The First Debate

As I watched the debate I was not particularly blown away by either candidate. They each had their points they tried to drive home: for Obama it is that McCain is Bush, for McCain it is that Obama just doesn't understand how things work or the gravity of what we are up against. I'm sure that followers of both came away thinking their guy won, which is usually how these debates end. From my perspective I thought that Obama was perhaps too well rehearsed. We know his handlers have been working with him to stop the "hhhmmmm, uuhhhhh's" that fill up his non-scripted answers. To me he sounded much like how Sarah Palin sounds in her interviews . . overly handled by handlers and staff. For Obama though, he needs it. We've seen and heard what he is like when speaking off the cuff. And we saw it for a moment last night when Obama could not remember the name of the serviceman on his bracelet. I thought McCain could have been stronger all the way around, particularly on the first part concerning economics. He did not distance himself from Obama. He should have tied Obama with Bush in their approach to this bailout. McCain should have been more detailed in how we should get out of this mess. But he didn't. Sure it was good to drill Obama for his earmarks . . perhaps even detailing a few by name; but none of that really got to the core of this whole bailout. To me, that was the biggest disappointment of the evening: neither guy had much to offer on that front.

Will Reform vs. Have Reformed

Sarah Palin made a statement in a recent speech that I thought said it all about Barrack Obama. It went something like this: He keeps saying he WILL reform, but he never says he HAS reformed. To me, this goes to the root of what is wrong with Obama. He continually tells us that politics as usual in Washington needs reforming, and that he alone is the man to bring about that change. After nearly two years, what I am waiting for from the press is an examination into what credentials Obama brings to this job interview. Here's an obvious question: Did Obama initiate reform in Chicago style politics while he was a state senator or while he lived and worked around Chicago? If so, how? If not, why not? Chicago style politics are more notorious and corrupt than Washington. What a great opportunity for him to demonstrate his skills in this matter. Here is another question: Just exactly what kinds of reform did Obama bring to Illinois? To my knowledge, and I've been following this for some time, I just don't see anything there. How about during his first two years in the U.S. Senate? Same thing there as well. Nothing. Bottom line is that many Americans have blindly accepted Obama's word. He is a reformer because he says he is. How convenient. And easy. Let me give it a try: I am a world class athlete. I don't have to prove anything. All I have to do is continue to pronounce to the world that I, Bob, am a world class athlete. Soon the endorsement deals will roll in. Talk about audacity.

Fannie & Freddie

For anyone who is confused about who is to blame for all this economic meltdown (and I am one of those who has been confused by it), here's some perspective that makes at least some sense to me: back in 2005 legislation was proposed that would have imposed a much stronger oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was apparent that both were heading for trouble and that reform was needed. It's impossible to know whether the legislation, if passed, would have averted today's meltdown. But we do know that the legislation was defeated along party lines, with the democrats (including Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Chris Dodd) voting to defeat it. And we also know that Barrack Obama and Chris Dodd were by far the top two recipients of financial donations from Fannie and Freddie in its history. There were three co-sponsors on the reform legislation. One of those three was John McCain. I'm not sure why we don't hear all that much about it today from not only the press, but from the McCain campaign. Sure seems like there should be a lot of 3 year old video and sound bites from all of these people speaking out about this piece of legislation, both for and against. Seems like it would make for a nice ad for McCain. Instead we hear McCain flailing around with mixed messages, many of which ring as off the mark. Obama is not any better. His problem has been his slow response and lack of committing to any ideas for resolving the meltdown. Bottom line: neither candidate seems to know what to do here.

UPDATE: In 2003 the New York Times printed an article detailing the Bush Administration's proposals for reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Within the article was this statement: "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Why isn't Barney Frank being called to the carpet today? If George Bush had made this statement, and it was the Democrats who proposed reform, the press would have been all over it.

Weddings & Weather

You wouldn't know it from the photos, but over the past two weekends I had one wedding take place during Hurricane Hanna and the other outdoor one delayed a half hour due to a fairly heavy rain. Fortunately neither one was a complete washout.

The Economy

There is no doubt that many people are hurting financially. Primarily this all seems to have its origin in the housing downturn and problems people had with overextending themselves with debt. And so maybe it doesn't sound right for McCain to say that the fundamentals of our economy are solid. That comes across as being out of touch, and Obama wasted no time in pouncing on that. But when you consider all that has been thrown at the economy over the past seven years: a recession coming out of the Clinton years, 9/11, the demise of the technology bubble, Katrina, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the housing meltdown, and now the demise of several financial institutions, the economy is still plugging along fairly well. Unemployment is in okay shape, interest rates are reasonable, 95% of people are able to meet their mortgages, people are still buying things. Sure there are some people who are living day to day, and some people are hurting, but the emphasis here is on the word "some". Things could be much, much worse; in fact if they do get worse, people will look back on this current time as being pretty good.

I'm a little dismayed that McCain does not seem to have a solid grasp of what to do. Actually, to be clear, Obama is even more clueless, so I am not saying that Obama is speaking with clarity on this issue. But McCain seems to be aimlessly trying to please everyone here. He is bashing big business and Wall Street, attempting to push a more populist mindset. He seems to want more regulation, which means more government. There is a place for government, but government doesn't really understand Wall Street, or business for that matter. Most politicians are lawyers, not business people. I tend to think that our economy goes in cycles much like our weather does. If it's cold outside, give it a few days, or a few months, it will warm up eventually; and we really don't need to intervene. I suspect that in time people will realize that there are bargains out there in the housing market and they will start buying. Before long it will once again heat up.

Just one more note: the economy was smoking and doing really well up until the end of 2006. Up to that point President Bush never got any thanks for just how well the economy was at that point. So what has happened since? A Democratically run Congress!

Jesus As Community Organizer

This phrase "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor" must have had it's origins among the community organizer crowd back in the 60's. For a bunch of leftists (I'm not sure I have ever heard of a conservative community organizer) who were often demonstrating and fighting against the establishment government, the phrase probably sounded cool. I never heard it though before this past week (thankfully I have never been a leftist) when it was used several times by Democrats in comparing Obama (= Jesus = community organizer) with Palin (= governor = Pontius Pilate). I believe it is a very offensive comparison, both to Jesus, who I doubt would be happy having his divinity stripped down to a community organizer, and to Sarah Palin, who I doubt would appreciate being compared to a man who is mostly known for his connection with Jesus' death. But there is a larger, more important question that I find much more compelling: just who is Jesus?

You might think it would take a book to answer that question, but I believe the answer is really quite short and simple: He is the Son of God. Now some people are happy just calling him an honored teacher, while others look at him as a great prophet, and apparently some see him as a community organizer. But these perspectives of Jesus are flawed. C.S. Lewis probably said it best when he challenged people with this thought: either Jesus is a liar, or He is a lunatic, or He is Lord. Jesus made it very clear who He thought He was: that He was God, that He was here to die on a cross for the sins of mankind, and that He would be resurrected from the dead. Now, if anyone else made those kinds of claims, that person would either be locked up as a crazy person and not really knowing what they were saying, or they would be seen as a liar, knowing full well what they were claiming, but trying to deceive people. If Jesus was lying or was a lunatic, then there is no way anyone could call Him an honored teacher or a great prophet. It makes no sense. So, if you cannot accept what Jesus says about Himself, then you really cannot and should not view Him as a teacher or as a prophet. On the other hand, if you do accept what Jesus claimed about Himself, then that must mean that you believe He is God . . that He really is who He claimed to be. There is a big difference between defining Jesus as a community organizer and defining Him as Lord and Savior.

Bias

For anyone who doubts the bias of the media, take a look at this image I found on the Yahoo site today. It's an ad for the Charlie Gibson interview. Looks like Gov. Palin is calling the Iraqi war a "holy war". Wrong. Charlie Gibson asked her if we were fighting a "holy war". He was the one who used that term. She never used did, and in fact stated very, very clearly the exact opposite. Charlie Gibson quoted parts of a previous statement by her twice, both times taking each part completely out of context. It was disgusting, particularly for a "respected journalist". Watch the video here. Before you watch it though, here is what she said in her original statement: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

UPDATE: Want a good side by side comparison of questions Charlie Gibson asked Barrack Obama vs questions he asked Sarah Palin, go here.

Beyond The Title

Much as been made about past positions Barrack Obama has held, all of which it has been argued gives him experience to be President. But few people, especially within the media who typically love to investigate these kinds of things, seem to care what exactly he did while in those positions. In other words, did he hold a title for a few years before moving on to another title, or did he actually make the kind of monumental change and improvements that gives him the right to claim that he is an agent of change? Heath Shuler can say that he played quarterback in the NFL, and by saying that he can equate himself with someone like Brett Favre, who also played quarterback in the NFL. But Shuler was no Favre . . he had a terrible NFL career. And the NFL is littered with players who are good enough to make a team, but not good enough to be known for their merits on the field. So it begs the question: as a community organizer, for example, was Obama a Shuler or a Favre? As a state senator, was he a Shuler or a Favre? And now as a U.S. Senator, Shuler or Favre? I don't know the answers to these questions (I do have an idea about it though) because the press, who in two weeks has done more research on Sarah Palin than they have done in two years with Obama, has not told us a whole lot about Obama's past. How many interviews have you seen with those steelworkers who lost their jobs in Chicago back in the early 80's? Where are the people from Chicago who can vouch for all the great things Obama has done for them and their community? With McCain we hear all kinds of interviews with other former POW's who were with him 40 years ago. We also saw them at the Republican convention. So where are the people who were with Obama 15-20 years ago? The people who's lives were changed because of his greatness and his propensity for change. Do you ever get the impression that for all the talk Obama gives us about change, that it is just that, all talk? Two people put "NFL Quarterback" on their resume, one is Heath Shuler and the other is Brett Favre. Enough said. 

Another Reason Why You Can't Believe Obama

This whole lipstick on a pig thing is kind of dumb. I'm not convinced Obama meant it in the way it was interpreted, but it has been reported that immediately after he said it that a large part of the crowd started chanting something about Palin. That would indicate to me that his audience interpreted his remark as a reference to Sarah Palin. If that is the case, then the McCain camp has reason to interpret it that way too. (Seems to me that a person with judgement would have recognized right away that he had a problem on his hand and should have dealt with it right there, but that's just me.) I was struck however by Obama's response the day after. Within his response Obama talked about this is why people are sick of Washington, because "they (the McCain people) seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context." Let's see, hasn't it been Obama who has taken McCain's $5 million dollar definition of rich joke out of context? Wasn't it Obama who has consistently taken McCain's 100 years in Iraq remark out of context? Wasn't it Obama who continually takes McCain's "let me have my staff get back to you" about how many houses he owns completely out of context? Sounds to me that Obama has this Washington thing down like an old pro. 

Diversity

When you hear the word "diversity" you usually think in terms of race or gender. A room with 20 whites, 20 blacks, 20 asians & 20 latinos would be considered diverse. Take those 80 people and make 40 male and 40 female and you really have diversity. But that kind of diversity only goes as far as a photo opt. Is it real diversity if all 80 people hold the same beliefs, or if 90% of the people hold the same beliefs? And can an organization that says it represents a certain kind of person, let's say women, as the National Organization of Women (NOW) claims, really make the assumption that all those people hold the same beliefs of that organization?

NOW assumes that all women believe and think the same. They assume that all women favor pro-choice policies and they see anyone who is not pro-choice as essentially being against women, or at least against the cause of women. Clearly a large number of women, perhaps even a majority, are not pro-choice. They are in fact very much pro-life. These women are every bit as much female as those who identify with the NOW agenda. Many of these women are highly accomplished, very independent, and probably more liberated than any of those in NOW. And yet they are ridiculed and treated as unequal by their counterparts. To me it seems odd that an organization that perhaps at one time was all about the equality of women has its own problems when it comes to equality. It also seems to me that NOW is not really about choice. To please NOW, women are required to accept the pro-choice mantra. In this sense, women are not free to think for themselves and to hold opposing views.

It seems pretty obvious to me that classes of people do not all share the same beliefs. Whenever I hear someone speak of or for the "black community", or when I hear someone say "as a women" before they state an opinion, I tend to believe that this person is being pretty arrogant to think they are speaking for and representing an entire group of people. Nonsense. All they can really be speaking for is themselves. Period. If NOW wants to be the Organization for Liberal Women, that's fine, but even then I doubt that all liberal women share the same beliefs and ideals. One thing is certain though, there are many, many women who have no use for NOW and would never identify with their ideology. And I'm sure they are offended anytime NOW presumes to speak for them. Okay, maybe I'm speaking for them here as well, but you know what I mean.

The Real Barrack Obama

For a great interview that reveals the real Barrack Obama, go here.

Obama's Dilemma

Barrack Obama has been campaigning for nearly two years. When He first started, His charisma and tremendous oratory skills drew large crowds and the kind of buzz most candidates would kill to have. Today, His speeches are a bit more tiresome. We've heard all of this before . . not only from Him, but from others in His party as well. After nearly two years, Obama has been in the news so much that He can now be perceived (falsely, I may add) as an experienced old sage. Of course the only experience He has now that He didn't have two years ago is running for President. He didn't have foreign policy experience back then, and He still doesn't. He still has no economic experience, no military experience, no executive experience, no experience reforming anything. But because Obama has been so visible for so long, many people will perceive Him as having all that experience. Of course all of this works against the image of Obama being something new . . and people want something new. Enter Gov. Sarah Palin. Over the next couple months Gov. Palin will most likely wow the crowds in much the same way Obama did during His first few months. By election day she will still be seen as a fresh face . . an outsider out to change Washington. Obama's dilemma is that by then the general public may see Him as old news, and compared to Gov. Palin, He might just not measure up. Or at least that is my hope.

US Weekly Scandal

I switched the headlines for the two US Weekly tabloid covers with Gov. Palin on one and the Obamas on the other. It's amazing how it changes the perception.