Lips, Pigs and Yips....

I'm actually becoming really annoyed at my candidate these days. For some reason he's feels compelled to mix it up with the bottom of the ticket and he wants to comment on all this static noise from the McCain camp.

Senator Obama must stop commenting on Sarah Palin. He's running against John McCain and they are using these tactics to divert attention from McCain's policy, age and ties to President Bush. When Obama responds, reacts and brings up her name, he's wallowing in the mud with the bottom of the ticket which is where McCain's camp wants him. He needs to stop it now.

He needs to focus on Obama's message, paint the contrasts between McCain and Obama, tie McCain to BUSH; hell, I'm a Republican and I see what McCain is doing. If Senator Obama must take swipes, take them at McCain and George Bush. Palin is a tactic and his campaign is falling for it. Let, MAKE, Biden go after Palin, get the female surrogates out there to go after Palin. He's the top of the ticket and that should be his focus. As they say in golf, don't let your opponent get in your head, otherwise you get the Yips. Forget lips and pigs, right now, Obama has the Yips.

-Golf

Crusty the Clown

John McCain, crusty the clown, is at it again. His current ad uses Hillary Clinton clips to attack Barack Obama. This particular ad is targeted at Clinton’s angry supporters and of course the independents that McCain needs if he is going to win in November. All of McCain’s ads have a few things in common: they are increasingly negative and each is peppered with that oleaginous hypocrisy of a close at the end “I’m John McCain and I approved this message.” with a goofy smile. Or is it a smirk?



I guess everything is fair game in politics, but I recall Crusty saying that he wasn’t going to run a negative campaign against Obama. What’s particularly noteworthy is that in all the attacks, Crusty hasn’t seen fit to outline what his circus act intends to do to govern. All of his ads focus on Obama in an effort to highlight the presumptive democratic nominee’s alleged shortcomings.

One thing is certain, the race is a dead heat and both candidates need to spend more time talking about what they will do to make life better for Americans. As for McCain, he should fold up the circus tent and behave with the dignity and honor of someone who has served as a military officer and senator who now seeks this Nation’s highest office.
-Golf

Obamanomics

In

Obamanomics

, bestselling author on politics and economy John Talbott sizes up the odds that Barack Obama’s presidential policies might actually stand a chance of working.

Talbott, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker who is credited with having been among the first to predict the current housing crisis in his bestselling 2003 book “The Coming Crash in the Housing Market” offers the first book of its kind about the leading presidential candidate.

When Talbott read Obama’s speeches, books, statements and policy papers released by the Obama campaign, he discovered that they add up to a set of principles and specific policies that are different from anything we’ve seen in a generation. Talbott then called on his own deep knowledge of the current state of the American economy, with all the challenges we face as a nation to determine the likelihood of Senator Obama enacting lobbying reform, revitalizing our economy, fixing our healthcare system, slowing global warming, ending the war in Iraq, improving education, addressing the aging of our population, finding alternative energy solutions and bringing about housing, mortgage and banking reform. The result is: “Obamanomics: How Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace Trickle-Down Economics.”

Obamanomics would seem to be the right book at the right time to address the great challenges that will face the next president and all of us. If you decide to read it too, come back and let’s compare notes.
-Golf

Temper, temper

I was going to write a lot after watching this, but it’s left me speechless. I’ve decided to let the video from a U.S. Senate hearing speak for itself and will leave it up to you, the reader to draw your own conclusions.



Is this who we want negotiating or talking to allies and non-allies at the conference table? Do we want our next president to get up and storm out when the going gets tough? What do you think?

-Golf

Why Jesse Wants Obama's...

Jesse Jackson’s utterance while anchored to a mic, on Fox News of all places, belies a deeper jealousy that might be held by civil rights icons and Jackson, the self-appointed leader of black Americans.

The stone in Jackson’s shoe (so he says, but more on that later) is that he doesn’t like the way Barack Obama has been “talking down” to black people. Obama gave a speech on Father’s Day calling for black men to assume responsibility for their children and to actively participate in the upbringing of their offspring. I haven’t figured out what’s so condescending about such a request since it’s a known fact that women head many black households and a father being absent is the norm, not the exception. Obama, similar to Bill Cosby has said what most people think and are too afraid to say for fear of being called racist or accused of dumping on their own kind as Cosby and Obama have.

My take on Jackson’s latest “slip” of the tongue has nothing to do with Obama and more to do with the old guard of the civil rights movement. The world has changed, not as much as some would like, but it has changed. This shift in attitudes by those who now benefit from the struggles and noble efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Julian Bond, Andrew Young, Jesse Jackson and others has made it easier for many in the black community to move ahead. The actions of these pioneers paved the way for the younger generation of African Americans to walk a path with fewer potholes. The problem: Those who have helped clear the path still want homage paid to them for good works accomplished through their struggles. Instead of basking in the glow of watching an offspring achieve extraordinary success resulting from “parental” sacrifice, many civil rights leaders appear to simmer in resentment. That simmering resentment yields the most unsavory of stews and once served it leaves a really bad taste in the mouth with no chaser.

Jackson’s unintended “public” outburst is probably the deep recognition that his sphere of influence has or is about to be eclipsed; in a word ego. The real stone in the shoe for Jackson is that Obama appears to argue that we all need to give a little to get a little and there’s no more free lunch. Obama won’t blindly promote “entitlements” or espouse the “failures” of government to provide for the black community that has helped perpetuate an “us vs. them” mentality. That’s why Jesse Jackson wants to cut Obama’s...
-Golf

Veepstakes for 2008

If you believe MSNBC’s

Veepstakes poll

there are four democrats left as “options” for Barack Obama to choose from for his vice presidential running mate: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Kathleen Sebelius.

I won’t go into each candidate’s bio, you can do that by checking in at MSNBC, but I will offer up my feelings about why I think Hillary Clinton would be a bad choice.

Odd as it may seem, I firmly believe that Senator Clinton would make an excellent president; however, over the course of the campaign it became increasingly clear to me that her operatives would stoop to any level to wrestle the nomination away from Obama. The behavior reminded me of the schoolyard bully who when confronted with the prospect of losing would rather destroy the fun for everyone else by any means necessary. In fact, the “kitchen sink” strategy throughout the Democrat’s primary season is the very same behavior that has made me sore at the Republican Party. For the Clinton’s this was politics as usual: if we don’t win (note the word we), we’ll make sure you’re so bruised that you won’t win either.

Fast-forward to the end of the primary season and note Clinton’s belief that an immediate concession speech was unnecessary, even after all math and delegate counts were etched in stone showing it impossible for her to win. Then recall the week-long dance and meeting before she did finally concede. Meanwhile, during this “cooling-off” period her surrogates attempted to browbeat Obama into putting her on the ticket with calls that “she deserves to be his vice president.” I wonder if the shoe had been reversed would there have been similar calls? No white male candidate has or would have been backed into a corner with slightly veiled ultimatums from the runner-up or their

supporters

. In fact this stunt was interpreted by me to mean “you may have won, but you still need my blessing.”

The Clinton’s or maybe it’s her supporters, egged-on by the candidate, talk about sexism toward her throughout her run. There are rumblings about a need for an examination of media and public behavior toward her too; while digging into that red herring, I suggest an examination into what also appeared to be condescension toward a black man. Does anyone remember her mocking statements of Obama in her sunshine yellow pantsuit where she went on and on about how “the heavens will open and celestial choirs will sing.” Not a peep was heard, more importantly however it wasn’t just an attack on Obama but a swipe at his supporters who apparently were so entranced by his speaking ability that they couldn’t distinguish fact from fiction.

Then there’s the Bill Clinton factor. Why would anyone, unless they have taken leave of their senses, want the two-for-one deal that has always been the makeup of the Clintons? Why would Obama want Bill snooping around in the goings-on at the White House, second guessing his decisions or sending Hillary Clinton in to parrot his thoughts to a President Obama?

Putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket is a win-win for two people and one of those people isn’t Barack Obama. If Obama wins, Clinton is set up for a run in eight years, sooner if she wishes hard enough that something bad happens; as an added bonus Bill gets to roam around and get into “stuff.” If Obama loses and she’s on the ticket, she gets to say “I told you so” to the party BUT she also gets to say she campaigned her heart out for him. Here again, she’s set for another run and Obama’s off to the trash heap with all the other has-been Democratic candidates.
-Golf

Rove Attacks Obama on Abortion

Karl Rove has gone on the attack again, but this time his sights are set on Barack Obama regarding his stance on various abortion issues. In the same speech Rove decided to heap all sorts of praise on John McCain for his “

family values

.” If I remember correctly, Rove was the architect of George Bush’s primary battle against McCain in 2000 where he used similarly disgusting tactics to run him out of contention for president.

What’s interesting, if the article is to be believed, is that Rove made no mention of McCain’s prior stance on abortion but instead decided to tout his family values. I guess “family values” includes abortions without even mentioning it. What’s also interesting is from this reading Rove’s attacks on Obama dealt with federal funding of abortion. I wonder if Republicans have abandoned hope of Supreme Court intervention? As a refresher, I offer this exchange from Larry King Live in February of 2000 between Bush and McCain:

McCAIN

[to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?

BUSH

: Yeah, I do.

McCain

: [But you] support the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]?

BUSH

: I do.

McCAIN

: So, in other words, your position is that you believe there’s an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother, but you want the platform that you’re supposed to be leading to have no exemption. Help me out there, will you?

BUSH

: I will. The platform doesn’t talk about what specifically should be in the constitutional amendment. The platform speaks about a constitutional amendment. It doesn’t refer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined.

McCAIN

: If you read the platform, it has no exceptions.

BUSH

: John, I think we need to keep the platform the way it is. This is a pro-life party.

McCAIN

: Then you are contradicting your platform.

Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000

Has lightning struck McCain? Is he now a confirmed pro-lifer? Does he now agree with Bush that the platform of the Republican Party is fine as is and the exceptions he spoke of in 2000 are not needed? John McCain is George Bush’s incarnate but with an old-man’s body.
-Golf

Bogus Phone Charges

So I get home today to start the long holiday weekend and I open my phone bill from

Verizon

and there’s an additional $7.32 for toll calls and taxes to this

OAN Services

outfit. I examine the call details and there’s a call listed to directory assistance to the state of Nevada for $5.49, $1.65 related to miscellaneous charges and .18¢ for NY gross receipts tax. Smoke is now coming out of my ears.

I call Verizon and they tell me they can’t tell me anything about the call and that they only act as a “third-party biller” for other companies. To which I reply, you are my local and long distance provider, no other companies should be providing any voice service through this phone number without my authorization. She then tells me that I can prevent this by authorizing Verizon not to accept third-party charges on my bill. No sooner had those words spilled from her lips did Verizon have said authorization.

My next stop: OAN Services. After punching in enough numbers that seemed to be the nuclear missile launch codes to the U.S.’s entire nuclear arsenal and then suffering the indignity of being on hold listening to what had to be the entire musical score of Cats, some lady answers. I explain the problem and the woman on the other end (probably somewhere in India) was trying to explain how someone here made a call to Nevada directory assistance. While she’s prattling on I interrupt and tell her I’m not paying for it and that OAN has no business placing charges that were not made from this phone on my bill. She insisted someone made the call and I insisted that I wasn’t paying and proceeded to outline the absurdity of someone dialing a seemingly innocuous ten digit code to reach directory assistance in the Silver State. Moreover, I told her if I needed a number from directory assistance or for a company in Nevada, I’d use the web and dial it directly or, in the alternative, I’d find the area code for Nevada, again using the web and I’d dial it along with 555-1212. She persisted, I said fine, and told her that the next digits I will dial after hanging up with you will be the

Federal Trade Commission’s

Consumer Fraud Division. She wasted no time asking and telling me how she could remove those charges.

People, check your bills, phone or otherwise and if you have elderly relatives watch their bills too. I’m no spring chicken nor am I elderly, but if they try and scam me, imagine the stunts they pull on those on fixed incomes and who don’t have the stamina to argue back. OAN Services=Sleaze-balls.

-Golf

Wes Clark and McCain's Service

Retired

General Wesley Clark

muttered out loud a

thought

I’ve had for months since this field has narrowed to two presidential candidates: What foreign policy experience does

John McCain

have that qualifies him or will make him a more experienced president over

Barack Obama

? McCain, and his campaign staff tout his being shot down during the Vietnam War and he wears his POW status as a badge of honor, as he should. Other candidates during this year’s campaign season have spent much time genuflecting at the alter of the McCain military service, but what about this services makes him ready to be commander-in-chief?

Voters confuse the heck out of me every four years. On the one hand they harpoon candidates for not serving; then they get a candidate who serves and they find reason to dump on them as was the case with John Kerry. This season McCain’s POW status seems to be the test for presidential readiness and experience. Are voters saying now that service in the military qualifies one to be commander-in-chief and capable of handling U.S. foreign policy? That’s analogous to me saying since I’ve worked at ABC, I can now claim experience to run a media conglomerate or television network. Or is it the appearance of not providing enough deference to veterans that’s offensive? Or is it fear of appearing unpatriotic?

Equally disturbing is the Obama camp’s

condemnation

of the statements by Clark. I can’t for the life of me find fault with anything Clark said. Flying a jet and being shot down is not akin to managing the military and calling for strikes against our enemies. What exactly is Obama backing away from in Clark’s statement?

-Golf

Tale of a Wayward Republican

If I had a dollar each time someone asked me how a Republican could or would consider voting for

Barack Obama

this November I'd be a rich man. Admittedly, Obama didn't start out as my candidate of choice; I had already made up my mind that I was going to support

John McCain

during the primary and if he was our party's nominee I'd vote for him in the general election. It was my view as political junkie and former student of politics that his years in Congress, where he has worked hard at being a moderating voice in the Republican Party, was what the country needed and, by gosh, he's a Republican. Then something happened; I became an angry Republican. It's not the anger one has with a spouse or loved one, but the anger felt when the bank charges another dollar for using the teller instead of the ATM machine. It's not the money; it's the principle.

Our party has spent eight years behaving in a mean-spirited manner by using various issues that in my view have nothing to do with governing our nation, these include: abortion, that is God's business and we should let Him tend to it. That said, it has been shown that proper healthcare for young women and education is the single best deterrent, as such, wouldn't that be a better use of our energies? Gay marriage, the thought of including any form of discrimination in the U.S. Constitution is shameful. The influence of religion in our politics with attempts to force sundry moral values on fellow Americans; the U.S. Constitution forbids it and to prove the point religious organizations are exempt from various forms of federal and state tax. Then there's the war in Iraq, and the multiple infractions and suspensions of fundamental rights that are so basic to this nation that our current president and his followers wrap themselves in under the guise of “national security.” Our party has also decimated a budget surplus with the very war the current administration wants to continue. This isn't the Republican Party I know, one that has stood for lower taxes, less government, personal freedoms or a strong national defense. Nor has George W. Bush turned out to be the compassionate conservative, non-nation building uniter that he sold himself as when he campaigned for our votes in 2000. What's even worse, our party's presumptive nominee promises to continue the course (which, if you've noticed isn't working; the economy is proof and Iraq is debatable) and admits he knows little about the economy.

Recognizing that turn-about is fair play I ask my fellow party members: How many times should we, as voters, fall victim to the bait-and-switch game that has been played for so long? Are we so blindly loyal to our party that we can't see the forest for the trees? Why in all these years has abortion not been overturned? After all, seven of nine (a clear majority) sitting justices are Republican appointees. Why wasn't a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage proposed after the 2004 election? Especially when Congress was controlled by our party. Why has our current president decimated a budget surplus on a war, yet extolls the virtues of tax cuts? Who among us would quit our jobs and increase spending at home with less money flowing into our personal bank accounts? Do we honestly believe that another Republican Administration is the best thing for our country or that it will bring to fruition all of the moral issues that it campaigns on each election year to “energize the base?” By the way, energize the base is a nice way of saying “use these voters until I'm elected, and then I can go back to neglecting them.”

At the prompting of a very close friend who is a Democrat, I decided to read-up on Barack Obama and I tuned-in to a few of his speeches prior to the Iowa Caucus. The only thing that came to my mind after listening was this man moved me like Ronald Reagan did when he ran against Jimmy Carter. During that election cycle, America was hostage not only to militants in Iran but to high interest rates, outrageous inflation, lines at gasoline pumps with odd-even days and an economy that wasn't doing very well. Obama's vision of change mirrored what I had felt about our current government and the Bush Administration over these past eight years; our political system is broken, and needs a serious makeover.

Senator Barack Hussein Obama (yes, Hussein; truly, how many of us have a choice in selecting any of our names?) has rejected the politics of division and the win-at-all-costs attitude that has hurt our ability to move forward as a nation. While a Republican I will not always see eye-to-eye with a President Obama, if elected, but I strongly believe that his politics of competency and unity will lead to a stronger America and will go a long way to improving our stature abroad. Moreover, strip away the attacks: He's a Muslim, he is not; he's inexperienced, he has as much experience as John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush when they campaigned and were elected. The only presidents in my lifetime to have more experience were Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Remove these fables and he is the the epitome of Republican ideals, that of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.

The focus of both parties should be about coming together to solve the major issues that trouble our country, regardless of individual political ideology. The national debt; lower-cost, domestic energy sources; lower healthcare costs―these are some of the many growing problems that the majority of Americans want our political leaders to handle. These true issues will be addressed and solutions realized if we are united politically without partisan infighting that has crippled us for the last 20 years. Obama has the intellect and temperament to accomplish this.

Most people still ask, “but you're still a Republican?” My answer is yes I am, but first and foremost, I'm an American and more importantly a wise consumer. I will not continue to buy a product that doesn't function as it should and the only way that I can bring about a new improved Republican brand is to say to my party “I'm not buying this year.” Hopefully, Republican brand and product managers will rethink their offerings after this election season and in four years or maybe eight our party will have had enough time for reflection and introspection and will offer up a slate of candidates worthy of our votes.

-Golf