It's been about a week since the news of George Bush's proposed government buy out of a large sum of failed mortgage securities currently in the hands of the now defunct Lehman Brothers and AIG banking and insurance firms, and it's time PooB took a stance on this issue, so without further adieu, I will present our avid readers with my take on this exceedingly grave issue.
Let's start with the basics. Lehman Brothers (a mortgage bank) and AIG (an insurance and investment firm) recently went belly up due to the failure of their most significant investments: sub-prime mortgages. Now for those who are unaware, a sub-prime mortgages are home loans made to people who have less than perfect credit or less than enough income to actually merit a loan in the amount of a house. Most firms make these loans aware of the fact that at least 2% of the mortgages will default, so they charge astronomical variable intrest rates to make up for this fact. Well with an economy going bad due to high oil prices, low wages, rising food costs, and a steadily declining dollar many more than 2% of these loans defaulted, and the banks were unable to make them back because the houses that end up in the banks' control lost their value. Long story short, banks took huge risks with these loans. With huge risks there are huge chances for gains, and equally huge chances of loss, unfortunately for us and them, the latter was the result.
Now here's where my opinion begins. As "socialist" as I tend to be on matters like healthcare, education, and government involvement in the economy by way of energy regulation I am opposed to this buy out because it destroys free market capitalism. The basic tenet of which is, as I said above, big risks lead to either big pay offs or big losses. If we buy out these failed banks, it means that capitalism no longer has the aspect of huge loss and effectively encourages banks and other large companies to make horrendously foolish investments because they would no longer be a risk for losing, just gaining or breaking even. This buy out sends the message that you can invest in whatever you want, however you want, and if you mess up the government, and the tax payers will just assume your losses so you can get on with your life. Quite possibly the most burdensome, and detrimental act a government could impose on it's people. It's one thing to tax people to send people to school or take care of them when they get sick, but to save a handful of companies and their CEOs with tax dollars without much of a benefit to anyone but those being saved is offensive and should be illegal.
Speaking of the CEOs, when this buy out is passed (I do not want it to be, but I know it will) it MUST include pay caps for these "business men." This is America, the land of oppurtunity, not the land of oppurtunism. In this country, you work hard and you get ahead, you work smart and you get a raise. These CEOs clearly made bad choices that have harmed the American people, the American economy, and their companies, how do they possibly merit multi-million dollar incomes? They don't, and I have no problem with the government telling these people that if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they need to contribute by having there salaries slashed, permanently.
Finally, the most outrageous aspect of this buy out is the price tag, seven hundred BILLION dollars. Think about that number for a minute, there are about 7 Billion people in this world, so to pay for this, EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD would have to contribute one hundred dollars. Well, we can't tax the world to make up for our mess ups, so let's go just look at America. If we divide the check for this "Rescue Plan" amongst every single one of the over 300 Million Americans it would mean $2,333.33 per person. Do you have that much extra money? I sure don't, and I'm sure 90% of the people you know don't have that much money, and those that do would not be willing to use it to donate to save a few stupid Wall Street Execs. Our government has no where near enough money for this disaster, and we should NOT be spending it. We will be borrowing the money from the likes of China and Europe and even further devauling the dollar. We are already in a era of deficit spending thanks to the grossly incompetant leadership of the current administration and the wars and "national security" programs it has begotten. We simply cannot afford this. The only possible recourse would be if the Fed used the money to buy stock which will one day turn a profit for the tax payers instead of simply buying the bad stuff which will never profit.
...Read more
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
McCain and the Magic Blackberry
The latest buzz, McCain invented the Blackberry. Now obviously this is a stretch, we all know he didn't. We all know his campaign adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin just meant that McCain, by being on the Commerce committee, had lead to the innovations of cell phones in every hand. My question, did he even manage that feat? No. What he did was vote against the legislation that gave the FCC the authority to auction various used, unused and poorly-used wireless frequency spectrums. Here's the line that gives that specific authority (emphasis added):
The Commission shall, during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, use the competitive bidding process authorized under the amendment made by subsection (b) to grant all radio spectrum licenses for which two or more mutually exclusive applications have been filed, including the 200 megahertz of spectrum made available to the Commission under this subtitle, and including the licenses issued for a personal communications service established pursuant to the proceeding entitled `Amendment to the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services'
The vote for this was 50-50. Obviously it had more in it than just this small piece in it. The 'Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993' was a total budget package that included many things, including various tax increases and reductions. The reason that Republicans voted against it, was because it cut spending and raised taxes. Of course no good politician raises taxes right? Well, this legislation, which Al Gore broke the tie in, is credited by several non-partisan groups for the budget surpluses of the 1990's. It created as much as $141 billion in surplus to offset the projected $360 billion deficit through 1998. It has been argued, that these budget surpluses helped boost the economy in the 1990's.
Not only did John McCain not create the framework for the current cell phone industry, he voted against the bill that created the surpluses that Republicans always dream about, or at least talk about, but never achieve.
...Read more
The Commission shall, during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, use the competitive bidding process authorized under the amendment made by subsection (b) to grant all radio spectrum licenses for which two or more mutually exclusive applications have been filed, including the 200 megahertz of spectrum made available to the Commission under this subtitle, and including the licenses issued for a personal communications service established pursuant to the proceeding entitled `Amendment to the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services'
The vote for this was 50-50. Obviously it had more in it than just this small piece in it. The 'Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993' was a total budget package that included many things, including various tax increases and reductions. The reason that Republicans voted against it, was because it cut spending and raised taxes. Of course no good politician raises taxes right? Well, this legislation, which Al Gore broke the tie in, is credited by several non-partisan groups for the budget surpluses of the 1990's. It created as much as $141 billion in surplus to offset the projected $360 billion deficit through 1998. It has been argued, that these budget surpluses helped boost the economy in the 1990's.
Not only did John McCain not create the framework for the current cell phone industry, he voted against the bill that created the surpluses that Republicans always dream about, or at least talk about, but never achieve.
...Read more
48 days left
Two months from yesterday, people will file into the polls and elect someone who inherits a massive national deficit, a crumbling economy and an unpopular occupation of Iraq. I don't want that job. Several people do, John McCain and Barack Obama are two of them. There are many so called 3rd party candidates, but I will focus on the two main parties since they are the most likely to win the election. I admire all them for wanting to take on arguably the hardest job in America. I just wouldn't want that burden on me. The economy has gotten particularly rough, with the collapse of several financial institutions that now have to be propped up by the federal government and the US tax payers.
Obama has made several speeches over the last few days to talk about what is going on. One point has been repeated often, this should not have happened. His response to this disaster is to increase the oversight and regulation of these banks, in order to make sure that they are not allowed to paint themselves into a corner. By playing fast and loose with the system over the last few years, things have gotten out of hand on Wall Street. This has been made painfully obvious in the last 18 months.
This started with things like Enron. That was small potatoes compared to this week. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that this was a once in a hundred year event. As regulations have been slowly taken away, mortgage companies are giving over priced loans and convincing people who can't afford them into bigger and bigger homes. Banks all around the country are failing, and some of the biggest are needing federal bailouts to keep our entire financial system from collapsing completely. This could have been prevented, by not ignoring the initial signs, and by holding the CEOs of these companies responsible, instead of letting them go with millions in severance packages.
Obama has some ideas. One, like the depression of the 1920's and 30's that created the SEC, we need a new oversight commission that will watch over these banks, companies and the new market players, like hedge funds. This will prevent them from just doing whatever they want with their money, because they expect a federal handout if things go south. Second, actually holding CEO's of companies responsible when they allow their companies to do things like this.
Ending the predatory lending practices of banks and mortgage companies who coerce families to buy homes they cannot afford and by offering adjustable mortgages that have their payment skyrockets so they are suddenly unable to be paid, will keep the housing market from being a minefield for the average American. Changing bankruptcy laws that allow families to go through the process and keep a roof over their heads, will keep banks from pulling the rug out from underneath families who fall on hard times. Making it possible to renegotiate loans that were improperly sold, will keep banks from amassing hundreds of thousands of homes that they cannot sell from people who just wanted to get a bigger house for their kids.
McCain has a plan as well. He wants to appoint a committee to look into the problem, and then see what he should do from there. He has been part of the group of people who slowly unregulated the industry which allowed these companies to game the system. The problem with his idea is that it is only a band aid for problem that has to be prevented. This isn't a plane crash. We know why this happened and have been seeing the signs for years now. We need something that will keep this from happening again, a safety net that won't save people who choose to mess with the system, but one that will prevent something like this from creating an avalanche that forces people out of their homes and empties their retirement savings.
We need a plan for the future, to protect our interests. Until McCain comes up with something that will keep this from repeating itself, I can't be sure that he has any idea what is going on. He's said that the economy is strong for the last 10 months, and is now saying there are some issues to be concerned about. Who knows how long it will take for him to come up with a comprehensive plan for doing anything on the economy, he's been too focused on repeating the same stuff over and over.
...Read more
Obama has made several speeches over the last few days to talk about what is going on. One point has been repeated often, this should not have happened. His response to this disaster is to increase the oversight and regulation of these banks, in order to make sure that they are not allowed to paint themselves into a corner. By playing fast and loose with the system over the last few years, things have gotten out of hand on Wall Street. This has been made painfully obvious in the last 18 months.
This started with things like Enron. That was small potatoes compared to this week. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that this was a once in a hundred year event. As regulations have been slowly taken away, mortgage companies are giving over priced loans and convincing people who can't afford them into bigger and bigger homes. Banks all around the country are failing, and some of the biggest are needing federal bailouts to keep our entire financial system from collapsing completely. This could have been prevented, by not ignoring the initial signs, and by holding the CEOs of these companies responsible, instead of letting them go with millions in severance packages.
Obama has some ideas. One, like the depression of the 1920's and 30's that created the SEC, we need a new oversight commission that will watch over these banks, companies and the new market players, like hedge funds. This will prevent them from just doing whatever they want with their money, because they expect a federal handout if things go south. Second, actually holding CEO's of companies responsible when they allow their companies to do things like this.
Ending the predatory lending practices of banks and mortgage companies who coerce families to buy homes they cannot afford and by offering adjustable mortgages that have their payment skyrockets so they are suddenly unable to be paid, will keep the housing market from being a minefield for the average American. Changing bankruptcy laws that allow families to go through the process and keep a roof over their heads, will keep banks from pulling the rug out from underneath families who fall on hard times. Making it possible to renegotiate loans that were improperly sold, will keep banks from amassing hundreds of thousands of homes that they cannot sell from people who just wanted to get a bigger house for their kids.
McCain has a plan as well. He wants to appoint a committee to look into the problem, and then see what he should do from there. He has been part of the group of people who slowly unregulated the industry which allowed these companies to game the system. The problem with his idea is that it is only a band aid for problem that has to be prevented. This isn't a plane crash. We know why this happened and have been seeing the signs for years now. We need something that will keep this from happening again, a safety net that won't save people who choose to mess with the system, but one that will prevent something like this from creating an avalanche that forces people out of their homes and empties their retirement savings.
We need a plan for the future, to protect our interests. Until McCain comes up with something that will keep this from repeating itself, I can't be sure that he has any idea what is going on. He's said that the economy is strong for the last 10 months, and is now saying there are some issues to be concerned about. Who knows how long it will take for him to come up with a comprehensive plan for doing anything on the economy, he's been too focused on repeating the same stuff over and over.
...Read more
Monday, September 15, 2008
The Lying Game
It has become painfully obvious, that John McCain has gone beyond stretching the truth in his ads. Factcheck.org, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, The Associated Press and many more news agencies and independent groups have proven facts that explain where and when he has lied. What's more offensive about this, is that even when confronted with lies, both Palin and McCain refuse to acknowledge them as being lies. They continue to use the same lines. Does the McCain campaign think the American people are stupid?
This leads to the further question, do we really want a team of people whose path to the White House is paved by deceiving the public? If it were just a reasonable stretch of the truth, I could deal with it. I use the example of Obama's claim that John McCain would leave 100 million Americans without a tax cut. The actual number is closer to 90 million depending on your math, and I don't see a big deal with just saying 90 instead of 100. It is still a large number that should effectively get the point across. McCain has been destroying the truth
1. Obama called Palin a pig. No, he used the "lipstick on a pig" phrase as a description of his policies and how they compare to the policies of the last 8 years.
2. Palin runs a state where she controls 20% of the US domestic production of energy, this gives her great insight into everything from global warming to national security. No, her state produces 14% of all the oil wells in the US and and 1.9% of natural gas. Alaska produces 3.5% of all domestic energy production. Not 20% by even a stretch of the imagination.
3. Palin is the anti-earmark Governor, has never taken earmarks as Governor. She's against them now, but she asked for almost $300 per citizen of Alaska in federal earmarks this year, more than any other state per capita. She has reduced Alaska's requests for earmarks, but still has way more than 0. She also hired a lobbyist that allowed her to get $27 million for a 9000 person town that she was mayor of.
4. The Obama campaign is responsible for many of the negative rumors surrounding the GOP's VP pick. Factcheck.org was particularly miffed at this one. McCain used their banner and quoted their article to make this claim. There was a small problem, the article said exactly the opposite. The article stated that Obama had nothing to do with various internet rumors, just as McCain was not responsible for rumors about Obama.
5. Obama wanted to teach 5 yearolds about sex. Nope, not even close. Obama voted in support of a bill that would offer "age appropriate sex education" for various age groups. For the kindergartners this would amount to small discussion on inappropriate touching and being careful of strangers and potential predators. Several of McCain's managers have viciously tried to spread this lie, even while being confronted with the truth. This bill it might be added, never was passed into law.
6. Palin was always against the "bridge to nowhere." Not quite. Sarah Palin said on October 29, 2006; "I support these infrastructure projects. It will build Alaska, and it's cheaper to do it today than it is tomorrow." Once the bridge became more expensive, was highlighted by government spending watchdogs and it became a symbol of federal waste, she came out against it. She did keep the money though, and used it for other projects.
This is just a sampling of what has happened in the last week. Hopefully the next week will bring some honesty so we can look at the real issues, instead of questioning the validity of attack ads. ...Read more
This leads to the further question, do we really want a team of people whose path to the White House is paved by deceiving the public? If it were just a reasonable stretch of the truth, I could deal with it. I use the example of Obama's claim that John McCain would leave 100 million Americans without a tax cut. The actual number is closer to 90 million depending on your math, and I don't see a big deal with just saying 90 instead of 100. It is still a large number that should effectively get the point across. McCain has been destroying the truth
1. Obama called Palin a pig. No, he used the "lipstick on a pig" phrase as a description of his policies and how they compare to the policies of the last 8 years.
2. Palin runs a state where she controls 20% of the US domestic production of energy, this gives her great insight into everything from global warming to national security. No, her state produces 14% of all the oil wells in the US and and 1.9% of natural gas. Alaska produces 3.5% of all domestic energy production. Not 20% by even a stretch of the imagination.
3. Palin is the anti-earmark Governor, has never taken earmarks as Governor. She's against them now, but she asked for almost $300 per citizen of Alaska in federal earmarks this year, more than any other state per capita. She has reduced Alaska's requests for earmarks, but still has way more than 0. She also hired a lobbyist that allowed her to get $27 million for a 9000 person town that she was mayor of.
4. The Obama campaign is responsible for many of the negative rumors surrounding the GOP's VP pick. Factcheck.org was particularly miffed at this one. McCain used their banner and quoted their article to make this claim. There was a small problem, the article said exactly the opposite. The article stated that Obama had nothing to do with various internet rumors, just as McCain was not responsible for rumors about Obama.
5. Obama wanted to teach 5 yearolds about sex. Nope, not even close. Obama voted in support of a bill that would offer "age appropriate sex education" for various age groups. For the kindergartners this would amount to small discussion on inappropriate touching and being careful of strangers and potential predators. Several of McCain's managers have viciously tried to spread this lie, even while being confronted with the truth. This bill it might be added, never was passed into law.
6. Palin was always against the "bridge to nowhere." Not quite. Sarah Palin said on October 29, 2006; "I support these infrastructure projects. It will build Alaska, and it's cheaper to do it today than it is tomorrow." Once the bridge became more expensive, was highlighted by government spending watchdogs and it became a symbol of federal waste, she came out against it. She did keep the money though, and used it for other projects.
This is just a sampling of what has happened in the last week. Hopefully the next week will bring some honesty so we can look at the real issues, instead of questioning the validity of attack ads. ...Read more
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Moral Debate
One of the great arguments by conservatives, is the morality of the two parties. One supposedly advocates protecting life, the other, death. While it's a nice way to polarize people, by getting them to think that the obvious choice is the life party, there are many more factors to investigate before you assume the morality of a given party.
It's cut and dry right? McCain is pro-life and Obama is pro-death. Well if you ignore the fact that McCain has supported embryonic stems cells in the past, the death penalty for a large number of crimes, abortion for rape and incest, and war before diplomacy. It is true that McCain wants to repeal Roe V. Wade, now. He hasn't always wanted to. Combine that with the exceptions he would leave, is there really any doubt that abortion doctors would just claim that all their patients were raped?
I don't like abortion, I think there are better ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that abortion is wrong and that Obama is the pro-death candidate and that McCain is somehow pro-life with his record of double talk on the issue. I've lived in a city with constant battles with the abortion doctor there. They will do whatever it takes to allow the women who enter their clinics to get the procedure they want. Outlawing abortion for most, but leaving in a loophole, will only mean that more women will use the loophole.
Add to this the fact that the so called "moral" candidate has been making obvious lies about his opponent(this has been documented by numerous news organizations and independent fact checking groups), people should not be deciding who they will vote for on the issue of morality alone. Voting takes a completely informed decision, about all issues. Voting on a single issue is like living with a bag on your head. The people who vote based on one issue, are ignorant, and are wasting the freedom that so many people have fought and died for. I'm not asking you to vote for a particular candidate. I am asking you to vote after informing yourself about a candidate, rather than wasting your vote by ignoring the other issues at stake.
...Read more
It's cut and dry right? McCain is pro-life and Obama is pro-death. Well if you ignore the fact that McCain has supported embryonic stems cells in the past, the death penalty for a large number of crimes, abortion for rape and incest, and war before diplomacy. It is true that McCain wants to repeal Roe V. Wade, now. He hasn't always wanted to. Combine that with the exceptions he would leave, is there really any doubt that abortion doctors would just claim that all their patients were raped?
I don't like abortion, I think there are better ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that abortion is wrong and that Obama is the pro-death candidate and that McCain is somehow pro-life with his record of double talk on the issue. I've lived in a city with constant battles with the abortion doctor there. They will do whatever it takes to allow the women who enter their clinics to get the procedure they want. Outlawing abortion for most, but leaving in a loophole, will only mean that more women will use the loophole.
Add to this the fact that the so called "moral" candidate has been making obvious lies about his opponent(this has been documented by numerous news organizations and independent fact checking groups), people should not be deciding who they will vote for on the issue of morality alone. Voting takes a completely informed decision, about all issues. Voting on a single issue is like living with a bag on your head. The people who vote based on one issue, are ignorant, and are wasting the freedom that so many people have fought and died for. I'm not asking you to vote for a particular candidate. I am asking you to vote after informing yourself about a candidate, rather than wasting your vote by ignoring the other issues at stake.
...Read more
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Voter Registration
I just filled out the Advance/Absentee Ballot form for my particular State. I am registered to vote in one county but going to school in another. However, I want to have a say in the politics of what I consider my home, and I would really like to replace one of the incumbent congressmen with one that I actually agree with.
This was one of the most complicated experiences of my life. I am no moron, but this form had me stumped. It had only two places that indicated what information it wanted, the rest I had to deduce from words that even I, an English Major, stumbled over.
It was this form and these words that made it clear to me why, statistically speaking, poor and uneducated people have lower voter turnout rates. Things only got worse as I tried to find out how to mail the form in. None of this, of course, would have been possible without the internet. If I did not have an internet connection here in the dorm I have no idea how I would have even found this form. Clearly if you could not afford an internet connection your chances of voting are even slimmer.
This system makes it quite difficult for a certain demographic to vote. Does it come as any surprise that the demographic excluded by this ridiculously complicated system of voting is typically the most under represented?
Our voter registration system needs to change, all people need to have easy access to the right to vote.
And for clarification, I am in no way referring to a particular race, but a level of income and education. People with a college or less education would have a difficult time even understanding these forms, and people of low income probably have more important things to do with their time then hunting these forms down on the internet, if they even have money to spare on the internet.
Appalling.
...Read more
This was one of the most complicated experiences of my life. I am no moron, but this form had me stumped. It had only two places that indicated what information it wanted, the rest I had to deduce from words that even I, an English Major, stumbled over.
It was this form and these words that made it clear to me why, statistically speaking, poor and uneducated people have lower voter turnout rates. Things only got worse as I tried to find out how to mail the form in. None of this, of course, would have been possible without the internet. If I did not have an internet connection here in the dorm I have no idea how I would have even found this form. Clearly if you could not afford an internet connection your chances of voting are even slimmer.
This system makes it quite difficult for a certain demographic to vote. Does it come as any surprise that the demographic excluded by this ridiculously complicated system of voting is typically the most under represented?
Our voter registration system needs to change, all people need to have easy access to the right to vote.
And for clarification, I am in no way referring to a particular race, but a level of income and education. People with a college or less education would have a difficult time even understanding these forms, and people of low income probably have more important things to do with their time then hunting these forms down on the internet, if they even have money to spare on the internet.
Appalling.
...Read more
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Back from the RW&B
So, I’ve been on a vacation of sorts for the last 12 days. I made a last minute visit to my family. I’m typing up a bunch of stuff while on the plane ride back to Japan, so you’ll see it a few hours after I get back.
The big news, Sarah Palin. A hockey-mom from Alaska, governor for the last 20 months and former mayor of a small town in the same state. She bolsters McCain’s credit with conservatives, but the main goal of the choice was clearly to go after Clinton’s followers. While he will deny it, it has been obvious in both of their speeches, with references to several of Hillary’s statements and/or speeches. The one I found startling, or even amusing, was that Palin claimed that by her being elected VP, with McCain as president, that she would essentially crack the “glass ceiling” that Hillary could not. Last time I check, Hillary wasn’t willing to settle for the number two spot on the ticket. Even if the Republicans win, that ceiling will still be in place.
Right after the RNC, it came out that her 17 year-old daughter was pregnant. Of course this should pose a problem for a conservative pushing for “family values.” Her removal of a police administrator who refused to fire a police officer who divorced her sister has become a hot topic as well. Also, her involvement with the indicted senator Ted Stevens is being questioned, along with her running of his 527 political action group. The last piece I will talk about, is her experience, or more precisely, the lack there of.
She has less experience in all of her years in various government positions that Obama, but they still are saying that he is inexperienced. One reason I heard for this, was that she had experience running a government, being in charge. Well, being in charge of a state for 20 months and spending at least two months of that on maternity leave isn’t a whole lot. I had 3 years of experience managing a team at Starbucks. By the Republican standard, I should have almost as much experience as Palin.
I heard a great excuse to cover her foreign policy shortcomings, she’s close to Russia. Jon Stewart said it best, “by that logic, she’s close to the north pole so she must know Santa Claus.” The idea that she would have foreign policy experience by being close to another country is ludicrous. The idea that they complain about Obama’s experience is even more so. We shall see how they’re attacks change, and how Palin finally handles an interview when Charlie Gibson talks to her on Wednesday. Hopefully ABC will be less biased than the last Democratic primary debate.
...Read more
The big news, Sarah Palin. A hockey-mom from Alaska, governor for the last 20 months and former mayor of a small town in the same state. She bolsters McCain’s credit with conservatives, but the main goal of the choice was clearly to go after Clinton’s followers. While he will deny it, it has been obvious in both of their speeches, with references to several of Hillary’s statements and/or speeches. The one I found startling, or even amusing, was that Palin claimed that by her being elected VP, with McCain as president, that she would essentially crack the “glass ceiling” that Hillary could not. Last time I check, Hillary wasn’t willing to settle for the number two spot on the ticket. Even if the Republicans win, that ceiling will still be in place.
Right after the RNC, it came out that her 17 year-old daughter was pregnant. Of course this should pose a problem for a conservative pushing for “family values.” Her removal of a police administrator who refused to fire a police officer who divorced her sister has become a hot topic as well. Also, her involvement with the indicted senator Ted Stevens is being questioned, along with her running of his 527 political action group. The last piece I will talk about, is her experience, or more precisely, the lack there of.
She has less experience in all of her years in various government positions that Obama, but they still are saying that he is inexperienced. One reason I heard for this, was that she had experience running a government, being in charge. Well, being in charge of a state for 20 months and spending at least two months of that on maternity leave isn’t a whole lot. I had 3 years of experience managing a team at Starbucks. By the Republican standard, I should have almost as much experience as Palin.
I heard a great excuse to cover her foreign policy shortcomings, she’s close to Russia. Jon Stewart said it best, “by that logic, she’s close to the north pole so she must know Santa Claus.” The idea that she would have foreign policy experience by being close to another country is ludicrous. The idea that they complain about Obama’s experience is even more so. We shall see how they’re attacks change, and how Palin finally handles an interview when Charlie Gibson talks to her on Wednesday. Hopefully ABC will be less biased than the last Democratic primary debate.
...Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
