialist pig.