Obama Debates in Platitudes

Obama limped his way though the debate railing about greed and his proclaiming appreciation for the middle class. Bush is bad, really bad, McCain agrees with Bush. I hate to inform Sen. Obama that President Bush is barred by Constitutional Amendment from seeking a third term. His portrayal of Sen. McCain as a, “Yes man,” to the administration couldn’t be farther from the truth.

One thing that I thought was telling was his insistence that higher taxes will help the economic recovery. Taxes never stimulate an economy. He said he will tax the “Rich,” and corporations. Unfortunately he mistakenly believes that Corporations pay taxes at all. Any business entity that is regulated or taxed adds these expenses to the cost of the service that they provide. Consumers pay for government regulation and taxation. It always has been this way and it always will be. “Corporate greed. Wall St. Vs. Main St.” These are sentiments that are easy to demagogue. Tax a business long enough and you can cause it to go bankrupt. How so? You inflate their operating cost to the point where they can no longer compete in the global economy. They will either go somewhere else or they will cease to be.

Interfere in the Housing Market as the Government has and you can create a crisis that necessitates more government interference in the free market. Obama is on the wrong side of the Credit Crunch. He is a man who believes in the absolute purity of Government intentions regardless of the consequences. Wall St. is evil and Government is the solution. Government is the problem, not the solution. It’s easy to say that all of our woes are the result of “Greed.” It’s not nearly so easy to say that the current crisis was created by, “Well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided mandates which required lenders to extend credit to people who had not earned it.”

These mandates injected huge amounts of capital into the housing market which created the housing bubble. When the housing bubble burst, blame the people who were forced to make bad loans, rather than the people who did the Forcing. Politics as usual, certainly not “Change,” as Barak Obama has promised.

I do not think that McCain out debated Obama, but his foreign policy credentials tower over Obama’s. When Obama was confronted with specifics he deferred to McCain. Obama looked silly. Not in a Gotcha sort of sense. It was in a very real sense that anytime he was confronted with real world events his way out was to agree with McCain.

I can easily see how that people who do not dig into issues for themselves could say that Obama won the debate. It’s easy to spout platitudes, it is difficult to tackle the tough issues. When Obama attempted to respond to McCain’s bracelet comment he looked petty and hollow, the sad thing is that during the entire election he has come across as just that. It got him a primary win so why change now. The media is complicit in this success. They play gotcha with McCain and mouth anything that Democrats say. The scrutiny applied to Palin would devastate Obama and they well know it. That’s why it is so conspicuously absent.

Where are the Adults at the NY Times?

NY Times Article

Paul Krugman asks, “Where are all the grown-ups?” I know that answer to that one. Not at the NY Times.
He rails against the need to fix this housing bust but he never mentions how we got here in the first place. He is either misinformed or he’s being intellectually dishonest.

The Carter Administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act. The Clinton Administration expanded it and the Housing bubble was created. Now the chickens have come home to roost. The Government created the problem and the Government must fix the problem. Adults can acknowledge that. Can Paul Krugman?

Democrats want 20% of the money to go to ACORN. Who spent two years as a community organizer at the behest of ACORN? Wasn’t that Sarah Palin? Republicans object to this and so do I. 700 billion should only be used purchase the sub prime loans that Government mandated the lenders to make. It’s only fair.

No wonder Obama wants to be as far away from this stinking mess as possible. Especially since he got a lot of money from Fannie Mae. Just thought I’d through that in there.

Why?

Anybody who has cared for or been even acquainted with a young child knows this three letter conundrum very well. It pops up at the most inconvenient times. Often it is easier to quash it than it is to answer. “Because I said so.” Then you realize you have become the ogre you have always despised.

I’ve got three children, the oldest just embarked on her teenage years, and I’ve become much more adept at fielding the “Why?” I still only manage to satisfactorily answer about twenty percent of them. Truly heroic I think because if I tried to field all of them, I would do nothing else. One thing I’ve discovered to be truly empowering is the simple admission, “I don’t know, find out for yourself.” Now my kids can look with in themselves and see if their burning curiosity warrants any action beyond the one word interrogative.

I know this is the political season and every one plays the blame game, “I did this,” “They did that,” “What I meant to say was…”

We are dealing with a volatile crisis in the financial world. I’m becoming more juvenile in my maturity. Why? Something must be done because something was already done to bring about the mess we are in. So how are we to be assured that any solution to the current crisis is not going to be the cause of another one some years down the road. We most certainly must intervene in the intervention and regulate the regulations but “Why?” Perhaps if I ask enough times some one will provide the answer to this and many other deep probes for satisfactory answers.

Social security needs fixing. Why?

Fuel Prices are out of control. Why?

Abortions must be provided regardless of a woman’s ability to pay for them. Why?

Public Schools need more money. Why?

A thousand government boondoggles beg the question, and yet it seems to me that no one is asking why the government is involved in these issues at all. I have to agree with my children that, “Because,” is not a very satisfying answer.

Perhaps we could all look deep with in our selves and see if our burning curiosity warrants finding out “Why?” to our own satisfaction.

Negligent Honor

Fox News Article

This story makes my blood boil. Sgt. Rafael Peralta performed his duties with great honor which reflect great credit upon his Nation, his Corps and his family. To have his degree of official recognition down graded on questions of detail and conjecture is the grossest injustice.

For those of you who say, “Sgt. Who?” I will briefly recount the story to the best of my recollection. During the intense room to room combat that was the second battle of Fallujah, Sgt. Peralta volunteered to be a part of a squad of Marines clearing houses. In the process they cleared a house save for one locked door. The Marines stacked up outside the door and Sgt. Peralta kicked the door in. He was shortly felled by rifle fire, bullet wounds to the neck and lower head. He fell to one side of the door as the Marines behind him exchanged fire with the combatants in the room.

A grenade was lobbed from the open door and landed beside Sgt. Peralta. He reached for it and pulled it under his body thus shielding his fellow Marines from grave injury and likely death.

Medal of Honor? I would think so. I thought so when I heard this story the first time, very briefly after it happened. It has been announced that he will instead receive the Navy Cross, which I do not in any way mean to impugn. In this case, it is an unjust honor.

The “Marine who witnesses say covered a grenade with his body to save comrades in Iraq,” deserves better, as does his family. He is being denied, “because the nomination was tainted by reports he was accidentally shot by a fellow Marine.” Whether or not he was felled, mortally wounded, by gunfire does not detract from the act of pulling the grenade under his body to shield his fellow Marines.

It was initially reported that he was wounded by AK-47 fire from inside the room, the origin of the rounds that gravely wounded Sgt. Peralta do not make them any less lethal. There is no such animal as “Friendly fire.”

“The question about whether to award Peralta the Medal of Honor centers on whether the mortally wounded Marine, who was shot in the head and upper body, could have intentionally reached for the grenade and covered it with his body.

There was conflicting evidence in the case of Sgt. Peralta as to whether he could have [pents,] Peralta lay mortally wounded on the floor of a house and grabbed a grenade lobbed by fleeing insurgents. His body absorbed the blast and he died immediately.”

Apparently these Marines have not read the account in, “Lone Survivor” of Petty Officer Second Class Matthew Axelson. During the fire fight which became the largest single loss of life in the history of the Navy Seals this brave warrior was wounded multiple times and indeed one of the wounds, most assuredly from AK-47 fire, was a most traumatic head wound. He fought on. When he and Marcus Luttrell separated the final time, he exhorted, “Marcus, you’ve got to live.”

In the aftermath of the battle, Marcus learned that Axelson was not found where they parted company. Instead he had managed to gain his feet and fought on until he had expended all of his ammunition. A great blow to Marcus.

It is pure conjecture then to assert whether or not Sgt. Peralta could possibly have consciously pulled the grenade under his body. “…Forensic analysis of Peralta's clothing and flak jacket show the grenade was underneath him when it exploded.” Does this board offer conjecture as to how this grenade came to be under Sgt. Peralta? Did the enemy combatants place it there for maximum effectiveness? Did one of the other quick thinking Marines push it there to save himself and his comrades? Of course not, any explanation beside Sgt. Peralta’s act of self sacrifice is absurd and not a little insulting to the intellect of anyone thinking objectively.

I will allow here that the board reviewing this matter felt honor bound by the regulations that are very strict in the awarding the Medal of Honor. If so, I hold them faultless, but it should not leave Sgt. Peralta’s family bereft of what should be bestowed with all pomp and circumstance possible.

Regardless of whether Rafael Peralta was mortally wounded by gunfire from questionable origin is a negligible detail to the level of honor displayed by his final act. We do not award the CMH to Marines for being killed in combat, but rather for conspicuous acts of courage above and beyond the call of duty.

This should not stand.

Obama Off Script

When Barak Obama is not reading from a teleprompter he has the audacity to say some hopelessly stupid things. I don’t even need to list them here, there have been quite a few. You are thinking them now whether or not you support Barak’s bid for the White House.

Given Barak’s propensity for gaffes, what makes people think that he’d be such a great, “Leader of the Free World.” He would be a big hit in Europe, he’s proven that already. However, I would like to remind you that the President does more than read from a teleprompter, and so far that seems to be the only thing Barak’s good at.

I know this sounds harsh, but it’s true. He’s boxed himself in by foregoing public campaign funds. I’m opposed to public financing of campaigns, if a candidate’s so great people will support him financially. I think that the only Campaign law necessary is transparency. McCain-Feingold just makes it harder to determine where the money comes from and it limits what individuals can do for a candidate they support. Who’s benefiting from an in depth knowledge of Campaign Law? Certainly not Obama.

Notice that there hasn’t been any benchmark legislation with “Obama” attached to it? I know he’s authored a couple of books about himself. Pretty well written I understand. Why hasn’t he applied this creative potential to reforming Washington? Why hasn’t he brought about change? He hasn’t even tried in the office that he currently holds why would he think that we should give him a higher one?

I’m not a journalist, I’m a blogger. From where I sit (In my bath robe) Obama doesn’t present a very convincing picture of Presidential eloquence, unless of course you compare him to the current occupant of the White House. I’m sure that that’s exactly what Obama wants because he doesn’t match up very well with either slot on the Republican ticket.

Obama is Risk Adverse

During the early years of the Civil War Lincoln was greatly frustrated by a series of Union Commanders who were risk adverse. They risked nothing and they gained nothing but a brutal exchange of casualties between the Union Army of the Potomac and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Finally he turned to a natural leader named Grant whose greatest insight on military tactics was that the enemy was just as frightened of you as you are of him.

When Grant was given command of the Army of the Potomac the war ground to it’s inevitable conclusion. Because Grant was brilliant? Yes, but so were the Generals before him. The difference was that Grant understood the situation and he took the fight to the enemy, making blunders, but never retreating from imaginary peril, not overly timid.

Obama’s present to the Republican Party was his pick of Joe Biden. Joe Biden’s biggest selling point as a V.P. pick was that he was the “Safe” pick. The choice that could do no harm. John McCain saw an opportunity to take a risk on a little known Governor from Alaska. And the rest is historically consistent with leaders who are risk adverse.

From now until November Obama will continue to play it safe and McCain is going to win this war of attrition.

General Impressions of the RNC Day One (Two)

I thought that the theme of the first night of speeches was well done. I enjoyed Fred Thompson's speech where he displayed his missing fire. I even enjoyed watching Lieberman. The McCains and Bushes came across very well. I wait with great anticipation for things to shift to the Palin show tonight.

I was at my brother's house when that odious gal was grilling the McCain aid. The McCain aid shouldn't have been addressing Sarah Palin's experience, but I'd love to see the same gal go after Newt, or for that matter Sarah. I think CNN would have canceled it's interviews with the McCain Campain after that exchange.