The Republitarian » Here, I’ll say it: Sarah Palin=Unqualified

On the Republitarian a commenter writes  that "nobody but the dead and 23 percent cares about Ayers," the "former" American terrorist who tried to bomb the Pentagon back in the '60s, and with whom Barack Obama was friends at least back in Illinois (see "Beacon of Truth" in comment #11 in the link which follows).

The Republitarian » Here, I’ll say it: Sarah Palin=Unqualified

The writer get's his 23% figure from a Time/CNN poll mentioned  by Jay Newton-small at www.time.com in an article titled "Obama Holds Lead in Key States." The exact results of the poll are available as a PDF file by clicking here. If you look at the poll carefully, however the number is not accurate, and it does not reflect the percentage of those who "care" about Obama's ties with Ayers. Had I been polled with the questions asked, I would not have been in the number the writer sees as caring about the issue, though I most certain do care about it. I suspect many others who were polled are in the same place.

The relevant question in the poll is question number 7 on page 11, which reads, "As you may know, the McCain campaign is raising questions about Barack Obama's connection with a man named William Ayers, who was a radical in the 1960s. Which of the following BEST describes you:" The respondents were given four choice from which to choose:

1. You are unfamiliar with William Ayers.
2. You are familiar with William Ayers but it won't matter to your vote.
3. You are familiar with William Ayers and it may affect your vote.
4. No opinion.

My personal answer to this question would have to be #2. I am familiar with Ayers' terrorist (not just "radical") background, but I would vote against Obama even it it weren't for Ayers, so my knowledge of the fact does not affect my vote. I wonder how many others would say the same thing?

The numbers reflected in the answer to this question are actually encouraging, if you are a Republican, because there are enough of those who say that their vote may be affected by the knowledge to change the outcome of the election, and if those who do know know of Ayers come to know him, the number it could affect could easily increase.

Here are the results from the poll including only "likely voters":

There are 27% in two battleground states, and 24% in another that say their vote may be affected by the Ayers controversy. (We're not sure how these numbers became 23% in the writer's note.) Unless there are a large number of anti-American/pro-terrorist radicals in those states, then few of those numbers would be affected to vote for Obama; they are more likely to vote against. And if the rest who are unfamiliar with the fact could be made aware, there would probably be an equal number of those who would be persuaded to vote against Obama.

When it comes to "caring" and Ayers, it seems to me that there are only three categories in which a voter could fall:

1. He can know about it, and not care about Obama's connection with Ayers.
2. He can know about it, and care a great deal.
3. He could be ignorant of the matter.

If one knows about it, and does not care, then he must be as anti-American as Bill Ayers. So the question is, dear reader, in which category do you fit? Are you ignorant about this issue, an American patriot, or someone who sees himself in much the same light as a '60s radical who is proud to have been a part of a American terrorist organization?

A Case Against Barack Obama

I found a blog today on hotair.com that makes a compelling case for keeping Barack Obama out of the White House. It's called "The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama," but it is not quite accurately named by its own account. (The second paragraph starts, "What follows is by no means comprehensive, but it does shed some much-needed light on a number of Obama’s positions, statements, and associations about which he has been less than honest.")

It does contain a good amount of documented material detailing many of Obama's worst traits. I fear that the same things that repells me away from Obama are the very things that make him popular with many others, and I fear what that means for America, not to mention the world. But I don't think a majority of Americans would vote for Obama, if they fully knew him.

For that reason I encourage you to read "The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama" for yourself, and view the evidence presented within that blog.

How to Unite America

A recurring theme in liberal politics involves charges of divisiveness against Republican leaders such as George W. Bush. When President Bush was governor of Texas he was able to bring Democrats and Republicans together for the good of the state, and promised to do the same if elected President. Almost from day one Democrats, however, began to charge the President of being divisive, and the President's promise to get Democrats and Republicans to work together was never realized. Although Democrats are at least equally responsible for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, President Bush has received most of the blame.

Now that we are in an election year charges of divisiveness is being leveled against the Republican presidential ticket and its supporters. Recently a the news was awash with claims that a supporter yelled, "Kill him!" when Barack Obama's name was mentioned at a Palin rally. But when this was investigated by the secret service, it could not be substantiated. Apparently the charge came from the overactive imagination of a liberal reporter.

I cannot say that I haven't heard any ugly comments about Obama, but those comments have always come from a small fringe who reject Obama, and from what I know of those who say such things, they would almost as surely deny being Republicans too. From the same kinds of people I have heard some pretty ugly remarks against John McCain.

One thing you can say about John McCain is that he has not be a part of that kind of rhetoric, and has publicly rejected it when it has been voiced in his presence.

Now comes another ugly comment. This time not from the right, but from the left. This time not from some anonymous radical, but from a well known and influential liberal. And it really isn't that unusual for similar rhetoric can be heard in other places from Obama supporters who are equally well known. Yet when these comments are aired, you rarely hear about it from the liberal media.

Mary Kathren Ham blogs about the comment here:

Jon Stewart to Sarah Palin: '[Expletive] You.'

Stewart's vulgar comment was a reaction to a statement made by Palin in a small town rally where she said, "We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe...that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation." She did not say that small towns were the only patriotic places in America, but that is how Stewart distorted her comment, and what evoked his gutter mouth comment.

He then had this to say: "I can't take it anymore.... After eight years of this divisiveness, we're back to this idea that only small-town America is the real America." One guesses he wasn't speaking of his own divisiveness in these words. He went on after these comments talking down small towns himself.

It has been easy to find news reports (sometimes false) about divisiveness from the right, but how often do you hear any rebuke of the left for the same? Jon Stewart's comments have been hardly mentioned. According to Ham it received a single sentence in the Boston Globe, and his expletive wasn't even mentioned.

So what can we conclude about uniting America? Apparently the lesson here is that only Democrats can unite us. If only everyone was a Democrat, we wouldn't have all this partisanship in politics. Those [expletive] Republicans just can't get along with anyone, and they all ought to just go to [bleep].

Pie in the Sky

One reason I oppose Barrack Obama for President is his patently absurd promise to increase government spending by nearly $900 billion by increasing taxes for only 5% of the richest Americans while giving all of the rest a tax cut. The Obama Campaign has produced the Obama Tax Calculator to entice voters to vote for him. You enter your annual income, marital status, and how much you owe on your home, and click a button to "calculate" how much Obama promises to pay you if he is elected. For comparison purposes it shows what it claims to be McCain's tax cut  too. For most Obama's tax cut far exceeds the tax cut that McCain would supposedly give.

Despite Obama's calculator his promises don't add up. How will he pay for all of his new spending by increasing taxes on only 5% of Americans? Well, the truth is he won't. Under Obama everyone's taxes will go up, the budget deficit will increase dramatically, and the rich will pay a smaller share of total taxes than they do today under George Bush.

How so? First if Obama is elected, it is possible if not likely that both houses of congress will be solidly Democratic. Republicans have been able to block some liberal legislation in the Senate by use of the filibuster, but that ability could be lost this November. This means that the next government under Obama will be the most liberal government America has ever known, and we can count on the fact that this government will find new and better ways to spend our tax dollars. This will result in pressure to increase taxes, which will partly be successful, but not enough to pay for all of the new spending. So the deficit will increase and we will be taxed more.

Most of the taxes will be targeted toward the rich to make the rate increases palatable to more voters, but this will have a negative effect by inducing the rich to seek more tax shelters, and causing the percentage of their tax burden to decrease.

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article discussing the effects of increasing and of decreasing taxes. The article is called "Their Fair Share," and it points out that the "richest 5%" of Americans already pay 60% of all taxes collected, while the rest, 95%, pay only 40%. That is already a huge burden on those Americans. Asking them to pay more while giving money back to those who pay far less is simply unfair. It may be popular to throw money out the window for the masses, but when the money belongs to someone else, it's also immoral.

Obama's calculator promises me a tax cut of $1000, but I don't believe him. I do believe him when he promises a net increase in taxes, but that is exactly the wrong thing to do in today's economy. That increase will cause the economic conditions to worsen, and that will be a tax increase that none of us can afford.

John McCain's promise to cut government spending is exactly what we need in today's economic climate. His record in the congress demonstrates that he will try to keep that promise. He also promises to decrease the overall tax bite, which will result as other tax cuts have resulted in increased spending by the wealthy as well as other Americans who benefit from that spending. This is what the current economy desperately needs, and only John McCain can deliver on that promise.

Debate Night