A Response To "Republicans: It’s time to hang it up"... About The Right Splitting

Before I start, I would like to show you a quotation from my entry endorsing Obama for President. In this quote, I show you exactly what I think of third parties. Keep this in mind when you start reading my response to The Ohio Republic:

" To start this off, I would like to first talk briefly about third party candidates. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and the who string of other candidates have no overall chance of winning this election. At most, third parties will pull in 5% or so ALL TOGETHER. This means that a vote for a third party is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote AGAINST your favorite mainstream candidate. That said, lets chat briefly about what third parties actually do. Third parties usually are very similar to a mainstream party, just they have one big difference. When that difference (their campaign base) gets enough attention and support, it jumps to the mainstream parties. Basically, third parties are vetting parties for new and interesting ideas. They should be allowed to get local power, but never national."

Over on The Ohio Republic, Harold has a post about the potential split in the Republican party that he sees occurring soon. I am going to be quoting his entry, so that I can respond below, and per the terms on the bottom of his blog, I need to include this:

"Permission is granted to use contents of this blog (except feeds copyrighted by their originators), provided that this copyright notice appears with the item used, and the use is not for profit."

"The paleoconservatives, of which I consider myself one, have consistently advocated limited government, particularly at the Federal level, balanced budgets, a strong national defense but avoidance of foreign wars; and social and economic freedom. Examples of paleoconservative Presidents are Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower (with the qualification that President Eisenhower was unable to balance his budgets – partly due to World War II debt and partly due to a Democratic Congress through most of his administration)."

Claiming Hoover as an example of your party, or your own position, is probably not a good thing to do. That said, I agree that the old-school republicans, of which I do respect and enjoy, are more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The main point of a paleoconservative is mostly laze-fare in both social and business aspects. Furthermore, they should only care about the countries well being, making sure that we do not run into debt and that we are ready to defend ourselves. A true paleoconservative will only wish to go to war when either our country is attacked or if there is clear evidence that we NEED to go to war to protect ourselves. This is the position a lot of our founding fathers were, and this is a decent/good position.

"Neoconservatives have consistently advocated the use of the military to expand American interests throughout the world, economic freedom, and a more proactive approach to the regulation of business. Since 1980, neoconservatives have advanced a social agenda reflected in the preferences of the Religious Right, They have been outspoken for Second Amendment rights, and have tended to expand Federal powers affecting secrecy and individual rights. Early examples of neoconservatives (before the term came into use) are Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. More recent examples of neoconservative Presidents are Ronald Reagan, and our current incumbent. "

While I would not place Roosevelt, or even Nixon, with Reagan or Bush, I agree that the same fiscal sense as the paleoconservatives, while an invasion into the personal sphere, is the trademark of this group. To me, neoconservativisim is not a good position to be in, as it forces your believes (usually religious) upon the country. Additionally, the odds of being able to get our message around the world without going into debt (the fiscal republican part) is very unlikely. How can we have a war without a huge waste of money? Basically, I contend that their secondary goal, makes the neoconservatives lose their primary goal.

"The bipolar shifts have confused Republicans to the point where many wonder whether the Party has a philosophy at all; and it has alienated the general public to the extent that a recovery in four years may not even be possible. "

The Republicans have weathered worse storms then this. When Lincoln left the party, they still were able to reform shortly there-after. I can not see that the party will fall due to only this issue. Frankly, at the start of the election season, I agreed that they would, but at the end, I thought the Democrats would.

"Therefore, I would like to offer a not-so-modest proposal. For now, America would be best served by a vibrant three-party system.
The Democrats would remain as is, less a few conservatives who would be more attracted to one of the other parties, since neither now would be called “Republican”. The Democrats would continue to represent the liberal tradition of governmental activism both at home and abroad. "

The Democratic party is splitting more than the Republicans are. Frankly, I see both extremes breaking off, and a new 'moderate' party forming with 20% from both camps. The old-school democrats are getting more and more alienated from their party as the far-left (huffpo, moveon, etc.) become the mainstay of the party. That said, as the Democrat party is the oldest party in US politics, I see this party as being stable and continuous.

"A Populist Party would represent the paleoconservative tradition, best represented today by Ron Paul. It would seek a return to Constitutional limitations on Federal power, would emphasize both social and economic freedom, and support a strong national defense – but for defense only. "

I sure as hell hope that Ron Paul will never get his own party. While I like the idea of this populist party, it is clear that this is simple old school republicans. Frankly, this is how the party was before Reagan, and this is what I think it should return to. Due to its previous existence for decades (right after the fall of the Whigs, until Reagan), this party would probably still be very stable. Hell, I would be a republican if it went back to this system.

That said, Rob Paul would not be the leader of this; Paul is in no way a supporter of social freedoms. Additionally, he is not for a strong national defense, nor does he have good economic plans. For more on Ron Paul, refer to my entry regarding him.

"The neoconservative home might be called the “Christian Conservative” Party, because it would represent the desires of the Religious Right regarding homosexuality and abortion, favor military interventions abroad, and be less committed to decentralism than the Populists. Sarah Palin might be a good example of a Christian Conservative. "

To me, this party would be one of the worst things that we could have in the American political system. After all, why would we want a party that specifically aims to violate the Constitution. Don't we already have the Constitution Party for that? My biggest question to this party would be how they could justify a pro-life social policy, but an anti-life foreign policy, policy? Unlike the previous two parties, I can not see the neoconservatives as being a stable party. After all, any small party that is targeting only one specific area, will become redundant and thus loose votes. By doing this, the CC would regulate themselves to tiny-party status.

...

"I do not expect such a system to be permanent – American history teaches that sooner or later the parties will again become only two – but while it lasts, it would give the American people an opportunity to see issues more clearly and to decide for themselves just what this nation is about. "

The reason that more than two parties do not last is the way that our system is set up. With a winner take all system, it is best to try and keep your party stable, and thus not on the fringes. Any third party is on the fringes, and when it becomes mainstream, it gets taken by one of the two players. This works very well as it allows vetting, and socializing, of the more "extreme" ideas before they come to the center.

Overall, I do agree that the religious right (neoconservatives) will be splitting from the Republican party sooner or later. I do not think that they will form their own group, but that they will promptly align themselves with already existing groups. The Constitution Party, and other third parties, would be a good fit for these former Republicans.

Read more ...

A continuation on teens and sex:

*EDIT* this morning my AP feed on my iPhone alerted me that an Ohio girl (sorry, could no find a link to a website) admitted to sending naked images of herself to fellow high school boys. She was 15. This just goes to prove my point that teens are really already into sex nice and young, so parents pay attention. Also, The phone belongs to the parents, check who they called, their texts, and you know, you can look at the images they send. Parents, the ball is in your court, take it and use it*End Edit*





I would like to start with four quick things:
1) Over on Blogcritics I had the film article of the day with my breakup letter to Blockbuster. Please go read and comment on it.
2) Missouri went for McCain. HA, I was right about something.
3) It is mirror lake night, for those of you who do not know what this is, don't even ask. That said PARTY AND FREEZING WHALERTLY.
4) On Saturday it is the Michigan game, and it is also Senior Day. Now, I do believe that Pryor might be a better player than Todd, but I think that Tressel should let Todd take that first snap. he has been playing well, you gray and then red shirted him, and he has been the captain. Todd is playing with class, so should you Tressel.


A continuation on teens and sex:

As you might recall my entries on the Gloucer teens and their pregnancies and on the teacher/student relationships, I blame teens and parents for a lot when it comes to their sexual relationships. Being just out of the teenage years myself, I know that the kids are ultimatly behind their decisions, but that parents can play a large roll in the kids. Until my parents started paying more attention to me, I was a bad kid (no comment on age here), but once they did, while I still did bad things, I thought about them and analyzed them first, just to make sure it was at least a thought out bad thing. Basically, I am asking you parents to first talk to your kid, make sure that they can reason and analyze the issue, and then move on.

Anyways, to today's entry...

In two counties in Ohio, schools are being sued over their ineptitude in dealing with two cases of sexual harrasment. Two girls, were allegidly forced to perform oral sex on a school bus and got nothing when they reported it to the schools. This is outragous, and needs to be delt with quickly and harshly. Our students should not need to fear when they are assulted; they should be able to tell their teachers/school administrators and expect a result. It this happened in any office, the boss would be fired (and sued out of a ton of money) if they ignored it.

But, my issue is, what if the girls relationships were consentual, as the boys (and schools) claim. The schools followed up the allegations with investigations and found that the relationships were consentual. What school would find that way if it were not true? Wouldn't it be easier to say it were not, and keep this sort of suit away? I think that the schools probably had the right investigation, and that they are being sued because the girls do not feel comfortable admiting it to their parents. Keep in mind, I might be wrong on this

This is what bothers me the most. The parents should be the ones who the girls came to, and the fact that they didn't tells me that either there is something going on at home or that the girls are lying. Again, I could be wrong on this. So, I am wondering, why are the parents not more concerned that they were not told? Also, where was the bus driver during all of this.

Lastly, I think that charging the boys with rape is wrong. To me, Rape deals with sexual intercourse, not oral sex. Read more ...

Lieberman Get A Slap On The Wrist

Before I start, I would like to say that I am pleased that the Obama administration is starting to look a lot like the Clinton's did. Also, I hope that Hillary gets the SOS spot.


According to the Keeler Report, the democrats had a secret ballot to decide if Lieberman would keep his chairmanship or not. Over on Liberal common Sense, Lisa tells us that the vote will show us how much power the actual left has in the Senate. And over on CNN, it was shown that Lieberman would be keeping his chairmanship, while losing his seat in another committee. While most of the left believe that Lieberman should be kicked out, President-elect Obama deemed that Lieberman should stay, letting bygones be bygones, and keeping his pledge of a less partisan Washington.

So, the question becomes, should Lieberman actually have kept his position? Many on the right said yes, many moderates seemed indifferent, and many on the left said hell no. Frankly, I think that he should have, and I think that it is very obvious that he should.

1) Lieberman gave the Democrats power for two years, and made sure that they had it. By caucusing with the left, Lieberman made sure that his true party was given the power in Washington, and made sure that they could do as they wished with the country, and that they could fight Bush.
2) He is a Democrat. While he might have run as a Independent (due to his far-left party kicking him out, yet he still won handidly), he caucused and is a registered democrat. Kicking him out could cause our former veep candidate to switch parties, which would take a lot of moderates with him.
3) He appologized. Sure, he said some things while out campaigning for McCain that he shouldn't have. He made accusations, slanderous ones actually, and attacked Obama on a personal level. But, he has appologized, and seems honest about it. With this in mind, I think that he should be allowed to keep his post.
4) He votes Democrat most of the time. While he might not have been elected as a Democrat, he clearly is one. He was not elected in the primary due to the fact that he was pro-war, and that is really the only area he breaks from the party. Why should you remove a respected and aged member simply because he disagrees with you on two main issues?

So, with this in mind, I think that the punishment placed on Lieberman is exactly as it should be. Lieberman is a true democrat, but is not just voting party lines, which I like. Thus, in the end, I think that it was a good decision to keep him. Read more ...

Has the color barrier really been broken?

I have decided that I am forgoing the old method of numbering my posts, it just doesn’t seem worth it anymore…



Only three days ago America emerged onto the national scene with a new trend, with a new face, with a supposed less racist attitude. The country that 40 years earlier was torn apart with segregation, 140 years earlier had large scale slavery, and 240 years earlier was founded with the idea that a black person was only 3/5 of a person, had at last elected their 44th president, a black man named Barrack Hussein Obama. With only about 20% of the country saying that race was a factor, we had come a long, long way.

But, this then begged the question, are we out of the troubles? Are we finally done with racism in America (as done as you can be, when there is free thought)? Have we finally and fully integrated?




Let’s look at a different color barrier, and see when it was broken… When you start to look at sports and the color barriers, you immediately think of Jackie Robinson. Why nobody thinks of Eddie Kleep, the first player in the negro leagues who was white, I do not know. Anyways, people always think of Jackie Robinson, one of the best players of the game, and the first black man to play on an actual MLB team. That said, did Jackie actually break the color barrier?

With Mr. Robinson, you had the Dodgers picking him up due to an insane amount of skill. A good player, hell, a great player, who was black would never have been picked, only the best player of the times could have been included. This really does not show that the color barrier was broken, just that the loss of standing due to your skin color could be overrode by enough points in other areas. Robinson, however, throws this all off by retiring.

Then you move on to Bill Lucas, the first black General Manager in the MLB. Yes, it is arguable that there was one before him (drawing a blank on the name), but that was for one day and due to four sick managers above him. So, Mr. Lucas is the first black man to manage a team, that is a true color breaker. But, Mr. Lucas died after only a few years managing, of a heart attack.

You might not be getting what I am going for, so let me spell it out to you. I do not consider the color barrier to break when a person of color gets into the position. I consider it broken when that person is forced out due to bad performance (fired, FOR CAUSE (if anybody can find me this persons name, then I would be happy)), or when it is in the air, without the race a factor. I think that it is clear that a color barrier is really there as long as there is color, regardless of who holds a position.




So, let’s fast-forward this thing back to the 21st century. Obama, the first black man to run as President from a major party, has become the first black President of the United States of America (and from my recollection, the first dual-citizenship, the youngest, the first one from Hawaii, and a long list of other things). SO WHAT. No barrier has been broken, both because 20% still voted on race (with most of that helping Obama) and because it is a big deal. When we write giant essays, commit huge news reports, and blog about the fact that we have a black leader (well, in 70-odd days we will), then the barrier is still there. Until the fact that we do mention, or even care about, their skin color, the barrier will still be there.




(FYI, this still applies to all other ways that we classify humans) Read more ...

11/4 Map Update

Post 70

This map is updated as of 6PM 11/3. The final image will be my prediction map, let it be as it is.

State-by-State (swing states)

Over all, Obama is winning 338 to 200

Virginia - This swing state is still in the Obama camp, with a 4.3 point lead
Florida - Some recent strong polling showed Obama up by 1.6
Ohio - In the buckeye state, Obama is up 2.3 points
Nevada - The sin state has Obama in the lead by 6.2 points
Colorado - The state that housed the Democrat Convention has given Obama a 5.5 point lead


North Carolina - McCain has regained this southern state and is now leading by .6 points
Montana - McCain is keeping his lead here with 3.8 points
Arizona - While I do not think Obama can win this state, McCain has only a 3.5 point lead
Indiana - The state that always vote Republican is back in their camp, 1.4 points
Georgia - While Barr is hurting McCain here, McCain still has 4 points
Missouri - A .5 point lead is all that McCain has here

National

When looking at the national polls between Obama and McCain, you notice that Obama has a healthy 7.3 point lead.

When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead jumps up to 7.8 points.

Whalertly's Predictions:

This is what Whalertly thinks will happen... Please feel free to make alternate maps on this site and there are poll data on This one . Please explain your reasoning, and I hope that the best map wins...

I believe that Ohio, Virginia, and Florida will all switch due to hidden racism in the polls and the fact that they are not all that accurate.

Read more ...

Whalertly Endorsements: For The President of the United States of America

Post 69

There will of course be another map update tomorrow, the last of the polls before election day actually finishes. Furthermore, my entry on Wednesday will be bragging about how I was right 100% of the time (or, if my Oscar picks show anything, none of the time).

To start this off, I would like to first talk briefly about third party candidates. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and the who string of other candidates have no overall chance of winning this election. At most, third parties will pull in 5% or so ALL TOGETHER. This means that a vote for a third party is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote AGAINST your favorite mainstream candidate. That said, lets chat briefly about what third parties actually do. Third parties usually are very similar to a mainstream party, just they have one big difference. When that difference (their campaign base) gets enough attention and support, it jumps to the mainstream parties. Basically, third parties are vetting parties for new and interesting ideas. They should be allowed to get local power, but never national.

President of the United States of America

Please feel free to respond to this, challenge this, etc.

Taxes

As shown before in this entry Obama is better for most Americans than McCain if you are looking only at taxes. It is all good and dandy to keep taxes low (McCain's pledge) but at some point people have enough money to live on. Who needs to make more than 250,000$ a year? Frankly, I agree with the founder of capitalism, Adam Smith when he says that at some point people should start paying more taxes. That said, the spread the wealth theory of Obama has some work to be done on it. I think that we should tax the wealthier more, but that money should first be used to pay for Iraq, Education, Infrastructure, getting out of debt, etc. before we move onto cutting taxes for the lower classes.

Iraq

I believe that we need to remain in Iraq until the job is done. I hold this belief even though I was opposed to the invasion when we went in, and still contend that there was no logical reason to ever go in. My theory is quite simple, why should we cry over split milk when we should just be cleaning it up? I believe that McCain has a much better plan than Obama in this regard. Our troops deserve our full support, and the generals should be listened too. That said, Obama has pledged to listen to his generals, but McCain, having a fair bit of experience (both in the field and in the Senate) definitely wins this category.

Education

I think that education is one of the most important things that our country needs to deal with. The school systems are harming our children, and college tuition is sky-rocketing. We as Americans need to come together to create a plan to rectify this. This issue is not only a personal issue, it is a danger for our next generation of leaders and, frankly, a national security issue due to the US being surpassed by China and India in sciences. Both Obama and McCain have good plans for the reform of our educational system but only one would work in my mind. McCain wants us to keep looking at achievement rates (based upon testing) for moneys and improvements. I think that this is an absurd manner as it is punishing the schools for the students. Their should be (as Obama suggests) peer reviewed teaching which makes sure that good teachers are rewarded and that bad teachers are kicked. We also need to spend far more on education (something that both agree on).

Gay Rights

The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.

Abortion

The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.

Internet

A fair number of people feel that Internet censorship (it isn't, but ignore that for now) should be a hot topic this election. They feel that so called 'net neutrality' is something that the president should come out strongly in favor of and believe that the free world is at stake. I am strongly against this idea, and think that private companies should be able to do with their property as they see fit (see a future entry), provided it violates nobody else's rights. That said, The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.

Foreign Relations

There is no way to argue that Obama will win this category. Years in the Senate, on various committees and otherwise, have given McCain a strong lead in this category. Obama is quite well liked by other countries, which is a great plus in a US president, but McCain's strong standing here helps him out greatly.

The Economy

Cutting taxes is not the answer, period. Our economy is struggling because of outsourcing, and a loss of jobs. We need to create deals that help companies stay, and help keep Americans out of debt. McCain's idea of cutting taxes will only lead our country into a larger debt, and I can not stand for that. After all, it is my generation that will be paying the interest on that.

Experience

I do not really see how this should be a major issue. Not one presidential candidate has any executive experience, and one veep has 2.5 years. This is a non-issue, and really quite absurd.

Bipartisanship

This should be the number one issue in any persons mind this election, but, alas, it sadly is not. All Americans should care about working with all other Americans, because, after all, that is the only way that we are able to get anything done. McCain has a strong background of supporting both parties, and working through and against his own party. Obama, on the other hand, has little bipartisanship background. That said, McCain's own argument against Obama based on time in office helps Obama in this regard; Obama has pledged to work with both parties (and I believe him when he says that) and can explain his lack simply as not having the time yet. See here Mr. McCain, every dagger has two sides.

Global Warming

All candidates and their veeps believe that this is real and somewhat man made. They differ on how to fix it, but as long as they talk to their advisors it is a-okay.

Energy

Both candidates think that we should get off of our foreign oil addiction, and I agree. We need to work on alternate energies and fuel sources to ease our economy, to create more American jobs, and to make sure that Global Warming can be addressed. However, I do not think that this is within the Presidents area so I do not think that they should touch it (though I am all okay with them going around the country lecturing on it).

Health Care

Now, I do not think that we should start health care for all right away, but, in about 2 years time it should be a good idea. In about 2 years Massachusetts will have had state-wide health care for some time, and we will be able to see how this system works in America. Obama has a great plan with health care, one that makes sure that all Americans have it, and that all Americans can be treated as normal persons. McCain's, on the other hand, is good in that it ensures health care, but it guarantees nothing and actually still allows where we are now.

So, with pros and cons to both candidates, who should Whalertly endorse? McCain has strong standings in Iraq and foreign relations, while he falters on education and the economy. Obama, on the other hand, is loved around the world and has a good plan to keep jobs in America, however, his lack of experience in international politics and his plan to increase spending by trillions of dollars show that he is not an ideal candidate. However, there are several things that gave me a clear choice onto whom I would pick. Obama, with his strong stances on education, improving the economy, and his health care to all plans shows the leadership needed to be the next President of the United States of America.

Read more ...

10/28 Map Update

Post 67

There will be another map update on Tuesday at midnight, before any elections start. This current update is accurate up to 1:30 Monday Afternoon.

State-by-State (swing states)

Over all, Obama is winning 375 to 163

Florida - Obama is still hanging on to a lead in the peninsula state with a 1.9 point margin

Indiana - Surprising me, Indiana has moved into the Obama category. Granted, this is by .3 points

North Carolina - Like last week, Obama is holding this state with a slim 1.5 point lead

Nevada - Obama is keeping his lead in the sin state with a 3.5 point margin

Ohio - With, in my mind, the last entry considering Ohio a SS, Obama has a 6 point le

ad

New Hampshire - Like Ohio, with its last entry as a swing state, Obama has a 5.6 point lead

Missouri - While McCain is making more ground here, Obama has +1.0

Montana - Now considered a swing state, McCain is still leading here by 4.5 points

Georgia -McCain is still holding on to his lead in this state with a 5.6 point margin

Arizona - Holy shit, a runners state is in play, McCain still is winning by 6 points

National

When looking at the national polls between Obama and McCain, you notice that Obama has a healthy 7.4 point lead.

When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead jumps up to 9.3 points.

Map

Read more ...

Map update for the week of 10/19-10/25

State-by-State (swing states)
Overall, Obama is winning 364-174

Nevada, and its 5 EC votes has moved into the Obama column with a +4.2 average
Colorado is staying in the Obama camp with a +6
Pennsylvania is now solidly Obama (I am no longer considering it a swing) with +13
Ohio is staying in the Obama category with a +3.3; however, two recent polls show McCain winning
Missouri, with its 11 EC votes, has moved into Obama. However, it is far too close to call... +3
Virginia, like Penn., has now moved out of the SS column by showing a strong +9 for Obama
North Carolina is now a +1.3 for Obama, still easily in the margin
Florida is +3.2 for Obama
New Mexico is no longer a swing state as well, with a +8.3 for Obama
New Hampshire has moved out of the swing state grouping, +8.3 for Obama

West Virginia is staying strong for McCain, with a +2.4 average
North Dakota is still with McCain, +4


National

Nationally speaking, the overall polls are roughly the same as they were last week: Obama is leading with a 5.3 point average.
When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead RAISES to 9.3 points



Map



Read more ...

Signs Signs, Everywhere are signs...

Post 61

See, and none of you thought that the last sentence in my last post meant anything. Look, I was giving you all a hint, enjoy it...

I drive down any street and see signs in every yard. From signs about certain landscapers to signs about roofers to signs about painters to signs telling me that something is art (a Worthington thing, the item is not art, and we should have no art building here). All of these signs exist to capture my attention, to get me to use the product next time I need that sort of product, or to get me to support another cause. These signs are colorful, have 'catchy' slogans, and they sometimes even have pretty little pictures. Yep, you agree to advertise for companies, politicians, and organizations for free. Don't you feel used?

Signs appear more often during this time of year, especially, on the even years. We have signs for Kilroy, signs for Strivers, signs for Obama/Biden, and signs for McCain*Palin. All of the signs have small text and disclaimers, they all have websites, yet the only thing you can usually read is the candidate that is running. These signs, of course, give you only a brief view into the house owners psyche. Did they just like the colors? Do they support all of the policies or only more than the other persons? Why McCain over Obama? Why Obama over McCain? You know absolutely nothing about these people.

Wait, but you actually know a lot more about people then you thought. Say I have a sign that says I support Obama as well as a sign that I support Kilroy; clearly, the assumption is that Kilroy is similar to Obama. Now, this seems obvious, unless you get signs for Strivers and signs for Obama. Yep, a rather-right candidate with a rather-left candidate. Hmmm, see a problem here? Certain good candidates could be lost by their grouping with the bad candidates. This sort of thing is common, and has cost several persons and issues their passing. If I see a sign for Issue 6 with a sign for McCain, odds are I will vote against Issue 6. When you start dealing with undecideds (as I am for most state based issues, not federal or local) then you need to be cautious of what signs you put out.

Now, you are all probably asking where this all came from; well, the other day I was following a car that had bumper stickers galore on it. From “make love not war” to “Obama/Biden” to “no more Bush in the white house until we elect a woman” it seemed like a typical left-leaning (far) car. This is all fine and dandy to me, as I already associate Obama with anti-bush. The problem was the oldest and biggest bumper sticker: “Free Leonard Peltlier”. You know what, he shot and killed two federal agents, WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE FREE HIM. If I knew nothing about the candidates they supported, the positions on the stickers, and Mr. Obama, then I would never would support those people after reading these crazy bumper stickers. Keep your stickers rational if you want to help somebody mainstream get into power.

Guys, if you want to help somebody, make sure you don't alienate everybody else.

*MAP UPDATE*

I have finally resigned to the fact that every week is going to be poll after poll. While Ohio is still standing in the Obama category, the most recent poll gave McCain a 2 point lead; Ohio is a state to watch. Surprisingly, Virginia is now strongly in the Obama category (+8 average) which is far above the hidden racism issue. New Hampshire, which was considered one of the must wins this year, now has a +10.3 average for Obama.

Some good news for McCain, not only is he gaining in Ohio, but he is also regaining in Florida and holding in Missouri.

Overall, Obama is winning the EC 353 to 185 which is a strong lead. In the general polling, Obama is winning with a 49.7 to 42.4 point lead (7.3 points overall). When Barr and Nader are added to the equation, Obama is winning by only 4.2 points. Nader is pulling 2.5 points where as Barr is pulling 1.3 points. No wonder more Republicans donate to Nader than democrats. While the polls do not include the hidden racism, he seems to be outside of that margin in most states. With these constant leads, it seems more and more that Obama has this in the bag... barring a October Surprise...

*END OF MAP UPDATE*

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...

Taxes Part 2

Post 60

Today we are going to take a look at how the taxes proposed by both the McCain camp and the Obama camp will effect the citizens in Ohio. The graphs use the tax changes provided by The Washington Post and The New York Times. The data on Ohio is provided by the 2000 Census.

I ask you to take a look at this image, and decide which candidate really has your best interest in mind. If you make over one million dollars a year I can understand why you would be vocal in support of Senator McCain. If you make under twenty thousand a year then I can understand why you support Senator Obama. This chart is merely to help you look at the financial aspect of the presidential race; if the financial burden on you is all that you care about, please vote based on this information. If you care about more than just the money, use this to help you weigh your decision. Please pass this on to all undecideds that you know, and pass this throughout the INTERNET.

This graphic is slight skewed due to the fact that the census data stopped at 200,000 and does not line up perfectly with the tax brackets given. If the amount falls within multiple tax brackets, then the average of the two will be used. Please use your yearly income when you look at this graph. Keep in mind that the Average yearly income per household in Ohio is $40,960. In all of these graphs Red is McCain and Blue is Obama.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...

Taxes Part 1

Post 59

This is a small intro (part 1) of a three part series on the tax changes proposed by both McCain and Obama. Today the entry is simply two images, one of which is the taxes based upon brackets, the other is the taxes based upon the percentage of the American population. On Wednesday, I will be posting a look into how the tax changes effect the citizens on Ohio followed by an update on Friday about how the taxes will effect the citizens in every single state, state by state. Enjoy the images.

Source

SOURCE

*MAP UPDATE*

This week, yet again, contains states that moved over to the Obama camp and none that moved over to the McCain camp. Nevada and Florida both switched to Obama with a small margin. Ohio, on the other hand, flipped into the blue with two gigantic poll leads. Both North Carolina and Virginia stayed in the Obama section, but their margins are still quite small. Missouri, on the other hand, stayed strongly in the McCain column.

The overall result means that Obama is winning in the Electoral College 353 to 185. Meanwhile, in the general election, Obama is winning with a score of 49.3 to 43.4 which means he has a +5.9 point lead; however, when you add Nader and Barr into the equation it drops to a 4.4 point lead. Based on the stats, it looks as though Obama is being harmed by Nader more than McCain is by Barr.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Stumble It!

Read more ...

Barga's Analysis of the Debate (VEEP)

Let me start by saying that if this debate were between the two parties only then Palin would win; however, when dealing with the national public I think that Biden won. To me he seemed to be the person who was better tuned to what Americans en masse want. Palin was just a better debater and came off much friendlier.

I will be going through the debate start to the end. I will briefly explain the issue and then rate each person by their response. The winner of each section will be bolded (their name) but I will not rank these or give them points (as I did with SaddleBack).

• Intro

  • Palin scored a large point towards the American public here when she asked to call Biden Joe. While he was stuck sounding old and fogy saying Governor Palin, she was able to sound friendly and outside-of-Washington by seeming all impressed with whom she got to meet. Very nice psychological move here.

• Lets chat about the bail-out-bill

  • Biden starts with the normal thanks which, frankly, bore me. He then moves onto how the bailout would effect the middle class if it followed Obamas plan. That said, Biden did not really answer the question.

  • Palin argues that McCain has been sounding the reform bell for a long time. While she is correct, there is an issue with the fact that McCain has not attempted to call for full reform as Obama has. How republicans can win on the economy startles me.

• Partisanship on the hill

  • Biden starts by saying that he has worked with both parties on many different issues. He then moves into attacking McCain on the economy again and mentions that McCain is very, very far out of touch.

  • Responds about the economy, then attacks Obama for being party line while McCain is a maverick. She seems to not notice that McCain has not been a maverick for about the same amount of time that Obama has been in office.

• Neither of them really answered the question; however, Ifill moved on onto – the subprime lending meltdown [BARGA NOTE – don’t borrow what you can not pay back, and always have a safety net, because they both blamed the bankers and not the stupid Americans (not that they could) neither gets any boost here]

  • Palin blames the banks for being deceiving when it came to the mortgages. I am sorry, but people need to be smarter when it comes to getting into debt; don’t buy that 300,000$ house when you can only afford the payments on a 100,000$ house.

  • Biden responds by blaming the deregulation that McCain had been pushing. Deregulating the industry can be both good and bad for the economy, depending on the external situations. Attacks McCain on health care.

• Responses to the attack on McCain regarding health care

  • Palin attacks Obama and Biden on tax increases. She argues that these increases harm the American people and the middle class.

  • Biden points out that not only did McCain vote the same as Obama on what Palin was referring to, he voted to raise taxes 477 times. Nice counter.

• How taxing the rich (Biden) is not class attack and how taxing health care (Palin) does not harm the poor

  • Biden attacks on fairness. His logic is that most Americans do not make more than 250,000$ a year and so they should not pay as much as those who do. He says that the middle class (for the record, the middle class is far under 250,000$ a year) will not be harmed.

  • Palin responds by making the 250,000$ about businesses, not persons. She argues that this harms small businesses and thus stalls the economy. She then attacks big government. The problem is that businesses are not covered in the Barack plan under the tax cuts/raises, so there is no issue there.

• McCain’s health care plan

  • Palin states that McCain will give out 5000$ as a credit for health care and thus it is budget neutral compared to Obama’s plan. Just wondering, but how is not taxing 5000$ that you would otherwise end up as budget neutral?

  • Biden responds by mentioning that McCain will fund this credit by taxing the health care provided by employers and thus is actually harming the health care. Attacks using the Bridge to Nowhere

• The audience laughed at this point, ruining my belief that the politicians were actually talking to me… assholes

• What promise is not going to be kept

  • Biden explains that they will need to slow down on Foreign aid and tax cuts. He then mentions that they are full steam ahead on plans such as education, health care, and keeping people from hiding their money from the IRS

  • Palin responds by saying that McCain does not do flip-flops like Obama does (which, Biden just helped her point out with examples). She then uses a vote that Obama had (helping the oil companies) and her opposing to it and gained points as defeating big oil.

• Climate change

  • Palin mentions that it is natural AND man made, countering most scientists AND most of the anti-GW crowd. Interesting move. She then moves on to explain that no matter what we need to clean up the nation and become energy independent. Had she quoted Genesis (stewards of earth) she would have won the bloody debate.

  • Biden argues that it is man-made (which, it is) and then mentions that McCain voted against energy independence and cleaner energy.

• They talk about clean coal, say nothing, and refuse to admit that it can not exist

• Same-Sex benefits

  • Biden starts by arguing that benefits should be universal to all parties involved and are guaranteed under the Constitution. This is why I think that there should be no governmental marriage and only a series of contracts. He agrees that there should be no gay marriage.

  • Palin agrees with biden 100%.

• Funding the Iraqi troops

  • Palin attacks Obama for voting against funding the troops for political reasons.

  • Biden responds by saying that McCain also voted against funding the troops due to political reasons. Mentions that McCain knows no history.

• Withdrawing from Iraq

  • Palin, the pitbull, attacks full swing saying that withdrawing is a white flag and would result in nothing. Attacks Obama for being wrong on the surge and still not admitting it.

  • Biden tries to argue that the planned withdraw of his camp will be good, looks like an idiot.

• They talk about Pakistan, Iran, and Isreal. The normal party lines are followed and all parties LOOK STUPID. Biden does score some points by arguing that McCain is the same when it comes to foreign policy as Bush.

• They talk some more about Afghanistan, about nukes, and about Bosnia. They basically are arguing party lines AGAIN and do nothing.

• Talking about what a Veep does

  • Palin starts by arguing the Cheney branch of VEEPNESS, that is, that it is separate from the executive and is strong.

  • Biden attacks back arguing that the Constitution is pretty clear (and it is) that the VEEP is in the executive branch. He then attacks Cheney.

• Their Achilles heels (Palin experience and Biden discipline)

  • Palin comes off strong by arguing that she has a ton of experience though I am not so sure what being a governor of a large (not in population) state and a mayor have to do with it. Mentions the hilly peninsula of Boston.

  • Biden responds by going on about how he is stubborn and that that is a good thing because people know what they are going to get. He then launches into a little chat about raising his kids alone after his wife died and teared up a little.

• Change

  • Palin launches into this topic by talking about McCain as a maverick and how he is a great leader and person due to it.

  • Biden responds by simply showing that McCain has been voting with Bush for a long time. The logic is simple, one side is the same as before ergo the other must be changing. Always remember, change is not always a good thing.

• Have you changed a long-held view due to a change in facts (Which is what any normal person should do)

  • Biden responded by talking about the judiciary. When he came in as a young lawyer he thought that education and good standing were all that mattered but soon found that the way they would decide should matter.

  • Palin argues that it is about what is best for the economy. She talks about taxes she wanted to cut and budgets she wanted to short, but didn’t for the betterment of her people.

• Bipartisanship ROUND TWO

  • Biden respond by saying that you should question the judgment of people always and that you should work with all sides based on what is needed.

  • Palin responds by saying that she appointed people, has family, and has friends, from all different political backgrounds. She then moves on to attack the Obama camp on jobs. Palin would have won had she stuck to talking about bipartisanship instead of making the question about parties.

• Closing Statements

  • Palin states that McCain and she will fight for all Americans and that as RR put it, we need to always fight for freedom. She then plays the VET card for McCain.

  • Biden counters by saying that the Americans need to get back up (vote D) after being knocked down (from Bush). He blesses us and the troops.

Read more ...

A brief look at the veep debate

Just some things to think of off of the Veep debate (there will be a special update either later Friday or Saturday containing my full analysis of the debate)


Biden was an idiot when he referred to the 1st article of the Constitution as being the executive and thus the mentioning of the Veep in it meant he was. It is legislative and helped Palins argument.
Vice president is legislative as well? Hmmm, the Constitution seems to disagree:
“The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows...”


Palin makes a great point by saying that Alaska is bigger than Delaware, governing a large state is an important test in executive power

I mean, look at the size difference, you can not even see Delaware


However, when we talk about size does the actual size matter or does the population? Let's look at the population of the two:
Delaware - 865,000
Alaska - 670,000
Again, Palin wins in this area as Biden represents only 432,500 persons vs. her 670,000


Palin should stop talking about education and plans therein of hers. For somebody who talks about teaching creationism, she has not real educational groundings.



I like how both sides talked about protecting their children. They are very similar, both have a tough job (Palin with the special needs, Biden with flying to and from Washington daily to take care of his kids after his wife died). The only thing is that neither is doing anything to help the children over all (this will be heavily covered in the special update)


So, if both veeps say that contractual 'marriage' is okay for same sex couples then how the hell do they avoid the 1st when saying no gay marriage.


How is there an argument about change? Sure, both sides are changing, but which one is real and which one is fake?
Straw to Stick or Stick to Brick



Biden seems to have some issues containing his argument; if you are arguing that somebody should not be increasing our debt then don't, especially in the same exact breath, get pissed that they didn't increase spending on some things you wanted.


Both sides refused to answer the questions, Bob Woodworth, shut up.


Ending note, even Palin agrees that it should be Obama [on McCain] “he is the man that needs to leave” Read more ...

An Elitist Leader

Post 54

As I am sitting here typing this at a local coffee house I happened to look up and notice a group of young teen girls. Just wondering, but of the mothers who read this, have you taught your kids how much makeup to wear? If not you should; these girls looked like clowns.

When did it become a political attack to call somebody smart? When did it become acceptable to vote against somebody because they have more experience than you, because they are smarter than you, because they know how to handle money better than yourself? Why is it suicide, politically speaking, to admit that you are superior in mental abilities, in financial logic, or even in governing than the rest of America (especially because at the same time you are trying to argue that you are above the opponent)? Why is it such a crime to be an elitist in American politics? Isn't it more logical that we take these people and place them far above us?

I have never understood why we want somebody who would be a good golf buddy as our president. As Hamel on Trial put it: "..You see a guy from a bar emerging and think, hell, he'll be fuck of a surgeon..." The logic is inescapable, we place a person in charge of us based on the fact that we can be good friends with them, but not because they would be a CEO; this is an illogical move on our parts, but one that we seem doomed to repeat over and over.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think that our leaders should be willing to not know everything. They should know what they are experts in and what they are not. If they get proper advisors, then that is all they need. Yet, any person of average intelligence will not know based on their own experiences what to do in every situation. Our leader should be smart enough to know what to do without advisors, well, to at least know kinda what to do. Do keep in mind, that I mean elitist as a form of intelligence or true superiority (including like Michael Jordan in Basketball), not as favoring the elite. Our president and congressional members should be our leaders, not members of the pack.

So, when you hear Obama going on about McCain owning 7 houses (keep in mind that Cindy owns all 7, 4 of which are used be other members of the family) or McCain explaining that Obama talks down to the US citizens (he should, half of them think we are doing okay right now) take it with a grain of salt. Realize that they are both above the masses (both in social hierarchy positions, their financial independence, and their intelligence). While they might not be above you, they are above the masses. That is where they should be, that is where we want our leaders to be. It is high time that we start electing real leaders, not our beer bringers (this is not an attack on John McCain.)

*MAP UPDATE*

This previous week seemed to be the week of Polls That Barga Had Never Heard Of. Seriously, like 20 new polling groups showed up, released a poll, and died. One thing I have never understood is why they poll places like California and Alaska; seriously people, these polls are useless and a waste of money as they are already known.

So, for the new polls from last week up until 6pm Sunday Night: Nothing, absolutely nothing. There was no change what-so-ever and yet here I was spending about 15 minutes to sort through the polls. That said, Obama is still winning the GE by 2.2 points and the EC race 273 to 265. Interestingly, one of the closer polls happens to be in Minnesota, which is a tipping state.

*END OF MAP UPDATE*

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...

The Double Standard of American Politics - With Commentary from Barga

Post 51

Please remember that the political maps are now located at the end of the posts. I am still unpacking my boxes in my new apartment. You know, it didn't feel like mine until my bed got put in (even though everything was already here)

I was linked from Gaia, Huffington post, some comments on other blogs I participate in, and 5 (yes, 5) different people emailed me to do this entry. Recently, there was a post over at That Minority Thing which happened to discuss the hypocrisy and double standard that exists within politics. I have decided to copy it here and post my responses to each one. As a preview, I find most of these two volumes to be partisan bullshit and not really worth any response. They are comparing a vocal minority to what they think is right, which is pointless in politics.

We need to stop doing this sort of thing, it ruins politics and drowns out legitimate arguments.

My comments, of course, are bolded.

Vol. 1

1. 1. If you’re a minority and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a “token hire.”

   2. If you’re a conservative and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a “game changer.”

      • In this case, both companies have morons in the HR department. One should be hired on merit alone (remember, Merit is not just qualifications, but how you would work with the other members.

2. 1. If you live in an Urban area and you get a girl pregnant you’re a “baby daddy.”

   2. If you’re the same in Alaska you’re a “teen father.” (Actually, according to your own MySpace page you’re an F’n redneck that don’t want any kids, but that’s too long a phrase for the evil liberal media to take out of context and flog morning noon and night).

      • This is an issue of semantics, I do not see the issue here; however, his description of his own self is quite amusing.

3. 1. Black teen pregnancies? A “crisis” in black America.

   2. White teen pregnancies? A “blessed event.”

      • A death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. The issue here is comparing all black pregnancies to ONE white one. Frankly, there needs to be less premarital pregnancies in all racial groupings.

4. 1. If you grow up in Hawaii you’re “exotic.”

   2. Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you’re the quintessential “American story.”

      • The difference here is the narrative, you are comparing a living location to a life story. By doing this the right-side is able to argue one is a exotic danger and the other is your stereotypical American. That said, they are equal when the narrative is out (both exotic and both stereotypical).

5. 1. Similarly, if you name you kid Barack you’re “unpatriotic.”

   2. Name your kid Track, you’re “colorful.”

      • Where was the name 'barack' ever called unpatriotic. This seems to be an attempt by the left-side to make it a personal attack WHILE attacking the name of the DS-kid.

6. 1. If you’re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fulling vetting the individual you’re “reckless.”

   2. A Republican who doesn’t fully vet is a “maverick.”

      • Wait, people were calling Biden a reckless pick?

7. 1. If you say that for the “first time in my adult lifetime I’m really proud of my country” it makes you “unfit” to be First Lady.

   2. If you are a registered member of a fringe political group that advocates secession that makes you “First Dude.”

      • You should be proud of your country as a participating American; however, you need not be proud of its actions. As for the fringe group, Peter O pointed out to me that that was misleading info. Get your facts straight...

8. 1. A DUI from twenty years ago is “old news.”

   2. A speech given without proper citation from twenty years ago is “relevant information.”

      • Both of these are non-issues raised because there is nothing else to say...

9. 1. And, finally, if you’re a man and you decide to run for office despite your wife’s reoccurrence of cancer you’re a “questionable spouse.”

   2. If you’re a woman and you decide to run for office despite having five kids including a newborn with Downs Syndrome… Well, we don’t know what that is ‘cause THAT’S NOT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK!

      • As far as I am aware Edwards was never challenged based on his commitment (or lack thereof) to his wife. If he was, and it was by the same party that is defending Palin, then we have an issue.

   Vol. 2

10. 1. If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you’re a “phoney.”

    2. Get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you’re “well loved.”

       • Obama was called a Phoney, or are you talking about Clinton here? Either way, so what. All democrats are phonies and all Republicans are loved to the right-side. The inverse is true to the left-side.

11. 1. SoyAA says: If you are biracial and born in a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs darn near 2 years and 3 major speeches to “get to know you.”

    2. If you’re white and from a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs 36 minutes and 38 seconds worth of an acceptance speech to know you’re “one of us.”

       • Who determined when America knew a candidate; I sure as hell was not asked.

12. 1. If you give your wife a dap on stage, it’s actually a “terrorist fist jab.”

    2. If your daughter licks her palm so that she can slick down your youngest child’s hair on national TV it’s an “adorable moment.” (Seriously, forget about abstinence only, teach these folks some grooming skills).

       • I am not seeing the likeness here. The far-right called the fist jab terroristic, not the majority of the right.

13. 1. DTD SAYS: If your pastor rails against inequality in the United States of America, you’re an “extremist.”

    2. If your pastor welcomes a sermon by a member of Jews for Jesus who preaches that the killing of Jews by terrorists is a lesson to Jews that they must convert to Christianity, you’re a “fundamentalist.”

       • Fundamentalists are extremists. The Jews for Jesus (thus, not Jews) are the exact same as Wright.

14. 1. If you’re a black man and you use a scholarship to get into college, then work your way up to being the president of the Harvard Law Review, you’re “uppity.”

    2. If you’re a conservative and your parents pay your way to Hawaii Pacific University . . . you only have four more schools to attend over the next five years before you somehow manage to graduate (it might be five more school over the next five years. No one has yet verified whether or not Palin was actually ever registered at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. But, you know how shady people are who ever attended any kind of school in Hawaii).

       • The only person I remember calling Obama Uppity was his own Veep candidate: Biden.

15. 1. SeanOcali says: If you’re 18, white, and get a 16 year old girl pregnant “life happens.”

    2. If you’re 18, black, and impregnate a 16 year old girl, you’re a “registered sex offender.”

       • Depends on the state; either way, the law should be above color.

16. 1. If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of “Change,” it’s just “empty rhetoric.”

    2. If one week before your party’s national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about “Change,” that’s “red meat.”

       • What? McCain is not about change, nor is he about Bush, he is about the positions he has always been. Obama is about change (be that good or bad).

17. And your last lesson for the day:

    1. If you are a Democrat, an Independent, or even a moderate Republican, if you’re female, male, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, bi-racial, multi-ethnic, or GLBT, if you’re a Jew, Gentile, Muslim, agnostic or atheist - “Yes, we can!”

    2. If you’re a pitbull with lipstick from Alaska, “Yup, yup!”

       • This just proves my point that this is nothing but a political attempt to create controversy. People, grow up, and act like bloody adults.

*Map Update*

So, when they release roughly 5000 polls in one week this is nearly impossible for me to do. Obama barely gained anywhere and McCain gained a bunch. Look at the polls your self over at Real Clear Politics yourself if you want to see the more recent update (my info is from Noon on Sunday).

With the new polls release Virginia is now in the McCain camp as is North Dakota. Obama lost ground in almost every state, and thus is getting closer and closer to not being a winner (He lost ground in both NH and NM, both would cost him the election by a few votes). Nationally, McCain had a gigantic spike as he is now +2.3. In the EC count, Obama is still winning with 273 to 265, but it is very close. Next week we will see if this is a bounce due to Palin and the Convention or not.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...