Where does the McCain/Palin Campaign Go From Here?

Wow,

I think we're in trouble here. And when I say "we", I don't mean republicans, I mean Americans. I've been a McCain supporter/ Obama basher for a short while now. All the time trying to educate my friends on why this Obama character will not be good for our country. But unfortunately, it looks like his opposition is showing a level of confusion and ineptitude that will allow Obama to waltz into office and begin the further descent of our nation. Never mind the possible no-show for the debate from last week, I'm talking about Sarah Palin.

Like many conservatives, I was pleasantly surprised by McCain's VP choice of Sarah Palin. I thought that she brought a great fervor to the campaign that would draw in a portion of Americans that was desperately needed- in fact two specific groups- right wing conservatives who don't like McCain and might not have voted, and women. She's truly free from legitimate controversy- and when I say legitimate, I'm talking about all the bull that the liberal tabloid press has been digging for. Now I'm not saying that it's untrue, but to think that politicians do not do things to further their own personal agenda is asinine. And in a small town, it truly is like Mayberry.

It really is unfair the amount of crap she's taking. I'm ok with criticism, but the vicious criticism is just plain barbaric and very typical of democrats. The CBC Network recently apologized for such an attack. Sandra Bernhardt got away with what Michael Richards and Dog the Bounty Hunter and Don Imus couldn't.

But what I'm talking about is her performance over the past few weeks including her recent Katie Couric interview. Now right or wrong, it's all about perception and my God, I perceived her as clueless. Or if not clueless on topical knowledge, then clueless on the proper way to answer the types of questions asked of her so as not to make her look bad. Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and you realized that that person (or maybe you) has no idea what they're talking about, and rather than defer, they start rambling. And at that point you've sort of tuned out of what they're saying. That's what I see in Palin. But the problem is, she needs to speak- we need to get to know her, but she doesn't know enough to speak intelligently.

Is she intelligent? Is she articulate? Is she likeable? Absolutely. But she's just not ready for prime time. Can she get ready on the job? Sure. And I'd much rather have the co-pilot in this scenario than the pilot. But our pilot is old, and their pilot is young. If you see two dudes in literal pilot uniforms on the tarmac and one is 40 something and black and the other is 70 something and white, I'd guess that 9 out of 10 would pick the young black pilot. But put that older co-pilot with the black guy and the attractive female copilot for the old white guy, and you'll see that drop to perhaps 5 out of 5. But ask those copilots about flying a 747, and you'll know right away if they are qualified to fly it.

Unless the McCain/Palin campaign is planning to pull off the ultimate bait and switch, sandbagging, sneak attack move, then we're done.

And here's another thing. I live in a town of 25,000- surrounded by about 35,000 county residents. I could find nothing about grass roots McCain/Palin campaigning. I sent an email to the McCain/Arizona campaign department... and I've heard nothing back from them. Not giving me much confidence in their organization skills. I hate trying to volunteer but then getting either rebuffed or ignored.

McCain Pulling out of Debate- The Slants

First I listened to the liberal radio station- "He's tucking tail" "He knows he can't beat Obama" "He can't multitask" "He can't use a computer" Of course, lots of callers with their jokes about his age, calling him a Bush loyalist, he's a liar, etc.

Then I listened to the conservative station- "He's doing the noble thing" "He knows that this crisis it too important to avoid" "Obama should do the same" And then of course lots of callers commenting on how Obama will spin this negatively against McCain, Obama doesn't know what to do in a crisis, etc.

It's the polarity of these people that just drives me absolutely crazy. Stop the insanity!

Playing for a Crappy Baseball Team

As the baseball season winds down, we see some changes in postseason teams. Most significantly, instead of the evil empire Yankees, we have the Tampa Bay Rays. Very cool considering that they have the second lowest payroll in MLB- 37% of the Tigers payroll- and the Tigers are going home after this week. It sort of further kills Bob Costas' idea that only the highest paid teams win. Plus it makes me even angrier that my Montreal Expos got gipped in 1994 and have left the building.

But take a look at the DL guys on some teams. Talk about your biggest money in non performing assets. Some of these are just a shame. Data collected from ESPN

• The Mets- did you know that Moises Alou is still playing? I think Albert Belle went off the books of the Orioles about 3 years ago.
• The Braves have Hudson, Glavine, Smoltz. Solid pitching studs- $37.5MM- all on the DL
• The Dodgers- Schmidt, Furcal, Andrew Jones- $45MM. That's a low percentage of their total payroll, but that's $15MM per player. At least they're on the way to a potential playoff spot.
  
• The A's- $29MM out of $47MM total payroll. That's over 61% of their payroll on the DL. So much for Billy Ball this year.
• The Nationals' total payroll is $54 million- of which $18.7MM is on the DL on multimillion dollar players. Is it bad luck? Was it bad contracts? Or is it just a bad team? Speaking from experience, I remember when Fernando Tatis came to the Expos against his will- and this was right after he hit two grand slams off of Park Chan-Ho in a single inning. and he just flat out sucked ass when he played for Montreal. It's that lame- woe is me, "I'm on a shitty team" attitude. And it's obviously followed the team to Washington.
  
• The Yankees- $207MM payroll- no games in October. That's priceless! I know this goes against my whole premise of DL guys, but I have to pile on when I can.
  

The Truth About Democratic Leaders and the Economy

Do you really think that Barack Obama will help the nation's financial situation? Think again:

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rates all have in common?


Most fascinating "cause and effect" relationships: Democrat leadership!
It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are still disadvantaged.

Einstein once said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list).....hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY (2nd) ... hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954;
Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984;
Cleveland, OH (4th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989;
Miami, FL (5th) ....has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis, MO (6th)....hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949;
El Paso, TX (7th) ...has never had a Republican mayor.
Milwaukee, WI (8th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908;
Philadelphia, PA (9th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952;
Newark, NJ (10th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.

Can you see the connection? If not, refer to Einstein's remark above.

What Does RSVP Mean Today?

We just hosted a slumber party for our daughter who goes to Pickett Elementary in Queen Creek, AZ. She's 7 now and with the new school year we figured it would be a good opportunity to get to know some of the other kids in her class. So we made a creative invitation- no party reason (birthday, etc.)- just a slumber party- so no need to bring gifts. We clearly put that we'd appreciate an RSVP one way or another. We had our responsible daughter pass out those invites to her friends. We asked her teacher to make sure that they got distributed. We asked her if she was able to pass them all out. We had her check with them the next day if they took those invitations home to their parents. According to her, those invitations made it to their parental destinations.

But come party day, only 3 of 6 invitees called. One un-RSVPd and then half an hour after the party started, the 4th called to see if she could still come. At this point, all we cared about was a fun party for our daughter and her friends. So ultimately she had 3 guests- good showing. Good party, good times.

My concern is the common courtesy of our society. I know we live in a penny pinching era. I know that families have other obligations. Perhaps, they feel that they were given too short of notice for the party- whatever. But why is it that so many people do not bother to RSVP for things like this? It's just plain rude. Should invitations clearly say "no gifts"? RSVP does not mean "call if you're coming". It literally means "Répondez s'il vous plaît" which translates to "Please let us know if you are or are not coming"

All right. Got that out of my system. Back to work

How "Major" Events Affect the Stock Market

Big news over the weekend- The government is taking over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I know it's Tuesday, so why is this breaking news?

It's to prove a point that the stock market is the biggest joke in the world. On Monday morning, when the markets opened, this news affected the market in such a wonderful way. Particularly, the financial companies were boosted by this news. Citibank went from its Friday close of $19 up to $20.50 before settling in a tad lower. BofA went from $32ish to $35ish. Wachovia went from $16.80 to $19.50ish. And all it took was for our government to bail out the biggest backers of mortgages in our country at our expense as taxpayers. What a confidence booster!

So what's the story today? All three of these stocks I mentioned are now BELOW their Friday close. Did you hear me? BELOW their Friday close!

What's the excuse? Oh, Lehman Brothers is in trouble. So the entire sector takes a crap because of this? Let me get this straight. Our goverment privatizes two of the biggest mortgage backers in the country and it's a good thing. One single financial company has bad news and the effect is worse than the benefit of the "good" news. Yeah, that makes sense.

So what will it take for the market to continue to rise? Does the goverment need to privatize a few companies a day? Would that doe the trick?

In a few days the market will rally because of prospective peace and a few days later it will tank because of unease about peace. A few days later, the market will rise due to a hurricane fading away. A week later the market will fall because of another hurricane fading away.

Progressive Radio Blowing My Mind With Palin

I listen to a lot of political talk radio and as anyone should, I listen to both the conservative AND liberal stuff.

Now of course I'm biased, but the crux of what "progressive" radio's argument is:

Palin is a liar
Palin is a religious nutjob
Palin is irresponsible

I live in the Phoenix area so our local station is KPHX and it has some local guys and a syndicated obnoxious loudmouth from Florida. Besides the universal "progressive" schoolyard tactic of giving conservatives stoopid nicknames and making jokes about their intelligence or their faith or how they look, their shows are loaded with blind criticism without the substance of why and how their choise is better. Here's a few observations from the last few days:

Palin is a Liar
I've actually heard several hosts say that Palin lied about selling the governor's jet on ebay for a profit. As it turns out, it was only listed on ebay. It never sold. And when it did sell, it sold at a loss. Damn, they're right. She's a liar... But if you actually listen to the speech instead of these talk show hosts, you'll notice that all she actually said was "I put it on ebay" Go to minute 20:05 to see just that part- or back it up a few minutes if you don't believe me. And what's the problem with selling something at a loss? Don't things depreciate? Are they suggesting that if she kept it longer they would have got more for it? I didn't know that jets appreciated unlike everything else in the world. And, doesn't it actually cost money to even keep a jet? Maintenance, fuel, storage, crew, etc. So when you sell a non-performing asset, aren't you freeing up funds and at the same time saving money for the operation of that item? But of course that never gets mentioned. So who are the liars about this? And if these liberal talk show hosts fall back on the ignorance defense, is that really a good excuse for a person whose job is to supposedly educate and influence the public via the radio? Or if they fall back on the "I'm an entertainer" excuse, then that simply proves that their whole progressive radio concept is not serious- and logically, their whole liberal fight attitude. Perhaps they've seen the success of guys like Rush Limbaugh and figured there's a void on the other end of the spectrum so they could get a piece of the pie.

Another host was wondering out loud about Palin's jet from another perspective. She initiated the sale of a private jet because it was excessive. Yet now she flies a private VP candidate jet. How absurd! What a hypocrite! I've never run for vice president before, but I'd assume that candidates in general for president or vice president, actually travel around quite a bit. And I'm not sure how efficient it would be for Barack Obama or John McCain to fly first class on JetBlue wherever they go. That's just an opinion there.

Palin is a Religious Nutjob
Two guys today were talking about her christian religious beliefs with much disdain. The one this morning was generalizing about her beliefs and actually took a call from someone who said that she doesn't believe in medicine since she is pentecostal. Now to his credit, the host corrected the caller's misinformation, but his point was that she is ridiculous for her beliefs- oh yeah and made no mention that she left that church 6 years ago. Another guy today replayed bits of a speech that Palin gave in the last few days where she equated the Iraq war purpose with God's work. Also she said that the people needed to pray for Alaska's future. Reality is that this speech was given in June.

Now I'm a Christian so I know my beliefs, but I'm really not sure why so many liberals and specifically, certain talk show hosts are so anti-God. Basically they treat Christians like a minority whom it's OK to slam. Can I get a radio show and start bagging on the Pakistanis or Gays or Lesbians (they need several subcategories). Of course I can. But then I'll have Gloria Allred or some other freaky lawyer suing my ass or dragging me through the mud for my insensitive remarks. Even Jews have recourse. But you can say anything about Christians. Here's the reality- Christians and other creationism believers are still a pretty large number in our country. So I think that a lot of them actually appreciate her faith- both democrats AND republicans.

It seems like the democrats or liberal media are trying to make out their party as the Godless/AntiGod party. How "progressive" is it to resort to belittling the religious beliefs of others? Barack Obama himself has encouraged democrats to reach out to evangelicals and other religious groups. Is this considered reaching out?

Incidentally, Joe Biden is Roman Catholic (arguably one of the biggest reasons that so many people have lost their faith over the years). Barack Obama professes to be a Christian who has been friends with Jeremiah Wright for like 20 years and a member of his church for most of that time. Sure, Obama denounced the style and message of Wright and has since resigned his membership in 2008, but are "you" telling me that he spent the last 20 years as a member of a church where he disagreed with the message of the pastor? The guy who inspired one of Obama's books? So which is worse- a person who believes in speaking in tongues and the appocalypse or one who believes in the preachings of a traiterous, racist?

Perhaps if we had an atheist candidate, these "progressive" God-Haters would be appealing to a particular audience. But are they saying that their candidate is also just as much of a religious nutjob as Palin? The guy cut ties with his 20 year friend just in time to run for president. Palin is a devout Christian. Isn't that some pretty hardcore flip-flopping?

Palin is Irresponsible
Sarah Palin has 5 kids, with one who is "handicapable" (that's a shout out to all you liberal politically correct minded j-holes). She also has an unwed teenage daughter, and speculation is that the down's baby is actually her daughter's. Now she's running for VP of our country. How dare she leave her family behind to take on such a campaign! How dare she leave her crippled kid in his time of need! Who's going to take care of the kids?

Let me point something out to you. It's people like her who give democrats a bad name. In our conservative society, we believe in traditional nuclear family values. The woman needs to stay home and cook and clean. The husband needs to work and bring home the bacon (or moosemeat). Some jackass president passed a ridiculous law in 1993 that said that not just mothers, but fathers too have a right to stay home with their kids. This Sarah Palin character is exactly what is wrong with our country with her crazy liberal family values. She probably has a tattoo!

Oh wait a minute, I'm a bit confused. Sarah Palin's family embodies everything that liberals have been wanting for so long. And now that she's running for VP, she is the target of those same liberals! What is up with that? Are they for real? How can they fight for something for so long and then when they finally get it in a candidate, they slam her all to shreads. On top of that, Palin isn't some blueblood like Hillary. She didn't go to an Ivy League school, she wasn't raised in politics. And I don't know for sure, but I don't think she's worth $35 million. What is more attractive in a strong willed woman? How many Americans went to an Ivy League school? We've got a pure Americana candidate and she gets crapped on? Absolutely stoopid.

I'll say it again, give both sides a fair listen. You may still believe in Obama, but this isn't an exercise in the candidates' qualifications. I'm more concerned with the quality of the talking heads. I'm not a Rush Limbaugh fan, but check out the stations that he's on or Townhall.com for the conservative slant. Or check out Air America or Nova M Radio for the liberal views.

RNC Protesters- Who are These Idiots?

So I haven't been able to watch the RNC each night but I've been boning up via CNN.com and their video clips. There are several clips each day showing the protesters outside of the convention and a few that actually got into the convention to disrupt the speeches. You know the ones- anti war, anti establishment, etc. I don't remember much of this at the DNC so perhaps the liberal media is slanting this to show that there are more protesters agains republicans than democrats- and have you noticed that the media simply calls them protesters and they let us assume that they are protesting the republicans. That's what I thought til I looked into it a bit.

But who the hell are these people? I mean I wasn't there so I don't have personal photos, but here are a few snaps of these folks as "borrowed" from the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and some blog called Indystar. Whether they are democratic Obama supporters, anti-republicans, or anti establishment folks, I don't know...




I mean, are these people expecting to be taken seriously with some sort of course of action beyond their "peaceful" protests? I just heard a podcast this morning on the Adam Carolla Show (about minutes 9:00 through 11:00) and it sort of sums up the whole "hippy" movement of back then and the ongoing movement that is these types of people. In summary- these people are (for the most part) a bunch of losers with nothing better to do except complain.

And take a look at this video of some protester action. Simply absurd. It's like the movie Road Warrior- cheap shots at cops, lawlessness, looting or general mayhem- yeah that's effective- the two party system is pretty much done now that these folks have shown what they're all about.And what's up with all the photos of the riot police? They have full face shields, tear gas, semi-automatic weapons, body armor. It's very imposing. But I love how the protesters complain about abuse. The above video is proof enough that any force used by the officers is justified. Is the liberal media also playing into the huge anti republican protests and the need for such heavy firepower? Or are they trying to say that these abusive protecters of our peace are in fact part of the problem?

Whatever the motivation, it's not very effective in and of itself, but it's more fodder for the image of republicans to be dragged down even more.

The Lashing Out Palin Criticism

So John McCain chose little known Sarah Palin as his running mate. Who? Of course we don't know her. But he had to pick someone and he's had quite an uphill battle with the younger, more dynamic "wind of change" that is Barack Obama. ANY republican has been in for a hard struggle in the post Bush election of 2008.

McCain is 72, with physical issues. That alone is probably the biggest deterrent for fence sitters- the swing vote. True republican will already vote for McCain despite his moderate stances. True democrats are already voting for Obama, but the mass middle needs to be convinced. And unfortunately, it doesn't come down to the best team, but instead the best chance of winning. It's called strategy.

Obama is too young, too inexperienced and too ethnic. So he chose Biden- an older, white senior senator. Excellent move.

So, who should McCain have chosen? An old white guy? A younger white guy? A minority male? A minority woman? A white woman?

If he chose a white guy of any sort, he'd be done- period, and the rest of his campaign would be a complete waste of time. I don't care one bit about how great Huckabee or Romney are. Sure, there are plenty of capable, experienced white male candidates, but would any of them help McCain to win? The stoopid Americans who read headlines and choose by image or believe the tabloids or believe what they see on The View will continue to be stoopid or go along with the crowd.

If McCain he chose a minority male, then he'd be making a bold move, but it would be sort of a copycat move of the Obama team. Bobby Jindahl would have been unique, but not as much punch as other options.

So that leaves- a woman. There are disgruntled Clinton supporters, hardworking single mothers, and just plain wishy washy folks who could easily vote for Obama or McCain if given the right motivation.

Well then, which woman do you choose? Odds are that you need to pick someone who is already a leader in our country- perhaps a business leader or more likely, some elected official. Going back to the business leader idea- Meg Whitman? Too old and too white.

Try googling Women in the United States Senate and look at the republicans: one who was appointed to her position by her father, a critic of the Iraq war, one from a small state with no natural resources, one who's 72, and one who has some controversy regarding misappropriations. That's it. 5 female republican senators

How about the House of Representatives? 18 choices: 1- foreign born, 1 retiring, 5 old (65 or older), 1 wants to leave Iraq, 1 Sonny's wife, 1 pro choice, 3 with significant controversies, 1 really ugly, 1 very good but too young (under 40) and 2 that have served less than a year.

So that leaves the Governors. 3 republican choices: 1 who's not very attractive, 1 who assumed her position and Sarah Palin.

Now that's a quick survey of the more senior elected officials that they had to choose from- I didn't check state representatives or mayors so I'm sure I missed some good ones. Were there other females that I looked at who might have been good? Probably 2-3 total besides Palin. But you've got to remember, that it's about strategy now. Unfortunatley, McCain needs to stoop to the level of picking a strategy VP to appease the aforementioned View viewers or US Weekly readers.

Sarah Palin is very conservative in politics, very fearless about taking on government, a family person, easy on the eyes, well spoken (in prepared speech format so far), a very strong woman, and younger than McCain. Oh yeah, and her state has the biggest untapped oil resources in American which could open the door to drilling in ANWAR once McCain says "I trust my VP and she has convinced me that we need to drill there".

The problem with the liberals is that just like all their jibber jabber, they only complain. They whine about how bad Bush is. They whine about how bad the economy is. They complain about Palin as a choice. How dare a mother of an unwed pregnant girl even consider running- talk about flip flopping- her family IS what democrats stand for. She is not a nuclear republican family. She has a real American family. But have they really offered up any practical alternative solutions to their complaints? Or have they really thought about why Palin was chosen? For this last question, of course they've done their research. They know that good republican running mates are hard to find- ONES WHO CAN HELP MCCAIN BEAN OBAMA. But they still have to complain and throw mud and lie and exaggerate and blindly bash the Right while blindly following the Left. It's sad.

Sarah Palin IS the best choice for John McCain in 2008. She is NOT the best person to be VP, but she is exactly what John McCain needs in order to win this presidential election.