SamSaid!

CHANGE

I am increasingly amused at the way in which the Presidential candidates have latched onto the electioneering watchword, “Change”. When is the last time you have heard a candidate who did NOT advocate change. They all do — it's a given. Mr Obama would have you believe that he had discovered a political axiom that is comparable to re-inventing the wheel. “I will be the agent of change”. Really?
Like change what? Change from X to Y or Z?? It is discouraging to see so many dimwits buying this garbage without pursuing the followup questions. Specify, please. Take a simple example. It is commonly conceded that Social Security is financially unsound and has to be changed. Pray tell, Hillary or Obama, how would you change the system? Higher taxes, lower benfits, different eligibility. what?? They will give you all of the glorious generalities and buzzwords, but no specifics. Glib generalities won't cut it. How many TV journalists will keep their feet to the fire?? They will take you for a trip around th barn, but no direct answer. Only the grand goal of “change”. Does that kind of pitchmanship earn a vote.
Not from this end.

SPECIAL INTERESTS

During the early 2008 primary election campaigns, Obama, Edwards and Hillary practically salivated every time they turned a phrase about those evil, terrible, odious “special interests” in Washington DC. It is these organizations, they say, that are at the heart if the ills that plague us. Of course, these special interests, by definition, are lobbyists (some), and greedy money hungry companies or corporations. But just who really are these special interests?

Perhaps a key question is, aside from elected officials, “Who in Washinton is NOT a special interest?” Labor Unions? Sierra Club? ACLU? NAACP? NOW? Pro-choice? Anti-abortion pro life? NRA?? Green enviros?
Can anyone name an organization that espouses a cause that is NOT a special interest? Not hardly. All of the preceding examples qualify — eminently. They all are special interests. But the Dems don't like to concede that. They prefer to keep using their code words meaning, Oil, Steel, electronics, agribusisses, i.e., anyone in business to make money. Is George Soros a special interest? And if not, why not?

And when these Dems talk abiut creating more jobs, just who is going to hire people? And pay them? I think they know as much about economics as a pig knows about Sunday.

When any group of people tries to influence the vote of an elected offical, they become an interest group seeking to advance their own cause. But the Dems seek to have you believe that only they can identify the good ones from the bad ones. If a lobbyist is hired to support a Democrat program, that is OK, but when the lobbyist supports the cause of business, he (she) becomes evil and bad, bad, bad.

When I listen to these candidates and hear the term “special interests” I try to break the code to see exactly who they mean. If you really want to go to the heart of a prominent special imterest organization, the Trial Lawyers would be a good place to start. If the Dems really seek bi-partisanship,the Lawyers are the bullseye!!

RUDY
Rudy Giuliani beat me to it. With the amount of time and money he spent in Florida, most observers felt that he would draw substantial support. It must have been a major disappointment to see the lack of support from Florida Republican voters. He really didn't have much alternative than to withdraw from the race. I figured that he would pull out, but he certainly didn't waste much time. Several thoughts come to mind.
First, he may have overplayed his 9/11 reputation and heroics. Time has a way of dimming those memories. Second, in his personal life, he carries heavy baggage, especially in southern climes. But maybe moreso, he conveys the image of a New Yorker — a north eastern Brahmin — and that just doesn't play that well in the south. Just as the Southern vote may be termed provincial, the northeastern vote can be comparably assessed. Sorry, Rudy. Wrong time, wrong place, wrong message….. and wrong strategy.
He withdrew from the race before I had a chance to recommend that he do so. Can't be all bad!

EDWARDS

At this point, I think he is just along for the ride. His class warfare only goes so far. He made a ton of money from class action law suits and wants to spend it on his personal missions. He should know by now that his message is falling on deaf ears. If he stays in the race, about all he will get is a couple more TV spots on the Sunday AM talk shows. Sorry John, no waves — only ripples.

HILLARY

Mrs Clinton had her eyes on the Presidency some time back. Little doubt about her aspirations. Absent that long range goal, she probably would have dumped Bill in between girl friends before Monica. No question, Hillary carries baggage. She has hard core supporters who will not abandon her. Likwise ahe has entrenched foes whose oppostion wil not flag. No polls needed to verify these voting blocs. As far as the “in betweens” go, Hillary can be her own worst enemy, and Bill may not be helping her cause. It is hard to imagine Bill Clinton playing second fiddle to anyone.

Some of the pundits have it right. It is the “Billary' campaign. South Caroline made that very clear. My guess is that Hillary's negatives will outweigh her left wing support, and in the long run, Bill will be an anchor around an ankle. Becoming the nominee may be her high water mark.

She had it all figured out — and then along came Obama.

ELECTION 08
Now that we are essentially beyond the preliminaries it is time to take a closer look at our Presidential nominees. They all have given us a good look at what they have to offer.

First, OBAMA.
Mr Obama is a youthful energetic, bright guy. He is handsome, well spoken, generally knowledgeable, ambitious, and street smart. Time will tell whether he is glib, articulate,or eloquent. That is always a concern since we have very recently experienced a President whose eloquence downgraded to glibness. Like, maybe, “It depends upon what the definition of is..is”.
A concern about Obama is depth. Sometimes articulation can conceal real knowledge and understanding. Problem is that his background and experience are very shallow indeed. THere is litle doubt about his character and personal attributes. However, I have trouble imagining him face to face with Putin or the Chinese or the self centered Euros at the UN. And that is to say nothing about the in fighting inside the beltway. Also, his managerial skills are very much in doubt — to say nothing about international financial know-how.

When I think about Obama, I think of a very talented 1st Lieutenant who aspires to be the Commanding General is one big jump. Sorry, Mr Obama — not now.

PATRIOT

When it comes to current day American Patriots. John McCain stands at the head of the list. We need more leaders like him. He is a candidate for the Presidency, but I don't think he will make it onto the Nov 08 ballot. John just doesn't seem as energetic and motivated as he was 4-8 years ago. I guess his time has come and gone.
No matter what happens in the primary elections, McCain has left his mark on the Iraq War controversy with one telling comment when he said, “When we set a withdrawal date, we also set the date of surrender”. He understands that and so do many others. But the looneys of the left do not. They are still trying to convince themselves that there is an easy way out.

If ever we had a guy who has “been there, done that” it is John McCain. I don't think Arrach Omega (Sp ?)can pick up his shoes.

BONDS

ON AUGUST 7TH, BARRY BONDS HIT HIS 756TH HOME RUN AND BECAME THE ALL-TIME HOME RUN HITTER IN PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL HISTORY. HE BROKE THE RECORD PREVIOUSLY HELD BY HENRY AARON OF THE ATLANTA BRAVES AND HE NOW BECOMES THE RECORD HOLDER…. WELL, SORT OF. IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS A HUGE QUESTION ABOUT BONDS AND HIS HOMER HITTING —— THAT BEING HIS USE OF PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. A SIMPLE TRANSLATION IS THAT BONDS CHEATED TO GET HIS HIGHLY SOUGHT RECORD.

BY VIRTUALLY ANY YARDSTICK, BONDS IS ONE OF THE TOP TEN HITTERS IN BASEBALL HISTORY. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO CHEAT TO WIN THAT STATUS. BUT BEING THE HOME RUN KING IS ANOTHER MATTER. AARON HAS BEEN GRACIOUS, BUT THE BASEBALL MOGULS HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM ON THEIR HANDS. DO THEY IGNORE THE CHEATING BY BONDS AND RECOGNIZE HIS RECORD, OR DO THEY NEGATIVELY LABEL A BLACK ICON AS THE DRUGGIE THAT HE IS?

BONDS IS STILL PLAYING AND WILL NO DOUBT HIT MORE HOME RUNS. BUT NO MATTER HOW THE DRUG ISSUE IS SETTLED, THERE WILL ALWAYS
BE A DARK CLOUD HANGING OVER BONDS AND THE WAY HE INGESTED DRUGS TO GAIN HIS OBJECTIVE. HE CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT. THAT DARK CLOUD WILL NOT GO AWAY AS LONG AS BASEBALL RECORDS ARE KEPT AND DISCUSSED.

LITERATURE HAS THE “SCARLET lETTER” — “A”. NOW BASEBALL HAS IT'S OWN “SCARLET LETTER” — “C”.

PHOTO ID

IN THE HUGE HASSLE OVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, THE QUESTION OF A NATIONAL PHOTO ID CARD HAS COME UP TIME AND AGAIN, BUT FOR REASONS HARD TO UNDERSTAND, IT JUST DOESN'T GET MUCH TRACTION AND MOMEMNTUM. CIVIL LIBERTARIANS AND VARIOUS OTHER INTEREST GROUPS ARE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THE NOTION, BUT MOST OF MY FRIENDS SO NO PROBLEM WITH SUCH A CARD WHEN WE HAVE 12-20 MILLION PEOPLE HERE IN THE COUNTRY WHOSE NAMES, WHEREABOUTS AND IDENTITY ARE UNKNOWN TO US. THAT'S AN AWFUL LOT OF STRANGERS IN OUR MIDST. AND ADD TO THAT THE MANY SITUATIONS WHERE WE CITIZENS ALREADY ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE IDs WITH PHOTOS ATTACHED. WHEN WE THINK OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DRIVERS LICENSE, BOARDING AIRCRAFT, LIBRARY CARDS, LISTING A TELEPHONE,OPENING A BANK ACCOUNT ETC., ETC., THIS WHOLE NOTION OF SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFO ALMOST SEEMS SILLY. RIGHT NOW, I HAVE TO DISCLOSE THE MAIDEN NAME OF MY DECEASED MOTHER JUST TO DEPOSIT OR CASH A CHECK AT MY OWN BANK.

GRANTED, THERE WOULD BE PROBLEMS WITH A NATIONAL PHOTO ID CARD FOR EVERYONE. BUT WE ALSO HAVE PROBLEMS — BIG PROBLEMS — WITHOUT ONE. SO, IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGING UP FRONT THAT PROBLEMS WILL PLAGUE BOTH APPROAHES? AND THEN TRY TO SETTLE FOR THE LESSER OF 2 EVILS?? IF THERE IS NO FOOTPROOF SYSTEM, WHY NOT SETLE FOR THE BETTER OF THE TWO.

DO YOU THINK THAT OUR LEADERS CAN GRASP THIS SIMPLE APPROACH??

SOMEHOW, THE BASIC IDEA OF 12-20 MILLION UNIDENTIFIED STRANGERS IN OUR MIDST IS NOT COMFORTING. WHAT KIND OF A DISASTER WILL IT TAKE
TO REGISTER ON THE TERRORIST RICHTER SCALE??

IMMIGRATION AND KATRINA

This whole issue over illegal immigration is a very prickly problem. Tackling it is about like embracing a suguaro cactus, squeezing it hard and then trying to pick it up. Those familiar with these Arizona cacti would not recommend such a fond embrace. So now we have all of our Washington DC braintrust in a stalemate, mustering all of their political power to do nothing, presumably with the hope that the issue will go away. After all, the problem was not always 12 Million Illegals. It grew to be that big over 2-3 decades , and will no doubt get bigger. From this vantage point, it is my judgment that NOBODY in our leadership is qualified or capable of handling a problem this big. Think of it — a three generational socio-eco-politico problem of 12 Million people, headed for 20 Million. And this will fall to half baked politicians pandering for votes??

Maybe our politicios should look to the experience of Hurricane Katrina. It was a disaster for New Orleans for sure, with all kinds of problems vying for attention. In the last analysis, after the urgent life threatening matters were addressed, the main effort was to fixed the damaged dikes and stop the flood waters from pouring into the portions of New Orleans that are under sea level. With the dikes repaired, the process of pumping flood water out of the city and re-building the city could begin. Doesn't sound all that complicated to me. It makes sense that the problems couldn't be fixed until the flood was stopped.

Is that so different (conceptually) from the illegal immigration issue? Shouldn't we stop the in-flow to control the size of the problem(s)and then tackle the problems of how to handle 12 million people who are already here? Let's stop the flood and then pump out the city.

One thing at a time — in the right order.