Monday, March 31, 2008

Cleveland Indians vs Milwaukee Brewers in the World Series!

It's time to talk baseball again.

Pres. Bush threw the first pitch at the new park in Washington DC. Frankly, it's a beautiful park and I love the view of the Capitol Dome behind left field. As always, Pres. Bush throws a good pitch, although it was a bit high tonight!

Let me start with the Rangers. I like this team. Michael Young is only 31 and in his prime. Hank Blalock is healthy and should hit 30 home runs! Ian Kessler is looking better and better and he is only 25. Gerard Laird is healthy and should catch most of the games. Josh Hamilton is going to be great and he is only 26.

The pitching is a little better. Milwood and Padilla should win 15 games each. CJ Wilson is a young closer with tremendous fan appeal. McCarthy is a young pitcher but will start in the DL.

Overall, this is going to be a .500 year for the Rangers. It's time for the fans to be a little more patient. I understand the local frustration since the Rangers have not win the AL West since '99.

I think that the Rangers are doing it the right way. Can you say D-Backs, Rockies and Indians? They took the time and built some very nice teams.

Get ready for a good future: The farm system has a lot of talent and the local fans will enjoy baseball in 2009 and beyond. (Big picture is Texas Rangers' focus)

The Rangers should be competitive in 2008 but 82 or 83 wins is about as much as you can expect from a young, but very talented, team.

In the NL, the Mets, Braves and Phillies will fight in the East. I will pick the Braves because they have so much young talent and veteran pitching.

The Brewers, Cubs, Cardinals and Astros will fight in the Central. I will pick the Brewers who will clinch in the last weekend of the season. The NL Central will be the most exciting pennant race of the season.

The NL West is pitching loaded. The Rockies, D-Backs, Padres and Dodgers will be in it for much of the season. I pick the D-Backs because they are the model of a baseball team.

The NL wildcard will be the Rockies. This is another young team with lots of potential.

What about the Dodgers? They will be in it but they are not ready yet.

Milwaukee will beat Colorado. Arizona will beat the Braves. The Brewers will win the NLCS.

In the AL, the Indians will win the Central. They won't have much competition.

The Angels and Mariners will have a great pennant race. I pick the Angels.

The Red Sox and Yankees will fight for the AL East. I pick Boston to repeat. By the way, watch out for Tampa Bay. They are a young team. TB finally has the right ownership and hopefully they can get a new stadium to replace the awful Tropicana Field.

The Mariners will be the wildcard team by beating the Yankees.

It won't be pleasant in NY because the Yankees will miss the playoffs for the first time since '93. Unfortunately, the Yankees are getting older and the farm system is not that great! The Yankees say goodbye to Yankee Stadium. It's a shame that there won't be any post season baseball.

The Angels will beat the Red Sox. The Indians will beat the Mariners. The Indians will win the NLCS.

So, it will be Cleveland vs Milwaukee in the World Series. The Brewers and Indians have a lot of young players who will be household names by this fall.

Who will win it all? I will say Milwaukee in 7! I think that Wisconsin fans need something to cheer about now that Favre has retired from the Packers!

Sunday, March 30, 2008

McCain, the Dems and the housing crisis

A few days ago. Sen. McCain responsibly addressed the housing problem:

"Let's start with some straight talk:

I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now.

I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.

Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy."

The housing crisis has now become the Dems' favorite talking point. It did not take long for Obama and Clinton to give us their solutions, i.e. more government and more government and more government!

Clinton wants to put a ban on foreclosures, which is a rather bizarre suggestion given that these are private contracts between borrowers and lenders.

Obama wants "hope and change" plus more "hope and change" and more "yes we can hope and change".

Quite a contrast between McCain's sober position and the Clinton/Obama pandering to voters.

Again, what can the government do about people who made bad loans or borrowers who bought more house than they could afford? The answer is little and most Americans get it.

The Dems should check out this poll from Rasmussen Reports:

"Fifty-three percent (53%) of Americans say that the federal government should not help out homeowners who borrowed more than they could afford....These results are consistent with earlier surveys showing that most Americans believed individual borrowers were to blame for the mortgage crisis.....A separate survey found that most believe the troubled homeowners should buy a smaller house." (Most Americans Oppose Federal Bailout for Homeowners)

I guess that Americans have more economic common sense than the Dems.

On free trade, the Dems are now Nader's party!

Let's see what the Dems are saying about free trade.

Have you noticed that today's Dems sound a lot like Ralph Nader and not at all like Al Gore or Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

On free trade agreements, they have turned their backs on NAFTA and the rest of Latin America.

On one hand, they criticize Pres. Bush for overlooking Latin America. On the other hand, they refuse to see how free trade helps our neighbors and the US.

Let's take Colombia and Pres. Uribe.

Colombia is a wonderful ally and no one is more pro-US than Uribe.

We should be encouraging Uribe's responsible leadership and his free market approach.

So why are Dems stalling the free trade pact? In essence, why are Dems taking sides with Hugo Chavez, who opposes free trade?

Edward Schumacher-Matos is a visiting professor of Latin American studies at Harvard. Today, he published Killing a Trade Pact :

"Delaying the approval of the trade agreement would be convenient for Democrats in Washington.

American labor unions and human-rights groups have made common cause to oppose it this election year. The unions oppose the trade agreement for traditional protectionist reasons. Less understandable are the rights groups.

Human Rights Watch says that it has no position on trade but that it is using the withholding of approval to gain political leverage over the Colombian government.

Perversely, they are harming Colombian workers in the process. The trade agreement would stimulate economic growth and help all Colombians."

The Dems are carrying the unions' water in the US. This is why Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama shamefully played the NAFTA card in Ohio.

What does NAFTA have to do with Ohio's problems? Not much. However, bashing NAFTA makes a good headline for the party that has more in common with Ralph Nader than Bill Clinton.

I agree with Protection Racket (Democratic hostility to trade is the most worrying trend of the presidential campaign) By PETE DU PONT:

"So the good news is that America's international trade is constantly increasing.

U.S. exports grew 12% in 2007, and the U.S. Department of Commerce reports that since the first General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, in 1948, U.S. total trade as a percentage of gross domestic products has risen to more than 29% in 2007 from less than 10%.

According to a Heritage Foundation study "The U.S. is the world's largest exporter. U.S. exports amounted to $1.6 trillion in 2007 alone and those exports generated 25 percent of U.S. GDP growth."

Trade creates jobs.

America's exports of goods sold abroad--electrical machinery, chemicals, plastics, agricultural products, medical and scientific instrumentation, for example--support six million American jobs. Exports of services account for another five million jobs.

And foreign-owned companies operating in the U.S. directly employ five million American workers, including 16,000 in Ohio by Honda, 5,400 in South Carolina by BMW, 6,000 by Nokia and 15,000 by Nestlé.

The president's recently released 2008 Trade Policy Reports take a look at the effects of trade over the past seven years.

America's "exports to the world increased 50 percent" and reached 12% of GDP, the highest share in our history.

We have free trade agreements with 20 countries (three of which are not yet approved by Congress), and U.S. exports to the 11 most recent trade agreement countries "grew over 70 percent faster on average than did U.S. exports to the rest of the world."

To put free trade in economic perspective, "In 2007 U.S. exports grew more than twice as fast as imports (over 12 percent versus less than 6 percent) and the trade deficit dropped by over 6 percent."

So free trade is helping, not hurting, the American economy."

The Dems should read Democrats and the Economy By STEPHEN J. ROSE and ANNE KIM.

How can the Dems win the 2008 by nominating a candidate who has Ralph Nader's economic positions. They can't win by doing that!

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Friday's show: A chat with Rick Moran

Rick Moran joined us today to review the politics of March 2008! We reviewed the month of Obama's Rev, the big Obama speech, Hillary Clinton's Bosnia recollections and McCain's strong polls.

Rick just posted More Obama Lies about Rev. Wright (Updated)! Also, see It's Obama That Doesn't Get It by Jennifer Rubin.

It was a crazy month!

Click here for the show!

The Longhorns are in the Elite 8!

Congratulations to the Longhorns. They beat Stanford and have made it to the final 8 teams in the men's tournament! (82-62)

Now, let's win the next one and make it to the Final Four!

P.S. To be fair, the Longhorns caught a big break by playing this game in Houston. It was like a home game with a huge partisan crowd.

We support Pres. Calderon's "surge" in Mexico!

Pres. Calderon is not backing down. He is fully committed to fighting the drug cartels:

"Nearly 1,000 Mexican troops arrived at the Ciudad Juarez airport Friday to deal with a surge in drug war violence that's sent tremors throughout the country, local media reported.

Mexican authorities said they're part of the more than 2,000 soldiers and federal policemen involved in "Operation Joint Chihuahua" who are being dispatched to combat narcotrafficking operations that have terrorized much of the state of Chihuahua, particularly Ciudad Juarez, Palomas and the city of Chihuahua, the state capital.

More than 200 people have been killed in the area, which borders El Paso, Texas, since the beginning of the year, according to local media reports. Thirty were killed over the Easter weekend." (Mexico sends troops to Texas border to battle drug lords)

The Mexican left is not happy. Frankly, the left is never happy, specially when they can't win elections. The left is claiming that Calderon is militarizing northern Mexico. What is their solution? They don't have one, except to criticize and second guess every one of Calderon's decisions!

Nevertheless, Calderon is right. Mexico has to push these cartels out of the country or the border will see more violence.

What can the US do? Support Mexico! We must provide Mexico with the latest military hardware to fight this war.

P.S. It is true that our consumption of drugs has financed much of this violence. You can't have billions of dollars in cash flowing south without consequences.

At the same time, Mexico should come to terms with its own irresponsibility vis-a-vis illegal immigration and open borders. What we have on the border is lawlessness and you can't blame everything on our consumption of drugs!

Check out Kyle-Anne Shiver's website!

Over the last few months, we've enjoyed reading Kyle-Anne Shiver's articles. Today, we are very happy to add her new website to our favorite places. Please bookmark her site and check it often.

I love Mrs. Shiver's latest post on Sen. Obama:

"If Senator Obama is willing to buy his minister’s excuse for vitriol, hate speech, inciting bigotry in others and every anti-American lie under the sun on the basis of past grievances, then what will he say to dictators of other nations when they hand him the same line.

This is the same worn out excuse that Islamic terrorists use every day. They hate America, they claim, because we have caused their pain." (National Security is Biggest Problem for Obama, Not Race)

Mrs. Shiver is right. Obama's Rev will be a big issue this fall, specially in all of those red counties between LA and NY!

Friday, March 28, 2008

A new McCain ad hits the TV today!

Here is another good video from the McCain campaign.

March polls are not a perfect indicator. Yet, you have to like the way that the polls are favoring McCain at this early stage of the campaign. Furthermore, you have to like the evidence that independents are leaning McCain. Don't buy your airline tickets to McCain's inaugural. However, it wouldn't hurt to check flights to Washington.

Today, I read a couple of good articles about McCain:

McCain's Foreign Policy Tested Over Time by David Brooks. This is a good analysis of McCain's national security speech this week.

The 100 Year Lie by Charles Krauthammer challenges the phony line that McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years:

"The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

Obama, the very likely Dem nominee, is going to need a lot more than to say that he opposed the war in 2002. Obama has to address the situation in Iraq today and he hasn't so far beyond the "yes we can" nonsense!

Obama's Rev goes after Italians!

At this pace, Obama's Rev is going to have something to say about everybody. Yesterday, we learned that he has problems with Italians, too:

"From the Wright-written eulogy for scholar Asa Hilliard in the Dec. 2007 edition of the Trumpet magazine:

"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him... The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

After calling Jesus's crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style" executed in "Apartheid Rome," he goes on to claim that white supremacists run the U.S. government:
"The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God." (Rev. Wright's Italian Job (Hold the Garlic))

Did Obama hear this one? Did he read about it? Obama continues to defend Rev. Wright. (Obama Defends Wright on ABC's 'The View')

Obama is making a huge mistake here. The Rev's remarks are outrageous and Obama needs to resign from the church.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

So far, the Clinton-Obama feud is helping McCain

This is a rather amazing poll from the reliable Gallup. It confirms that the Obama-Clinton feud is having consequences:

"For every two Hillary Clinton suppoters among Democrats who say they will vote for Barack Obama if he's the Democratic nominee, nearly one says he or she will vote for John McCain in that event.

The actual breakdown in this Gallup poll is 59 percent for Obama and 28 percent for McCain.

Obama supporters show more party loyalty. 72 percent of them say they would vote for Clinton in November; 19 percent said they would defect to McCain." (The kind of numbers Hillary Clinton needs more of)

Again, I'm a little skeptical of March polls. Nevertheless, you gotta love the pro-McCain trend that started a few weeks ago.

Clintons to Perot: Please, please, please run for president!

For some time, I have argued that Hillary Clinton is unelectable in a general election format. In simple terms, Clinton is a flawed candidate with serious credibility problems.

Bill Clinton had similar problems. Bill was very lucky. Hillary is not. Bill was at the right place at the right time because Perot ran in '92. Hillary does not have Bill's timing.

The latest Gallup has some very bad news for the Clintons:

"Hillary Clinton is rated as "honest and trustworthy" by 44% of Americans, far fewer than say this about John McCain (67%) and Barack Obama (63%).....In addition to his strong showing on honesty, McCain also fares well on leadership. Sixty-nine percent of Americans describe the Arizona senator as "a strong and decisive leader," giving him an advantage over both Clinton (61%) and Obama (56%) in this regard."

As I wrote in my last post, this is going to be a character election. Who can I trust? For most, the answer will be McCain!

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Clinton lies, Obama can't hear and McCain has new video!

In 3 weeks, we have learned much about the 3 finalists for the White House.

Obama has a Rev problem and needs to check his hearing. (Why Obama's Speech Was Unconvincing by Ed Koch) It's going to be very difficult for Obama to carry this story into the general election.

Clinton has a "Bosnia" problem and must take vitamins to improve her memory. (Made-Up Memories? - Smalley) It's hard to believe that a person can make up a story about being shot at, specially when that person is the First Lady of the US. Do you believe that a First Lady would be allowed to land in a place under fire?

As Obama and Clinton beat each other up, McCain continues to look presidential with another good speech on nationals security!

Character matters in a president!

How can anyone believe a word out of this woman's mouth?

Honest people can disagree about politics. Should we tolerate people who lie and lie?

The latest Hillary Clinton lie about her trip to Bosnia is so amazing.

She claims to have landed in the middle of a war.

In fact, she didn't. She landed in a far different place.

Again, don't take my "right wing conspiracy" word for this. Click and Just watch the video for yourself.

How in the world can anyone believe a word out of this woman's mouth? I guess that some people are so invested in "Bush hate" that they will believe anything, including a flat lie!

It's time for some of the anti-Bushies to grow up and live in the real world. They may not like Bush or McCain. At the same time, Bush and McCain are willing to take unpopular positions and stick with them!

Hillary Clinton is a poll reader, as we saw with her shifting positions on the Iraq War, her shameless attack on NAFTA and now the Bosnia episode.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Saddam Hussein was a terrorist period!

Let's close the book on Saddam Hussein. According to new reports, it is clear beyond any doubt that Hussein was an active terrorist. Also, it's clear that the world is a lot better off because Hussein is burning in hell.

The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial today. It is Saddam's Terror Links:

"The redacted version of "Saddam and Terrorism" is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of "exploitable" documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq.

On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam's willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East."

Chilling Confirmation (Yes, Saddam Hussein was an Islamofascist threat) by Deroy Murdock comes to a similar conclusion:

"As Operation Iraqi Freedom is now five years old, a new study confirms that ousting Saddam Hussein was justified and vital to U.S. national security. Though war critics hate to admit it, the Baathist dictator was up to his mustache in aid for Islamofascist terrorism."

Don't expect that your liberal friends will take the time to read this report. Why not? Because the truth hurts and most of them can not handle the truth about Iraq and the war on terror. They are invested in a narrative of defeat.

As we have written before, defeat in Iraq will mean that the boys will have to go back and fight again.

For more background, see Saddam, the terrorist's friend

Obama will be the most liberal Dem ever nominated!

It's almost official. Obama just has to run out the clock and he will reach Denver with more delegates and popular vote than Clinton. I don't see how the Clintons win the nomination, unless they want a massive fight in Denver.

Let's assume Obama will run against McCain this fall.

What does that mean? It means that we will have the sharpest left-right choice since McGovern-Nixon in 1972 or Mondale-Reagan in 1984. For the record, the Republican won 49 states and 60% of the popular vote in each one of those two contests.

Here is the good news for the Dems. People did not faint at the McGovern or Mondale rallies. As I recall, McGovern and Mondale were soft spoken candidates wearing grey suits.

Here is the bad news. Obama is more liberal than McGovern or Mondale. After all, McGovern was a World War II hero and a respected Senator. Mondale was a very active Senator and had served as Carter's VP. Last, but not least, Mondale and McGovern did not have to explain their minister's sermons!

Obama is running on the idea that he can unite the country. This is nonsense. Obama is in no position to unite when his political story is so one sided. See Obama's promise of a new majority, and the question it prompts By Robin Toner:

"His voting record, albeit short, is to the left; the National Journal declared it the most liberal of 2007. Congressional Quarterly said he voted with his party 97 percent of the time on party-line votes that year.

Obama has been endorsed by advocacy groups like that are anathema to Republicans on Capitol Hill. And some of his strongest supporters are activists at the "net-roots" who have clamored for less accommodation across party lines."

I don't see it. I see a candidate who talks about change and hangs around with left wing elements. It may fly over at The NY Times but it will be a hard sell between LA and NY.

Of course, there is always the on going matter of Obama's Rev.

Who is going to forget the Rev's remarks and Obama's explanations? This issue of the Rev is not going away anytime soon.

Obama wants change. What kind of change? I don't think that class warfare, naivety over national security and European socialism is the kind of change that most people want!

Monday, March 24, 2008

Are you a typical white grandmother?

Want to laugh? Check out Don Surber's New Obama ad. This one is great! ABC News has the back-story.

Obama should find advisers who agree with him!

Leave it to Michael Goldfarb to keep an eye on Obama's advisers:

"Obama aide Gen. Tony McPeak is in the news for comparing Bill Clinton to Joseph McCarthy, but it's a good opportunity to revisit some comments McPeak made just about five years ago today in an interview with the Oregonian (via Hot Air):

[Q:] Is Iraq the last country we confront in the Middle East?

[McPeak:] Who wants to volunteer to get cross-ways with us? We'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right."

Beyond the obvious contradiction, the General's remarks, plus Samantha Power's TV interview, simply confirm that Obama is all hot air when it comes to Iraq.

Clinton and Obama are telling their voters what their voters want to hear on Iraq.

Two things will happen. If McCain wins then the nation will have a president who told the truth about the complexities of Iraq and the war on terror. If Obama or Clinton win then the anti-war supporters will have a huge letdown when they carry out Bush's mission in Iraq.

Have we forgotten that the Pelosi-Reid Congress was supposed to end the war?

Beware of Dems who tell you what you want to hear! On Iraq, Clinton and Obama are lying big time!

Saturday, March 22, 2008

The McCain videos

Over the next couple of months, the McCain campaign will be releasing a series of videos intended to introduce the candidate. During the primary, McCain had the wonderful Christmas ad and a couple of others, too.

This is an outstanding first chapter. Watch out for more.

As Clinton and Obama argue about this and that, McCain will present his side of the story.

Whatever happened to the happy Democrats?

Like some of you, I heard that 2008 was going to be the year of the Happy Democrats. It was supposed to be the season of love. It was supposed to be the year when happy Democrats walked down from the bleachers and marched to finish "The reign of Bush".

Who is having a happy spring? John McCain is. The Democrats are not!

In my last post, I made reference to an Obama aide taking a very nasty shot at former Pres. Clinton:

It does not get any nastier than that. McCarthy? Frankly, Obama should fire this aide. Of course, we don't know if Obama heard the comments. Obama did not hear his minister say "God D....America" from the pulpit! Obama needs to go to the doctor and take a hearing test!

Now, James Carville is unloading on Obama and Richardson in today's New York Times:

"“An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week."

Bill "Judas" Richardson?

I thought that it was going to be a wonderful year for the Dems.

If this is love, I don't want to be in Denver when these groups start hating each other.

P.S. It's late March and I'm not into "polls" this early. Nevertheless, the very reliable Rasmussen Reports Daily Tracking Poll has some very bad news for the Democrats:

"Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 49% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 43% (see recent daily results). New polling shows McCain leading both Democrats in Georgia and Arkansas. In Minnesota, the race is very close."

If this poll is correct, it shows that McCain is holding on to the so called "red states" and competing in the "blue states".

Who have you been hanging around with for the last 20 years?

Our cartoon of the month is about the Clintons. Obama was a wimp for sitting there and not challenging Rev. Wright's "foreign policy" rants. On the other hand, what can you say about Hillary Clinton tolerating this man so that she could keep her seat in Air Force One?

It's been a very tough year for the Clintons!

Forgive me for being cynical. Hillary Clinton's campaign is nothing more than Bill Clinton seeking a 3rd term. He can't do it legally so he is using his wife to get back into the White House.

Why is Bill Clinton desperate to get back in? I agree with Bill Clinton: Clawing for a Legacy By Charles Krauthammer:

"By comparison, Clinton was a historical parenthesis. He can console himself -- with considerable justification -- that he simply drew the short straw in the chronological lottery:

His time just happened to be the 1990s which, through no fault of his own, was the most inconsequential decade of the 20th century.

His was the interval between the collapse of the Soviet Union on Dec. 26, 1991, and the return of history with a vengeance on Sept. 11, 2001."

Clinton is desperately seeking a legacy. He knows that he doesn't have one right now. Clinton also knows that he will be more and more inconsequential as time passes.

Therefore, it must be very painful for Clinton, a man of an immense ego, that the Dems are rejecting his wife in part because they don't want him back in the White House.

Listen to what some Dems are saying about the Clintons. What will they say about them in Denver:

Doom and gloom over the US economy is crazy!

Do you remember when Dems told us that 4.8% unemployment was a wonderful statement on the US economy?

I remember that.

It was 1996 and Bill Clinton was seeking reelection. We were told back then that 4.8% was pretty close to full employment. I had to reluctantly agree!

Today, we have 4.8% unemployment and the Dems want you to think that The Great Depression is just around the corner.

Where are we on this economy:

"Over ninety-four percent of Americans with home mortgages meet their monthly obligations.

More Americans own homes than ever before.

More immigrants seek out America than any other nation.

We have not been hit by terrorists in over six years." (Hope & Change Amid Despair By Victor Davis Hanson)

What's our unemployment rate? It's 4.8% again!

Without question, our economy has a bad case of food poisoning. We made bad loans. Some investment houses made bad bets.

Stuff happens.

Our government can only do so much to keep lenders and borrowers from entering into bad deals.

Speaking of the foreclosure crisis, let's keep this mind from Why Not Optimism? By Lawrence Kudlow:

"On the housing-credit front, University of Michigan economist Mark Perry, using data from the Mortgage Bankers Association, points out that of the 46 million mortgages outstanding, only 2.04 percent were in the foreclosure process in last year's fourth quarter. And most of those were confined to Nevada, Florida, Michigan, and Indiana."

The foreclosure crisis makes wonderful TV news. However, it is not a crisis of significant proportions. It can be handled and is being handled.

Let's look at other macroeconomic data. Our current budget deficit is less than 2% of GDP. This is not a problem.

What about the Iraq War? Actually, the Iraq War is not a burden on our economy:

"The overall size of our economy is $13.1 trillion. So the Iraq War is costing us less than 1% of GDP (0.91% to be exact).

Even if you add in the entire defense budget that still only gets us to roughly 4% of GDP—roughly half of what we spent on average during the Cold War, to say nothing of previous “hot” wars such as World War II (34.5% of GDP), Korea (11.7%), and Vietnam (8.9%)." (The “Iraq Recession” Fallacy By Max Boot)

What's the solution?

First, we can start by telling the truth. We are not on the verge of a Great Depression. The Iraq War is not killing the US economy. Let's get serious. Again, 95% of all mortgage payments are on time!

Let's get serious!

Second, there aren't any quick fixes except to give the free market the opportunity to straighten out some of the chairs on the Wall Street deck.

We live in a free market economy where people have the opportunity to enjoy their good decisions and live with their bad ones, too.

Third, let's understand some electoral reality. McCain owns national security. Obama and Clinton have been reduced to making you feel terrible about the US economy.

Their message of pessimism stinks!

The "doom and gloom" Dems offer:

1) tax increases (The Obama Tax Hike By ANDREW G. BIGGS);

2) "tax the rich" class warfare (Rescuing the Rust Belt? (Policies that promise a free lunch leave you hungry in the long run) By Thomas Sowell);

3) and lies about free trade! (McCain tells truth about trade)

The Dems can not stop preaching pessimism with lots of doom and gloom.

It's all that they have because most Americans would rather have McCain answer the 3am phone call! (Zogby Poll: U.S. Wants McCain to Answer the Phone)

What's my prediction? We are not watching the collapse of the US economy. We will survive this tempest and the US economy will be fine.

P.S. I agree that our long term outlook is less promising because of entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned about our economic outlook in 2028 than 2008!

Our next president is going to have to speak bluntly about entitlements. We can not afford these entitlements anymore.

In 2005, Pres. Bush introduced the idea of privatizing portions of Social Security. The Dems reacted to it by saying that Bush & the Republicans wanted to leave the old people out in the cold. We didn't have a serious discussion about a serious problem. Once again, the Dems demonstrated their total lack of seriousness about governing and engaged in mindless demagoguery about cutting off old people from monthly checks.

In the future, the Dems are going to have to be more realistic about dealing with entitlements. Otherwise, the young people will turn against the Dems when they start getting the tax bills to finance these sacred cows!

Another NY governor problem!

First, it was Spitzer. Now, it's Patterson. Is this stuff real? The new governor of New York has admitted a couple of things:

"Using campaign funds for personal use is as illegal as hiring prostitutes; both of them are misdemeanors. Paterson’s offense will not likely cause him to step down, though, because as the Daily News reports, every politician in Albany has probably committed the same crime.

They may not have paid for hotel expenses for paramours, but the purpose matters little to the commission of the crime." (New York governors can apparently make it anywhere!)

What are these people drinking in New York? I think that the people of NY deserve a boring governor! NY is over-taxed! It must attract employers to compensate for the ones who moved to Texas! NY must change! How can NY grow when its political class is out of control?

Friday, March 21, 2008

Obama's slick speech won't help his Jewish vote problem!

Obama was slick. His speech was full of the kind of Obama-isms that have dominated his "content free" campaign.

In the end, Obama has blown up any chance of winning the Jewish vote. Why? Because Obama sat in a church that had an anti-Israel position.

"Aaron Klein reports that Barack Obama's Chicago church reprinted the Los Angeles Times column by Hamas leader Mousa abu Marzook. The column spouts the usual Hamas propaganda defending terrorism as legitimate resistance.

The column was published on the "pastor's page" of the Trinity Church bulletin on July 22, 2007 and posted online here by Bizzyblog yesterday.

Perhaps most revealing is the church bulletin's own subhead over the column: "An official of the movement describes its goals for all of Palestine.

" You know, "all of Palestine," including Israel, whose right to exist Hamas denies and which it seeks to "liberate" for Islam."

Was Obama sleeping in church for 20 years? Didn't he read this in The Pastor's Page?

It's hard to believe that Obama, the most intelligent man in the history of civilization according to The NY Times, did not understand how explosive such church positions would be for a politician seeking office.

Furthermore, it also shows how lucky Obama was in 2004 when he ran against Allan Keyes, a last minute sub because Jack Ryan, the original Republican candidate got into a sex scandal.

If Ryan had run then he would have dug up stuff like this against Obama in the 2004 Senate election. I don't know if Ryan would have won. I do know that Obama would lost the Jewish vote in Illinois.

Obama will lose the Jewish vote in 2008 against John McCain. It will be crucial in Florida!

Once again, we see further evidence that Obama has been living two lives. He can't live two lives anymore! The Clintons may not be able to do anything about Obama's weird friends. I can guarantee you that the Republicans are ready to remind the US public about the Rev and everything else in Obama's double life.

The Dems do not have public opinion on Iraq!

Do you remember the "6 for '06" campaign promises? It was the Democrats' platform for winning the 2006 midterms. The top item on the "6" was ending the war in Iraq.

What has happened since Pelosi and Reid took over the Congress? Bush has won every vote on Iraq. He even increased our troop levels, i.e. the surge!

Who is angry with Pelosi and Reid over Iraq? The Dems are!

Who thinks that the Dems have been a total and complete failure in ending the war?

Just ask Cindy Sheehan, The Code Pink Ladies, The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, and other anti-war groups.

Even today, Obama and Clinton speak in generalities. In Obama's case, he got contradicted by a policy adviser who told an interviewer that campaign promises are campaign promises. In Clinton's case, she hedges her position with the word "responsible".

Obama and Clinton are stuck between primary voters who want the war to end "yesterday" and a general election audience willing to give the the Bush surge more time.

What's really going on with the politics of Iraq? Read Democrats Are Still Weak on Security By KARL ROVE:

"The Democrats have two candidates with less national security experience and fewer credentials than the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain.

And they are compounding these difficulties with positions on Iraq and terrorist surveillance that are shared by a shrinking minority of Americans."

Rove uses polling data to show that the position taken by Dem primary voters (get out) enjoys 18% support.

Also, a large majority wants the US to act responsibly rather than abandon Iraqis to the terrorists who will come in and cut their heads off for aligning with the US.

In other words, the US public does not want a repeat of what the Dems did to South Vietnam. No Saigon '75 in Iraq!

Why can't the Dems bring the troops home? The answer is simple. They don't have the votes because there are too many Democrats between LA and NY who do not want to be associated with defeat.

The Dems' dilemma will get really bad when Gen. Petraeus comes to Congress and makes another professional presentation.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Are we getting a little crazy with the Easter stuff?

As a kid, we use to call it "Holy Week". It was supposed to be a time of reflection and meditation.

Today, it's just another excuse for a sale or whatever.

Put me down as an old fashioned Easter observer. I kind of like the idea of Holy Week. There are lots of other weeks and weekends for sales and parties.

Leave early for the airport

They are expecting huge crowds at the airport over the weekend. Many families travel over the Easter weekend. If you are planning to travel by air, please leave early and remember that they will check everything these days. Be patient!

Iraq: 5 years later!

(This picture is from Michael Yon's Thanks and Praise!)

We showed this picture before. It was a wonderful moment of reconciliation in Iraq. A cross was placed on top of a Christian church. It speaks volumes about the wonderful things happening in Iraq.

Where were you five years ago? You were probably watching the Iraq War on TV.

Where were John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards? They were at their US Senate Offices working on their pro-war statements. Where was Obama? He was in Chicago making the first of a long line of confusing statements about Iraq! Obama's supporters will be very disappointed when they learn that BO was all over the map on Iraq! (Senator Obama's Foreign Policy Judgment )

Kerry, Clinton and Edwards supported this war with all of their hearts, or at least their political hearts. They supported this war so that they could say someday that they had the toughness to serve as Commander in Chief. Again, watch the video for yourself!

Today, we look back and come to some very limited judgements about the Iraq War.

I supported this war in '03 because I understood (and continue to understand) the big picture. The Dems were right about Saddam Hussein in '98 and '02. It's a shame that they let political considerations get in the way of something related to our national security.

War anniversaries make wonderful TV shows for our 24/7 news channels. However, they have little historical relevance. I'm not really sure what the 5th anniversary means anymore than I understand what the 20th anniversary of Disney Channel tells us. They are dates and not much more than that!

Hugh Hewitt remind us of another anniversary:

"It has been 80 months since radical jihadism struck America.

We have not been struck since at home, and two countries which menaced the U.S. have had their regimes changed and the long, very difficult work of reconstructing them begun. Syria is out of Lebanon, Libya is disarmed, and Hezbollah badly smashed though Israel did not triumph in 2006.

The point is that it isn't the fifth anniversary of the war, but the anniversary of the start of a central battle in a wider war, one that is going on around the world and which will continue for a very longtime." (80 Months After 9/11)

Who will say that we have not been attacked since 9-11-2001? I don't know. However, it is also a very important anniversary.

Why haven't we been attacked? Luck? Perhaps. It would also be fair to say that Pres. Bush's tough approach toward terrorists and terrorist havens has been successful.

As his campaign implodes, Barack Obama decided to change "The Rev" subject and give another Iraq speech. Hillary Clinton gave her speech the day before.

The Democrats are obviously lost in some kind of Iraq fantasy. It is a game called: Who will win the "get out of Iraq sooner" contest? Who can tell anti-war supporters that I will end the war quicker?

It is a dangerous game and it reflects the total lack of seriousness present in what they used to call the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy.

I should add that the Pelosi-Reid Congress promised to end the war. What did they do? Nothing! They were reduced to non-binding resolutions. The Dems are great at talking and giving speeches. Why should we believe Obama and Clinton when they say the same about ending the war?

Why do Dems hate Bush and McCain so much? Because McCain and Bush have the political toughness of sticking to a position beyond the next poll.

The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post are usually on different political corners. With respect to the Dems' Iraq fantasy, they are on the same page.

See The WSJ's America and Iraq:

"Where do we go from here? Iraq's transition to self-government remains fragile enough that U.S. forces will need to remain there in some numbers for years to come.

The two countries will have to strike a long-term U.S.-Iraq military agreement, which would serve the interests of both countries.

For Iraq, it would show America's continuing commitment in a rough neighborhood.

And for the U.S., it would make the job of containing Iran easier.

President Bush can best serve his Presidential successor by leaving enough troops on the ground to give him or her some strategic flexibility.

It is therefore unfortunate, and dangerous, that both Democratic candidates have backed themselves into a corner by endorsing rapid withdrawal from Iraq.

In a speech yesterday in North Carolina, Barack Obama called for an almost complete U.S. withdrawal in 16 months. He continues to endorse the illusion that defeat in Iraq will help us prevail in Afghanistan; the opposite is closer to the truth.

We will never maintain the support, either at home or abroad, to prevail in Afghanistan if we show we can be driven from the more vital strategic prize of Iraq."

See The Washington Post's Fantasies on Iraq:

"In fact it will be terribly hard -- and it can't be done responsibly in the way or on the timeline the two Democrats are proposing.

We can only hope that, behind their wildly unrealistic campaign rhetoric, the candidates understand that reality."

This is complicated. It'd be nice if Dems understood such complexities rather than just exploit Iraq for domestic political advantage.

The guys at Power Line had the best analysis of Obama's Iraq speech:

"For Obama, as for most Democrats, democracy is a worthy goal that should be pursued, and is likely to enhance stability, everywhere except Iraq. It is hard to take seriously politicians whose policies are driven more or less exclusively by the need to disagree with President Bush on every possible point."

The bad news is that Obama and Clinton are all about disagreeing with Bush. The good news is that McCain is ahead in the polls.

Somehow, the US public has figured out Iraq. It is tough and complicated. Best of all, the US public has figured out that the Dems don't have a clue.

What can we say on the 5th anniversary of this war? We will be in Iraq for a long time.

Clinton and Obama do not have the political courage to tell you the truth. McCain does!




Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Follow by Email



Search This Blog