Barack Obama for President

The first question had to do with the current state of the economy as it stands and the plan to fix the current crisis.

Obama said that we have to move swiftly and wisely. That we need to protect taxpayers as we move forward. We need 4 things: 1. Oversight. 2. Taxpayers should get money back with gains. 3. None of the money will go to pad bank accounts or fund golden parachutes. 4. Help homeowners, who are part of the cause of this problem. However, the ultimate cause of the problem was 8 years of failed Bush policies that John McCain supported (including less regulation).

 

 

John McCain sees Republicans and Democrats working together and things one of the answers is reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Huh?

 

Are there fundamental differences between McCain’s and Obama’s approach to solving the problem when they become president.

 

McCain says that we need to get spending under control, I guess assuming that Obama is going to have “out of control spending”. He will veto pork spending and make people famous. How that is an answer to the current financial crisis is beyond me. He will also cut taxes too businesses because he believes it will create jobs. Of course, he ignores the possibility that a tax cut to businesses will be as likely (or more) to fund CEO bonuses and golden parachutes.

 

Obama agrees that there has been earmark abuse. He suspended earmark requests until it gets cleared up. Earmarks are 18 billion dollars. Senator McCain is proposing 300 billion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations and individuals in our country. It would give a CEO a 700,000 dollar tax cut. Obama will build the country from bottom up and not from the top down. The bottom 95% will get a tax cut. This will help economic growth. And while he will have some new programs, he will pay for that spending by cutting other items in the budget.

 

Obama also says that while you have a higher tax rate, there are also more loopholes. McCain doesn’t want to close those loopholes while cutting taxes to businesses. Obama also attacked John McCain’s healthcare plan (in the same manner that I did).

 

Obama also brought up the typical tactic of Washington politics. Obama was against a tax cut for oil companies in a bill. He fought against it. That fight failed and he wound up voting for the main bill which happened to include the tax cut. McCain then attacked Obama for voting for the bill even though he fought against the provision. It is typical politics.

 

McCain incorrectly stated, in response to Obama’s comment on healthcare, that we would be handing our healthcare system over to the federal government which is an absolute lie! McCain wants families to make decisions about their healthcare. Under Obama’s plan, they can. I discuss that in my healthcare post here.

 

Much has been said about the lessons of Vietnam, what are the lessons of Iraq.

McCain said that you cannot have a failed strategy that will cause you to nearly lose a conflict. The war was mishandled. He also said that our troops will come home, and not in defeat. He keeps taking about defeat. Of course, I explain why McCain is wrong about “defeat” here.

 

Obama brought up that we should have not gone into Iraq in the first place. Not only did we not know how much it will cost, we didn’t know how much it would cost, we didn’t know how it would effect our global relationships, and we had not caught Osama bin Ladin and stopped Al Queada and our going into Iraq would be a distraction. I think Obama must read my blog!

 

McCain said he wouldn’t publicly state that he would send troops into Pakistan to go after Al Queda. He didn’t say he wouldn’t do it, he just said he wouldn’t state it publicly. How convinced are you? Obama stated that if Pakistan won’t act, then he would absolutely go after them. And people question if Obama will be strong with our military if need be?

 

What is the threat from Iran?

 

McCain states that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is a threat to Israel and to the region. He proposes a coalition of Democracies to impose significant sanctions on Iran because Russia has blocked meaningful action in the U.N.. So let me get this straight. McCain wont commit to going into Pakistan but he will commit to circumventing the U.N. to go against the desires of Russia? I am not saying that Russia should have a veto power on our actions by any means. However, I find it very hypocritical that McCain wont publicly say things that might anger Pakistan but he freely says things that obviously would upset Russia.

 

Obama believes that the republican guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. We cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would threaten Israel (our stalwart ally) and create instability in the region. Obama does not see us taking meaningful action without Russia and other non Democratic trade partners of Iran.

 

The issue of preconditions before negotiations came up. McCain feels that such actions would “legitimize” these leaders that he disagrees with and their illegal behavior. Obama reserves the right as President to meet with anyone at anytime if he feels that it will keep America safe. Obama stated that meeting without preconditions does not mean we just invite them over to tea. But we need to keep all options on the table.

 

To me, keeping all options on the table is the best way to go. It doesn’t mean we have to go right to open discussions, but it means we can IF that is the best option out there. Why handcuff our foreign policy? It makes no sense.

 

How do you see the relationship with Russia?

 

Obama says that given the last weeks and months, our approach needs to be evaluated when it comes to Russia. Their actions in Georgia are unacceptable and unwarranted. We have to explain that Russia cannot be a 21^st century power while acting like a 20^th century dictatorship. We also need to work with Russia to deal with the issue of lose nuclear weapons. We cannot have a President that just peers into the eyes of the leader and peers at his soul.

 

McCain looked into Putin’s eyes and saw KGB. But there was not much disagreement between the two candidates.

What are the chances of another 9/11 type attack on US soil?

 

McCain believes that we are safer now than we were on 9/11 but that we are a long way from “safe”. But we have a long way to go. He supported the 9/11 commission in opposition to the President.

 

Obama says that we are safer in some ways. We have worked to secure targets and have increased airport security but we have a long way to go. We need to work on chemical plants, our ports, and our transit. The biggest threat is a terrorist with a suitcase nuke. However, we keep focusing on strictly missile defense. We need to increase funding on the former.

 

To solve the issue of terrorism, we need to deal with Al Queda, who is operating in 60 countries. He says the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference in our ability to get cooperation and eliminate terrorism. By rebuilding our respect, we will get help from other countries in solving the global problem of terrorism.

 

McCain keeps saying that if we “fail in Iraq” and the “consequences of defeat” that we will embolden Al Queda and that Barack Obama doesn’t understand that. What Senator McCain doesn’t understand is that Obama is aiming for victory in Iraq by helping them to defend themselves so we can leave.

 

The only thing that I wish Obama would have done differently tonight would have been to challenge McCain’s claims of “failure” and “defeat” in Iraq. Of course, as I typed this, Obama said “nobody is talking about losing this war”. So good!

 

How on earth can John McCain claim that Obama has made the wrong decision when on the issue of Iraq, Obama was one of the only ones who stood up like a leader and was dead on 100 percent correct?!?!?!

 

Now, who won this debate? I am not going to say that Barack Obama smacked it out the park. However, I think Obama made some very important attacks on McCain and did an excellent job. I have to say that Barack Obama won round 1.

 

In what seemed like that scene from Wayne’s World where they played hockey in the street and kept having to get out of the way of the cars, the status of the debate tonight is “GAME ON“.

See, McCain wanted everyone to believe that he was not being political by “suspending” his campaign. The reality is that the move was completely political. It was simply posturing and grandstanding and nobody really bought it for a second. So now McCain has to scurry to Mississippi and participate in the debate.

And wait, wasn’t it McCain who was critical of Obama for not doing “town hall” meetings? Good thing McCain is going tonight, or he might have risked looking like a hypocrite…. on yet another issue.

ElectionTaxes.com is a website that compares McCain’s tax plan to Obama’s and allows each voter to see an estimate of what their net taxes will be under each plan.

My net taxes are lower under Obama’s plan. So much for the claims of McCain and the Republican Party that Obama is going to tax us to economic ruin.

Ok, first and foremost is the economy. I am just absolutely amazed at the Republican hypocrisy here.In 2005 Bush and the Republicans took a “firm stand” on people  they felt abused the bankruptcy laws. Congress passed reform that would force more Chapter 13 bankruptcies by requiring a means test to see if one was eligible for a chapter 7 bankruptcy. The law would also allow creditors to appeal lost debts that would not have been allowed under the old Chapter 13 rules. Bush and the Republicans felt that more regulation was needed to protect these companies. So now fast forward to the current economic crisis. We have irresponsible companies making irresponsible decisions that threaten our economy. What is the Bush response? Well, if Bush and Republicans would be consistent, they would also be pushing for more regulation right? NOPE! They just hand money over to the companies making those bad decisions. McCain and Republicans have been yelling and screaming about deregulation as a solution for years. So are we to believe that leopards change their spots? Or are we to believe that John McCain is just changing what he says to the public in order to win? I choose the latter. While the Republicans push for stricter measures for individuals who declare bankruptcy, they support less strict regulation on companies and are willing to give them our tax dollars? It is sheer hypocrisy. If individuals need stricter regulations to try and keep them from making bad decisions and then using bankruptcy as a safety net, then shouldn’t companies run by those same individuals need stricter regulations as well?

And I am not for a second going to say that we should just allow our markets to collapse. However, when government steps in it should not just be with a wheelbarrow filled with cash (nearly a trillion dollars). Government should take over the payroll and human resources departments of these companies. They should reduce unneeded salaries, cut the strings on golden parachutes, prosecute those who get millions of dollars while driving their companies into the ground, and hire new decisions makers, chosen by a bipartisan panel of some sort, to fix where the company has gone wrong. And if the share of the average taxpayer of the bailout is going to be 7 thousand dollars, then perhaps those companies should help the taxpayers out by eliminating 7 thousand dollars on the debt of those taxpayers. Maybe not right away, but that should be where the repayment of the funds go, not back to the government so they can spend it on their pet projects, but back to the checking accounts of the men and women who bailed them out in the first place. Because that is what really happened, you and me are bailing them out and WE, not government, should see a return on OUR investment.

(Another thing I find ironic is that Republicans cry socialism all the time. However, the definition of socialism is basically government taking over the means of production. So didn’t Bush do that with AIG? People are calling it “corporate socialism” but in reality it is socialism at its purist form.)

Now, John McCain is wanting to play the part of “Superman” as he tries to “save the day” by “suspending his campaign” to return to Washington and try and tackle this mess. But the campaign isn’t really suspended now is it? Commercials are still running, Palin and his staff are still out there pushing the John McCain agenda, and all that has happened is that McCain is campaigning in

Washington D.C. instead of the rest of the country. And McCain, who supposedly was trying to take the politics out of this, has basically returned the politics to the mess. After the candidates come back to D.C., the “deal” stalled and the Republicans pulled out and have NOW suggested another “plan”. It does not seem that McCain has had any positive effect on these talks as of yet.John McCain wanted to postpone the debate. However, Barack Obama rightly commented that a President should be able to multitask and handle several things at once. This is exactly what Barack Obama needed to do! Framing debates to their point of view has been the Republican strategy (and advantage) for the last 8 years. What Barack Obama managed to do here is not only frame the argument around if the debate should be held to his own advantage, his statement is 100% correct. So he is doing the Republicans one better, not only is he framing the argument but he is doing so with the truth! If Barack Obama can continue to do that for the remaining time left in this election then he will have a much easier time winning.Finally, we need to talk about polling. Interesting polling results have come out showing Obama with near ties in several key states and turning several states that are thought to be “strong republican” as being closer contests than many anticipated.

Louisiana has Obama only down by 7%. How can that be? Perhaps some Republican apathy on the part of Republicans (who didn’t vote for McCain in the primary and who consider McCain to be too liberal for them) and a possible strong showing of likely Democratic voters (especially when a main part of the Democratic base in Louisiana will come out in support of Obama, perhaps stronger than they have for any other candidate). So that at least makes Louisiana interesting (even though I still really don’t expect him to take

Louisiana). However, the “likely voter” polls do not include new voters. And Barack Obama did a great job getting new voters registered and out to the primaries. That should be his strength in the general election and may cause many of the polls that come out closer to election day to underestimate Obama’s chances.I was initially concerned that Obama, by winning the states he “could not win in the general election” in order to win the primary, would be at a disadvantage. I have since come to the realization that Obama campaigned smart in the primary, that just means he will campaign smart in the general election as well. So before I was wrong, and I am very happy to admit it.

First: Some background reading (and listening).

Barack Obama came under fire from the so called “liberal media” for making supposedly misleading statements about John McCain’s stance on embryonic stem cell research. The “Fact Check Desk” over at ABCNEWS.com tells us where that Obama’s ad is misleading for saying:

John McCain doesn’t understand that medical research benefiting millions shouldn’t be held hostage by the political views of a few

They also claim that the Obama ad is misleading because it makes the assertion that McCain currently opposes embryonic stem cell research. Other sites also criticize Obama for saying that McCain’s stance is more strict than President Bush’s stance. So let’s look at McCain’s history and why Barack Obama and his campaign might say such a thing. Because when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, John McCain has flipped and flopped more times than the fish at the end of Epic.

Before 2001, John McCain opposed embryonic Stem Cell research.  As it is stated in the article, in February of 2000 McCain and 20 other Republican Senators wrote into the National Institutes of Health to request that they ban students from using embryos in their research.

However, in 2001 John McCain flipped and went on Meet the Press and asserted a change in his point of view and had since voted several times (as recently as 2007) in support of the research. This is why the “fact check desk” asserts that the Obama ad is misleading. But is it?

Because McCain has since flopped and on his campaign website it clearly states:

 As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

So let’s look at this more closely. In February of 2000 (do I need to remind everyone what McCain was doing in February of 2000) McCain comes out in opposition to the research. Now, during another presidential election, he is again coming out in opposition to the research. In between he did cast votes in support of the research. So who is the real John McCain? It is impossible to tell, because he is spending much of his time flipping and flopping in order to get support.

All we can do is look at what McCain says about his stance today at this very moment. That stance would prohibit federal funds from being spent on any research on embryos. President Bush restricted funding from stem cell lines coming from new embryos, but allowed funding for stem cell research on existing lines. From the wording on McCain’s own campaign literature, he would not allow funding on any stem cell lines (existing or not). So it is absolutely clear that McCain’s stance on his website is in full opposition to the research and that opposition is, in fact, stricter than President Bush (as Obama correctly stated).

It seems like those at the “fact check” desk need to do a bit more fact checking.

Cross posted at the main Liberty and Justice for All blog.

Before I go into the plans of both candidates, let look at the facts of our healthcare system today.

 

Fact 1: There are over 40 million people in this country that are uninsured.

 

Fact 2: Those people allow their health problems get to a point where they need to go to the emergency room for care.

 

Fact 3: Hospitals cannot turn away people in an emergency.

 

Fact 4: It is generally cheaper to treat a condition early than late, making preventive care much cheaper than emergency care.

 

Fact 5: Hospitals, not wanting to take a loss, will pass on the costs of unpaid emergency care to those who can afford to pay, making the cost of healthcare rise.

 

And we need to go over one little fact that Republicans like to ignore. Barack Obama is not proposing one government run healthcare system!

 

Now, that being said, it is obvious that we currently pay for the healthcare of those who are uninsured because the costs associated with their emergency care is passed on to us in the form of higher insurance premiums. So let’s see how the candidates deal with that issue as well as their other ideas.

 

Barack Obama has a plan for those 40+ million uninsured people. He will create a plan that is similar to what Congressmen have and allow those uninsured people to opt in. Yes, this will cost us tax dollars, but we should see a net increase in income and here is why. The extra money we pay in tax dollars to cover that plan will be less than the money we save in reduced insurance premiums.

 

Obama’s plan, unlike some others that existed, allow people to purchase or keep private insurance plans if they so desire. So if I like my current plan (which I do) I get to keep it! (Read the full plan here)

 

Now, lets look at John McCain’s plan. First and foremost, if you read his plan you will notice that he is pushing high deductable HSA plans. HSA plans are fine for some people but not for everyone.

 

Now, McCain would eliminate the tax incentive that businesses get for providing healthcare to their employees and would instead give money to individuals ($2500) or families ($5000) to get their own coverage. The “remainder” of those funds would go into an HSA. The only way his HSA plan would work is if the total cost of the insurance plus the deductible equaled the tax break (and we all know that wont be happening anytime soon) .

 

What is even more flawed with McCain’s plan is that by eliminating the tax benefit, employers may drop insurance coverage. The insurance coverage that employers get is typically negotiated for lower price and no health screenings for coverage. Without such negotiation, people would wind up paying much more for their health insurance than the $5000 John McCain is proposing. In fact, the average healthcare cost for a family of four is over $12000 (according to the National Coalition on Health Care).  And their cost is the average employer based healthcare plan (which comes at a reduced negotiated group rate).  So basically we will wind up with more uninsured people.

 

So what is John McCain’s plan for the uninsured? His own website states:

 

As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage.

 

In a nutshell, when it comes to the uninsured, John McCain has no plan. Period.

 

The choice is clear folks. All McCain wants to do is promote health savings accounts and has no plan for the uninsured. Barack Obama as the better, and more complete, healthcare plan.

 

Cross posted at Liberty and Justice for All

I absolutely understand why the Republican base (i.e. the extremist religious right wing of the part) are absolutely crazy over Sarah Palin. Not only is she attractive with a lot of charisma. Not only has she accomplished a lot in the political world for a “soccer parent”. She is one of them, an extremist conservative who would ban abortions in the case of rape (even for her own daughter), rejects science, and supports abstinence only education.

Palin is a hypocrite. She (and others) keep saying that her family should be off limits. I agree that the issues regarding her family should be left out of the election. The only relevant point that can be made about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is that obviously Sarah’s “abstinence only” approach to sex ed did not work with her own daughter. Why does she think it would work with other people? However, as she protests about the media treatment of her family, she parades them around for all to see. If you don’t want your children to be front and center in the campaign, don’t put them there! And even if she didn’t parade them around on stage at the Republican Convention, she had to have known that her family would be put under the microscope (just like Chelsea Clinton, Jenna and Barbara Bush, and all other families of politicians that get treated the same way). If she didn’t realize what would happen, she would be proven to be an idiot.

Palin and her supporters are crying sexism in the media and the blogosphere. I personally could care less what set of private parts she has. What bothers me personally is her issues and ideas for America. And while some criticisms (like how can she be VP with 5 kids) are ignorant and irrelevant, other comments made about her are not sexist at all.

 For example, some have called her a ”cheerleader” for McCain. That is not sexist. Males are cheerleaders as well. Look at our current President. He was a cheerleader as well. Since men can be cheerleaders, calling Sarah Palin one is not sexist at all.

And again, Palin and her supporters show their hypocrisy. If Palin doesn’t want people to make any judgements on her based on the fact that she is a woman, then she needs to not campaign  as if being a woman is at all relevant to her running for this position. She should be calling herself a “soccer parent” and not a “soccer mom”. She should not be saying that the only difference between her and a pit bull is lipstick. I was listening to XM on the way home from Shreveport and I heard the most absurd comment by a bunch of Republican supporters of Sarah Palin who happened to be women. They kept complaining about Democrats and how they are supposedly being sexist over Sarah Palin. They tried to say how Palin is an accomplished woman and that these sexist remarks expose some hypocrisy in the Democratic Party. The final speaker then quoted Margaret Thatcher by saying:

If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.

Excuse me? How can you whine and complain about people being sexist against your candidate and then make a sexist comment yourself and expect people to take you seriously? So again, Palin supporters reveal their hypocrisy.

People believe that Palin on the ticket will bring over Hillary supporters, especially women who wanted to make history with the first female President and will settle for the first female Vice President. Now this is just plain silly. As it has been said, by me and others, Sarah Palin does not support the issues that Hillary Clinton voters support. So any Hillary supporter who would vote for McCain because he picked a woman would be a prime example of someone cutting off their nose to spite their face. It would just be absolute stupidity. And if you are a supporter of womens rights and you are voting for Palin to “make history”, don’t be surprised when the rights your cherish “BECOME HISTORY” when McCain appoints anywhere from 1 to 4 activist conservative Supreme Court justices.

And then there is always her jabs at community organizers. We get it Sarah, you don’t think that being a community organizer is a worthwhile goal. We get that you don’t understand why a person would give up an opportunity to make millions on Wall St. and instead go to Chicago and try and help out poor people who are unemployed. We get that while Democrats look at people who are poor and see limitless potential who just need a hand up, that you and other Republicans look at the poor as a huge burden, a strain on your personal wealth and that the only good poor people are those who blindly follow your fear tactics and rhetoric. We get it!

The McCain/Palin ticket criticizes Obama for wanting change and then they embrace the idea of “change” themselves. However, McCain/Palin brings us no change at all, just a continuance of the failed policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party. McCain/Palin says “country first”. Well, in order to be a true leader of our country you have to fight for each and every citizen in our country. Since McCain/Palin rejects equal rights for people who are homosexual, they prove that they would be unwilling to fight for each and every citizen and prove that they are not qualified to lead our country. I say, put every individual citizen of this country first and elect Obama/Biden in 2008!

The first thing I need to say is this. To all those that interrupted Senator McCain while he spoke… you are not helping. McCain’s own words will be enough to prove why he should not be our next president. You don’t need to interrupt him, to do that is just rude, and it makes the rest of us who oppose his candidacy look bad. The political process needs more maturity, not idiots acting like children.   

 

McCain quoted our founding fathers by saying that all men are created equal. However, he did not say that all people deserve equal rights. Under a John McCain presidency we will see activist conservative judges who will move our country and civil rights back to the 1950s or maybe before.

 

McCain said that he fought for the strategy of more troops. However, Obama fought against going into Iraq in the first place. It seems that Barack Obama was correct when it counted the most. And because we followed Bush’s failed policies, we took our eye off the ball with Al Queda and it is now reached pre-9/11 strengths. And McCain wants to continue the President’s failed policy? That doesn’t make any sense.

 

Honoring the troops and keeping us safe from enemies requires that we train and equip Iraq to defend itself, it requires that we have a responsible withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and it requires that we go after the enemies who actually attacked us and make them our priority. The only candidate in the election that I see proposing this is Barack Obama and not John McCain.

 

McCain believes in open markets, but free trade with countries that don’t share our labor laws provides unfair competition to the American worker.

 

McCain believes in people keeping the fruits of their labor? I bet you he won’t be pushing for the American worker to get increased pay that is a fair compensation for that labor.

 

McCain brought up the old line that judges should not legislate from the bench. Every single one of those people applauding tonight would love the court to legislate from the bench on the issues of gay marriage and abortion.

 

Mccain says government doesn’t work for you but makes sure that you have more choices to make for yourself. B.S. McCain is leading the morality police that wants to legislate against choice, be it on abortion, or gay marriage, or activities that hurt nobody yet for some reason Republicans insist on legislating against them.

 

McCain says that Obama would raise taxes. Yet a recent study showed that the income of the average American will increase more because of Obama’s plan than it would with McCain’s plan.

 

McCain rejects Obama’s plan for a government run healthcare system. That is a lie, Obama doesn’t want government run healthcare. He wants people to keep their own healthcare plans and make health plans easier to purchase for those 40+ million who cannot afford it for themselves.

 

McCain says that Education is THE civil rights issue of the century. Education is A civil rights issue, but there are many more. However, on education, McCain wants to add competition to fix failed schools. Why not just fix the schools! We should yearn to make all public schools top notch! We should not “cut and run” on our youth.

 

McCain wants to stop sending money to oil producing countries who don’t like us. Well guess what, Obama wants to do that as well. Obama just sells his plan with his long term goals, while McCain sells his plan with his short term goals. I like the long term approach personally.

 

John McCain is a patriot. John McCain is a hero. John McCain deserves all the respect that we can give him for his service to our country. This is something that is said a lot, but it is something that cannot be said enough.

 

But let me get back to where John McCain started. John McCain and the Republican Party rejects the idea of equal rights for all (be it equal pay for equal work, gay marriage rights, or any other civil rights issue the Democrats support but Republicans oppose). How can a person expect to lead a nation if he doesn’t support equal rights for every person in that nation? As long as John McCain refuses to fight for every single American as president, John McCain proves that he is not qualified to BE our next president. Period.

Mitt Romney shows exactly why he couldn’t win the Presidential nomination in his speech today. He doesn’t even know the Constitution (or the realities of his own Government)! He claimed that the ruling that allowed Guantanamo prisoners to question their imprisonment as both “liberal” and “granting them rights”.

A) A Conservative court made that ruling.

B) The Constitution states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It doesn’t say citizen, it says person. All people get the right to due process under the law. This is not something belonging to only citizens. The ignorance of Romney (and all those who cheered in the croud at his statement to that effect) shines through with their lack of knowledge of our Constitution. These people are supposed to be their party leaders and they don’t even know the Constitution? How pathetic!

Meg Whitman, the former CEO of Ebay, spoke at the Republican convention tonight. Before reading this, I suggest you read about all the fraud at Ebay during her watch. I would also urge you to remember the words of Rob Chestnut who tells us that fraud on ebay is “under-counted” and “over-counted”.

Meg Whitman said she is a Republican because of “character”? Well, it does take a character to seriously believe the b.s. she gave out on fighting fraud as CEO of ebay. Read the story in the Mike Brunker Ebay section that discusses the shill bidder who got away with fraud and was only given a verbal warning.

Meg Whitman says that Republicans are proud to be the party of Lincoln. Well sorry Meg, but if Lincoln was alive today I doubt he would be a Republican (considering Democrats are the party that now fights for civil rights).

I am glad Meg spoke tonight. She did contradict Fred Thompson when he said the economy was great. She said the economy was bad. For a convention so scripted, I would think they would get their message straight. What is it Republicans? Do we have a good economy or a bad one?

Meg says that Republicans  will lower taxes. Yes, I am sure that under a Republican administration that Meg Whitman would see many tax breaks. But the other 95% of us will be getting tax breaks under Barack Obama.

Meg speaks of individual freedoms. Yeah, as long as you are rich, white, and heterosexual you have all the freedom you want in America.

Meg says that McCain supports more self government. But the morality police that is the Republican Party is the one who needs to “protect marriage” from homosexuals. I would suggest they seek to protect marriage from David Vitter and Larry Craig before worrying about what homosexuals will do to their marriages. Guess what Republicans, my marriage to my wife is special to me no matter how many prostitutes David Vitter “sins” with. Your marriage will be just as special as it is today if gay people are allowed to marry the people they love.

But let’s go back to the statement of Rob Chestnut (the one about fraud and how it is over-counted and under-counted). Rob was brought in by Meg to Ebay. Rob and Meg embraced that kind of double speak while defending their inaction when it came to fraud in ebay. How can you take people who believe that double speak seriously?

McCain does though. At the Saddleback forums McCain said he would seek the council of Meg Whitman because of her wisdom. So much for the “straight talk express”.