I have seen some interesting presidential tickets in my lifetime but John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, rookie Governor of Alaska, was a surprise to just about everyone. The left wing media immediately attacked the selection and has been vicious during the few days since the announcement; even attacking her family. But from what little I have seen so far, they may be attacking the wrong lady.
Sarah Palin has been a fighter for a long time and two years ago pulled off an election in Alaska that was unheard of in US political history - as a mayor from a small town, she beat the incumbent Republican governor in a primary election and then went on to win the election at age 42. She has since reformed the government in Alaska, which was rife with corruption and "old boy" political favoring.
During her high school years Governor Palin was an aggressive soccer player and starting point guard on her high school basketball team. Her aggressive play earned her the nickname "Sarah Barracuda". Now the "Barracuda" will be facing the most biased national media we have ever seen and she will have to be tough. They are in a panic over the prospect of the first woman Vice President in history being a Conservative Republican. Palin is the antithesis of everything the liberal media stands for - she is pro family, pro life, pro gun, pro oil drilling, pro business, and did I mention as a former beauty queen, she is "hot". She is also anti-large government, anti-pork barrel spending, and anti- Global Warming (which should be interesting since the "War Horse" is pro- GW).
So after the Republican Convention finishes this week the race to the finish line will begin. We will learn more about the "Barracuda" during the convention and her future debate with Senator Joe Biden should be interesting. Her only problem in the debate may be getting airtime since Biden is the most arrogant of the "old boys" in Washington, and a blowhard that will simply not stop talking. As someone once said "Ask Biden what time it is, and he tells you how to build a clock".
It should be an interesting few months.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
The Circle of Life
OK, I'm melancholy this evening, reminiscing about a time long ago raising kids - Christmas, Halloween, Easter egg hunts, school plays, family outings, sporting events, and all that time spent together. And then those kids grew up - off to college, working, developing their own relationships. And we parents rejoiced. As the Norwegians say, "Happiness is when the kids grow up and leave, and the dog dies".
Then your children get married, start having their own children, and the circle of life brings them back to their relationship with their parents. And as time goes by a wonderful thing happens; grandchildren come along.
Being a grandparent is the best of both worlds; you relive all those good things you experienced with kids, but not much of the bad. No real responsibilities - just spoil them and send them back to their parents. In our case we have been fortunate and developed more than just a grandparents/grand kids relationship. We have had years of one-on-one with them , without parents, and we became more than grandparents, we became friends - scavenger hunts, trips together, dinners together; just spending time together, grand kids and us.
We are still close to them but cannot seem to get them together anymore. That's not a bad thing; the inevitable happens - the circle continues and grandchildren grow up - they go off to college, start working, and develop their own relationships. They used to visit every few months, now maybe every year or two. Of course we see them more often that that with Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and visits to their homes, but it's not the same as having all of them together with just us for a week or two.
So here we sit, waiting for possibly more grandchildren, or even great-grandchildren, but hey kids - time is running out!
Then your children get married, start having their own children, and the circle of life brings them back to their relationship with their parents. And as time goes by a wonderful thing happens; grandchildren come along.
Being a grandparent is the best of both worlds; you relive all those good things you experienced with kids, but not much of the bad. No real responsibilities - just spoil them and send them back to their parents. In our case we have been fortunate and developed more than just a grandparents/grand kids relationship. We have had years of one-on-one with them , without parents, and we became more than grandparents, we became friends - scavenger hunts, trips together, dinners together; just spending time together, grand kids and us.
We are still close to them but cannot seem to get them together anymore. That's not a bad thing; the inevitable happens - the circle continues and grandchildren grow up - they go off to college, start working, and develop their own relationships. They used to visit every few months, now maybe every year or two. Of course we see them more often that that with Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and visits to their homes, but it's not the same as having all of them together with just us for a week or two.
So here we sit, waiting for possibly more grandchildren, or even great-grandchildren, but hey kids - time is running out!
Friday, July 18, 2008
He "Walks on Water"
Some talk show hosts jokingly call Barack Obama the "messiah". He is charismatic, and when he has a teleprompter, an impressive public speaker. Unfortunately when he has to speak off the cuff, you have to wonder how this guy ever became a candidate for the most important job in the world. It is painful to watch him stutter and stammer through an unrehearsed press conference.
The American people are starving for a leader. It is pitiful that Barack Obama and John McCain are the best we could come up with. Obama is not a leader but his "handlers" are making him look like one. They are running a brilliant campaign choreographed to the last detail along with the help of the main stream media (who even threw Hillary "under the bus" in favor of this charismatic politician). His handlers carefully manage his appearances making sure he does not get into a situation where he has to answer tough questions.
His African American heritage will also get Obama more than 90% of the black vote, which in a country whose electorate is split down the middle, could make the difference in an election. What is interesting is that if you look at his ancestry he is only 25% Black, 25% Arab, and 50% Caucasian. But like all good politicians he plays the cards that will get him the most votes.
Even though we seem to be heading down the "socialist" road, I am an eternal optimist and believe the American electorate will see through the smoke and media hype and somehow we will find the right path.
The American people are starving for a leader. It is pitiful that Barack Obama and John McCain are the best we could come up with. Obama is not a leader but his "handlers" are making him look like one. They are running a brilliant campaign choreographed to the last detail along with the help of the main stream media (who even threw Hillary "under the bus" in favor of this charismatic politician). His handlers carefully manage his appearances making sure he does not get into a situation where he has to answer tough questions.
His African American heritage will also get Obama more than 90% of the black vote, which in a country whose electorate is split down the middle, could make the difference in an election. What is interesting is that if you look at his ancestry he is only 25% Black, 25% Arab, and 50% Caucasian. But like all good politicians he plays the cards that will get him the most votes.
McCain has the experience and certainly has demonstrated much more leadership than Obama, but he is old; not just old chronologically, but he also represents "old Washington". He has almost abandoned his Conservative base, and with the voters 10% approval rating of Washington politicians along with their frustration with the Iraq war, he has many hurdles to climb to become the next President.
And now along comes charasmatic Obama with his "hope" and "change" campaign. Many people have embraced him for the "change" reason only, because if their dissatisfaction with Washington and the war. He has done little of any significance in his career, yet could be looking at the "perfect storm" for an unqualified politician, and be elected the leader of the free world... remarkable.
Obama may be crowned in January and the Democrats will most likely be in control of the House and Senate. If so, the next four years will be an adventure for the American public - more programs, more regulations, more taxes, and more government spending of money we do not have. But on the other hand, if you need an "entitlement" you will be in luck. As Michele Obama has said "The fortunate in this country need the realize they will have to share with the less fortunate".Even though we seem to be heading down the "socialist" road, I am an eternal optimist and believe the American electorate will see through the smoke and media hype and somehow we will find the right path.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Why big Government?
This campaign season is one of the more depressing I have been through in my 45+ years of voting. The economy is not going well and what do our Congressional and Presidential candidates offer - more "free" programs. This is what politicians do in an election year, but sooner or later the American people are going to get smart and start asking "where is all this money coming from?" I'll tell you where - it's on the backs of our children and grandchildren.
Just think about how this country would be reshaped if we had a national referendum vote on important issues...a direct vote by the American people:
- Should we reduce government expenses or raise taxes?
- With an approval rating of less than 10% should we put a 'two term' limit on Representatives and Senators, like we do with the President?
We know how the people would vote, that is why you will never see a national referendum and why things will probably never change in Washington until our economy collapses as a result of our own national debt. And guess who will be responsible for that debt...not our politicians.
As a businessman and senior executive for many years, my companies went through many up and down cycles. When we were faced with a slow economy and a slowdown in business, we had to make changes. These changes usually meant cutting expenses and sometimes even laying off employees. In every case we were able to keep our company solvent, and this fiscal discipline almost always resulted in a more efficient company.
Our government has always been just the opposite. When economies slow, the political response is to give out money in the form of a "stimulus", bail out failing companies, bail out individuals who bought homes they could not afford - and all this with money we do not have - just increase the national debt and kick the problem down the road for our children and grandchildren to solve.
Have you ever seen a political leader step forward and say: "This will be a tough economy for a year or two so we need to reduce government expenses, and that may also require a reduction in the government work force" The answer is NO, because we have no strong political leaders anymore.
When revenues are down the response by government is to raise taxes. There is never any discussion about reducing expenses. This in my opinion is one of the fundamental problems in this country now . Our national debt is trillions of dollars (I won't give the exact amount because it will probably increase several billion while I write this blog). And as this debt continues to skyrocket, all our politicians talk about are new expanded government programs.Just think about how this country would be reshaped if we had a national referendum vote on important issues...a direct vote by the American people:
- Should we reduce government expenses or raise taxes?
- With an approval rating of less than 10% should we put a 'two term' limit on Representatives and Senators, like we do with the President?
We know how the people would vote, that is why you will never see a national referendum and why things will probably never change in Washington until our economy collapses as a result of our own national debt. And guess who will be responsible for that debt...not our politicians.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
"Green" Madness
I am as much of an environmentalist as anyone. We live on 20 acres in a pristine area of Central California - we recycle everything, we provide water for the local wild animals and even feed them leftover vegetables and bread, we quietly pick up even the smallest pieces of trash along our local roads, and even grow our own grapes to make wine (not "green" wine - just red and white). But I don't think of myself as being "green"...really, what does that mean other than sounding cool?
Much has been published about the Democrats planning to have the "greenest" convention in history in Denver this fall. You can go to the Internet and view the complete protocol describing everything they are doing:
- expanded bike lanes for the delegates who can use the 1000 "free" bikes the city will provide for them (I can picture Barney Frank and Gerald Nadler cycling into town for dinner),
- "green" menus at the many restaurants which will serve organic and vegetarian fare on biodegradable dinnerware,
- reusable water bottles so those nasty plastic water bottles will not have to be used by the delegates, and the city will provide "refilling" stations so delegates can fill their bottle with pristine Denver municipal water.
- no fried food at any DNC sponsored meals (I don't think the Southern Delegation and Black Caucus were consulted on this decision),
- all balloons used in the Conference Hall for celebrations must be biodegradable (they are even testing the proposed balloons in compost piles to ensure that the supplier is complying) - why not be a true environmentalist and forget the balloons?
- all meals served must be low fat and have food that has at least three colors - the DNC has supplied a list of colors that are acceptable (I don't understand this one),
- and finally the DNC has specified that the baseball hats and fanny packs for the delegates must be made from organic cotton, and made in the USA, by union employees. Unfortunately the supplier has informed them that there were no such manufacturers in the USA.
I'm sure I will hear from some of my environmentalist friends who read this blog, but frankly these "rules" are humorous, and in my opinion "green madness". I also believe the average American is getting fed up with all this "green" BS.
Although many of these green rules by the DNC are laughable, and fun to write about, if they do this for a convention I can't help but wonder how the Democrats might try to regulate our lives if they gain control of the Senate, House, and Presidency this fall.
Much has been published about the Democrats planning to have the "greenest" convention in history in Denver this fall. You can go to the Internet and view the complete protocol describing everything they are doing:
- expanded bike lanes for the delegates who can use the 1000 "free" bikes the city will provide for them (I can picture Barney Frank and Gerald Nadler cycling into town for dinner),
- "green" menus at the many restaurants which will serve organic and vegetarian fare on biodegradable dinnerware,
- reusable water bottles so those nasty plastic water bottles will not have to be used by the delegates, and the city will provide "refilling" stations so delegates can fill their bottle with pristine Denver municipal water.
These efforts are all based on good intentions, but in this writers opinion it reeks of political posturing. Believe it or not, the DNC has hired a "Greening" Manager to oversee all aspects of the Convention's environmental impact. They have also hired a "Carbon" consultant that will evaluate the carbon footprint of everything they do. In addition each delegate can get a personal carbon footprint evaluation if they wish. I wonder who will evaluate the carbon footprint of the delegates airplane flights to Denver, especially those like Al Gore, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and all those Democrat VIPs who will arrive on private jets? These private jets will probably spew more carbon into the atmosphere in 20 minutes than these high priced consultants will save during the entire Convention.
Here are some of their other "greening" efforts:- each delegate will get a list of only "green certified" companies in Denver that they should do business with (who does the green certification?),
- restrictions will be placed on ordering materials from companies that might have to drive long distances to deliver products or services to the Convention, and therefore emit too many carbon emissions (good luck getting the tofu for those organic meals),
- no fried food at any DNC sponsored meals (I don't think the Southern Delegation and Black Caucus were consulted on this decision),
- all balloons used in the Conference Hall for celebrations must be biodegradable (they are even testing the proposed balloons in compost piles to ensure that the supplier is complying) - why not be a true environmentalist and forget the balloons?
- all meals served must be low fat and have food that has at least three colors - the DNC has supplied a list of colors that are acceptable (I don't understand this one),
- and finally the DNC has specified that the baseball hats and fanny packs for the delegates must be made from organic cotton, and made in the USA, by union employees. Unfortunately the supplier has informed them that there were no such manufacturers in the USA.
I'm sure I will hear from some of my environmentalist friends who read this blog, but frankly these "rules" are humorous, and in my opinion "green madness". I also believe the average American is getting fed up with all this "green" BS.
Although many of these green rules by the DNC are laughable, and fun to write about, if they do this for a convention I can't help but wonder how the Democrats might try to regulate our lives if they gain control of the Senate, House, and Presidency this fall.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Where have all the illegals gone?
Last year the citizens of this country rose up and pressured the Congress to stop a bill that would have given more than 12 million illegal immigrants a path to amnesty. Isn't it interesting that in the heat of this presidential campaign there is almost no discussion by either candidate of the illegal immigrant problem. Which leads us to the question - where have all the illegals gone?
Have they felt bad about breaking our laws and gone home?
Have they been rounded up and deported?
Have they decided to go home before we finished building the border fence so they wouldn't get stuck here?
Have they all learned English so well that we cannot tell them from Latino Americans?
Have they decided to blend into our society, pay their own way, and quit using our free social and medical services?
Of course the answer to all of these questions is NO.
The reason there is no discussion is that both of our presidential candidates are "pro" immigration. John McCain says, "Tightening border security will be my first priority"...this is just political rhetoric. Remember, he was one of the authors of the aborted "amnesty" bill last year. And Barack Obama says nothing...which after all is one of his greatest talents.
So the illegal immigrant issue has been pushed to the back burner and nothing will get done until after the election. In the meantime, the problem keeps growing. And no matter which of these candidates gets elected, I suspect it will not be solved to the satisfaction of a majority of Americans. What a shame that our politicians refuse to attack the problem head on because of "political correctness", and because of their desire to capture the Latino vote.
I recently saw a video that is a small example of the magnitude of this illegal immigrant problem: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI
Have they felt bad about breaking our laws and gone home?
Have they been rounded up and deported?
Have they decided to go home before we finished building the border fence so they wouldn't get stuck here?
Have they all learned English so well that we cannot tell them from Latino Americans?
Have they decided to blend into our society, pay their own way, and quit using our free social and medical services?
Of course the answer to all of these questions is NO.
The reason there is no discussion is that both of our presidential candidates are "pro" immigration. John McCain says, "Tightening border security will be my first priority"...this is just political rhetoric. Remember, he was one of the authors of the aborted "amnesty" bill last year. And Barack Obama says nothing...which after all is one of his greatest talents.
So the illegal immigrant issue has been pushed to the back burner and nothing will get done until after the election. In the meantime, the problem keeps growing. And no matter which of these candidates gets elected, I suspect it will not be solved to the satisfaction of a majority of Americans. What a shame that our politicians refuse to attack the problem head on because of "political correctness", and because of their desire to capture the Latino vote.
I recently saw a video that is a small example of the magnitude of this illegal immigrant problem: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI
Friday, June 6, 2008
Is it Liberal Time?
Now we have the presidential candidates - Barak Obama the Democrat and most liberal senator in the senate, against John McCain the (almost) Republican. Barak the brilliant orator with the "golden voice' and great personality, vs John the oratorically and personality challenged candidate. It is said that many people vote strictly on emotion, for a candidate they find "attractive". If that is the case, John McCain is in trouble because when it comes to charisma and public speaking ability this election is a no contest - Obama with his crowds of 20,000 and John with his "my friends" town hall meetings of 200 people.
It will be an interesting election because in this era of TV sound bites, busy schedules, and instant gratification, if the average person has little time to think about the election they will pick Obama in November. Especially with his "populist" message of offering something for everyone. With the "entitlement" society we now live in, he offers a very attractive message - people don't think about how these "promises" will be paid for, they just want the government to take care of them.
It will remain to be seen if people really think about the future of this country, if they do, then McCain should win. If we have another terrorist attack, or a world military problem like the Israelis attacking Iran, then maybe the young Obama "fainters" may have second thoughts when they get into the voting booth. 911 is just a memory for most US citizens, but in the event of another attack like that, I'll take John McCain in the oval 0ffice. On the other hand, with George Bush's low popularity, the unpopular Iraq war, and a slowing economy with $4.60/gallon gas, John McCain could be the Republican party's "Walter Mondale" this fall and lose in a landslide.
It will be an interesting election because in this era of TV sound bites, busy schedules, and instant gratification, if the average person has little time to think about the election they will pick Obama in November. Especially with his "populist" message of offering something for everyone. With the "entitlement" society we now live in, he offers a very attractive message - people don't think about how these "promises" will be paid for, they just want the government to take care of them.
It will remain to be seen if people really think about the future of this country, if they do, then McCain should win. If we have another terrorist attack, or a world military problem like the Israelis attacking Iran, then maybe the young Obama "fainters" may have second thoughts when they get into the voting booth. 911 is just a memory for most US citizens, but in the event of another attack like that, I'll take John McCain in the oval 0ffice. On the other hand, with George Bush's low popularity, the unpopular Iraq war, and a slowing economy with $4.60/gallon gas, John McCain could be the Republican party's "Walter Mondale" this fall and lose in a landslide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
