WebProNews

I think his legislative victories and political accomplishments, if any, could probably be summed up in less time then that. I am baffled, and have yet to understand the "Obama Mania" that has swept the country as of late..

It is not unusual for the dead behind the eyes, so called, Hollywood celebrities to be attracted to a candidate like Mr. Obama. They base decisions on how they feel, not on anything factual.

Their bandwagon mentality and blind allegiance to anything liberal, even if it is harmful to the nation, is legend.

But, what is additionally perplexing is that the media searched every nook and cranny of George Bush's record. They pushed, and put in the minds of the general public that GW snorted cocaine, which was never proven.

The memo gate scandal promoted and presented by Dan Rather and company. The drunk driving charge GW had 30 years prior, just happened to leak out a few months before his first election against Al Gore. 

Yet, the media from day one has treated Mr. Obama like he is an American Idol contestant. However, as Sanjia found out, you can only make it so far until someone realizes that you have no talent.

Sooner or later, the same old tune of "hope, change, and inspiration" is nothing more than a motivational novelty act that will eventually fall flat. Most people will vote you off the stage if there is no real substance..

Big media for the most part, has treated us to their own liberal impluses, instead of straight news reporting. They have been in the tank for Obama from the beginning. 

I can't say for sure, but I think things started to change when they were embarrassed by their own sycophantic behavior displayed on a Saturday Night live skit that made fun of reporters fawning over Obama...

It may not have been the exact moment, but they did start to snap out of their Obama coma soon after that. Hence the reason why "preacher gate" is now front and center. Imagine, a comedy show that is created and controlled mostly by liberals, was the impetus to helping the media see themselves for what they are.

Sorry, but no matter what you think of George Bush we have had 52 straight months of job growth and a booming DJI. And yes, I know that things are not going so well right now economically speaking, but that is the ebb and flow of the free market.

George Bush had nothing to do with the credit crunch we are now experiencing. That was the lenders fault for being reckless with the way they issued loans. Free market capitialism goes through a series of ups and downs.

I will take a President who has problems with articulation as long as he cuts taxes, has the courage to put a dent in Al Queda's ability to hurt us, and will not compromise out national security.

Bush, if anything, has done that. More could be done, but that is for another discussion.

I actually feel sympahty for Democrats who have these two pathetic excuses for presidential candidates to choose from. If you think spending in Washington is bad now, wait till either one of them is in the oval office.

Obama already is proposing 150 billion in new spending for all types of social programs. Yea, Yea, I know. You want a stop to the war. No blood for oil, Bush lied, people died, yada, yada.

By the way, all you blood for oil folks out there who said that the only reason we were there was to steal oil from Iraq

How's that workin for us?

All that Iraqi oil we stole has really brought down the price of gas huh? Nice theory guys, but it didn't work out like "Little Bush" planned..

Ok, so, maybe your one big issue is the war. Let's say Obama gets the Presidential nod and he pulls all the troops out of Iraq. Oh wait, he said, in an interview that as President, he has the option of changing his mind.

Ladies and gentlemen the dirty little secret here is that neither candidate with a "D" as their party affiliation will not pull troops out of Iraq if their General's say otherwise.

Even if they do, there will be troops stationed there, to "fight off" any possible insurgent activity. We will have a miliatry footprint in that country for a while, no matter what Hilliary of Obama say..

What happens to this country beyond the Iraq issue? Health care for everybody and provide it without spending more, and raising taxes? If you think health care is bad now, just wait till Uncle Sam gets a hold of it.

Just visit any Veterans Administration hospital. Is that the model you want to copy, then vote Obama, or better yet, Hilliary. Say goodbye to choosing your own doctor. Everyone will now be forced to dive into the same "Government Healthcare" pool.

What about National Security?

How, exaclty, are Democrats going to protect us from what will be an ongoing war with terrorism? They are against wire tapping incoming phone calls from overseas. Military intervention or special operations missions will grind to a halt.

They also want constitutional protections for enemy soldiers captured on the battle field. Do you really want tax payer funded dollars to provide pro bono lawyers to someone who would behead you if they had the chance?

If that is the kind of change you want then please, go ahead and vote for either Democrat. Also, If you think that somehow Bush has destroyed our reputation throughout the world, then vote Democrat. 

Hilliary is ready to go from "day one" and supposedly has extensive foreign policy experience from traveling with Cheryl Crow and Sinbad. Let her negotiate with our enemies. I am sure that they will understand her good intentions.

Sidenote: If our reputation on the world stage was so bad, then how come France and Germany elected conservative prime ministers?

Part of that answer is because even the citizens of that nation were tired of hearing about how bad the United States was being bashed, and complained about from the Chirac government.

Other factors come into play of course, but that was part of the reason for a "regime change"..

Nicolas Sarkozy, the newly elected PM of France even came to congress to praise the US.

When was the last time any French president did that. I will tell you - NEVER!  If there has been,  I was not paying attention at the time..

Do you think that the Israeli conflict, middle east hatred of the United States, Kim Jong-il of North Korea, Hugo, "loved by Sean Penn Chavez" will just become slavish bastions of compromise if Obama gets elected?

Will his "hope & change" message suddenly transcend International borders? Every president for the last 30 years has tried to broker peace in middle east. Even the great Roade Scholar and political genius Bill Clinton tired with little to no success.

Yassar Arafat was offered 90% of what he asked for in a "land for peace" deal and turned it down. He then proceeded to create more havoc for Israel once he got back home.

Hugo Chavez wants to be the South American dictator for life. He cares not about who is in the white house. "Lil Kim Jong -il" is concerned with power, control, money, and whatever he can extract from the US in his never ending quest to make the "bomb"

Not well publicized, but an event that seemed hopeful, was the six party talks with China, Japan, and the United States as three of the major players.

North Korea finally agreed to the multi lateral talks as a result of Chinese pressure, which is really a problem that should be handled by that region only in my opinion. Bush stood his ground and did not meet with PRNK representatives as Kim had requested.

This game has been played before by the little general, with much better results for his bank account.  The Clinton admininstration sent Madaline Albright to negotiate with the pint sized communist during the nineties. At that time, he was developing, but not near the completion of a nuke.

He was given money and oil for a promise to stop his nuclear enrichment, but it was never verified. Kim basically tore up the agreement before the ink was dry, and never stopped any development plans.

Fast forward to the Bush administration. One day, we woke up to find that  Kim Jong Illin detonated a small nuclear weapon on Korean soil.

That seemed to get everyone's attention. Hence, the reason why Bush felt he needed more leverage then just a one on one meeting by involving other countries in the region.

All seemed to go well this time. There was a large amount of cash frozen by US banks that belonged to Kim. On good faith, we were to release that money to Kim in exchange for his agreement to stop development of nukes. Additional concessions were made and a compromise was reached.

Sidenote: North Korea is the largest counterfeiter of American greenbacks.

However, as of late, we still can't get confirmation that he has dismantled everything nuclear.

Currently, he is not allowing inspections. And what Democratic force of nature is going to put pressure on that country to conform? Hilliary? Obama? Me thinks not..

Some people cannot be negotiated with no matter what political party they are from. If you are too peaceful, or do not negotiate from strength, you will be taken advantage of and thought of as a "useful idiot"..

Bush, once again, despite what you might think, at least tried to go into any negotiation with preconditions.

Some would look at that strategy as being stubborn, but it makes sense if previous administrations have been doing the same thing over and over again and producing the same results.

Even that "tact" can leave you without much progress. My point here is that when it comes to foreign policy, no one can promise a particular outcome. Countries have shifting interests, while others exist just to be a thorn in the side of United States.

When it comes to foreign views of "how we are preceived" by other nations, I also don't blame the Bush adminstration for how some countries feel.

If you try to please everyone, you wind up pleasing no one. Personally, I don't care how France, Germany, or any other EU country "feels" about the US.

If anyone in the EU, or anywhere in the world for that matter finds themselves in Military trouble, you can bet their "hauty" sophisticated view of the US will change rapidly. Suddenly they will find a way to make the US their best friend.

Sidenote: Just ask how Indonesia felt when the US came to help them after a sunami devastated that region. Suddenly, a country who thinks Bin Laden is a rock star, and featured on t-shirts, found themselves with the unclean "Infidel" on their soil.

Using Navy hospital ships that were in the area to treat their wounded and dieing, in addition to supplying the population with food and water, seemed to provide a new and more "favorable" perspective of Americans by the citizens of the mostly Muslim nation..

You also have to consider a particular sin that is committed by some countries that reside outside our shores. As unplausible as it may seem to some, the envy factor has a lot to do with how the US is perceived.

There are countries that hate us just for the fact that we exist. The United States is a country that is only 232 years old. Despite our current fiscal shape, we have a robust economy that can suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and still rebound.

Partly, because we have lowered the barrier to the import/export market, making us a major player on the world stage. Are taxes are relatively low, compared to Europe, and I would like to see them lowered a notch still.

Combine that with free market capitalism and creativity, you have a robust economic powerhouse.

Sidenote: Note to those looking for a job..

Hire Obama to be the "financial officer in chief" and you will get highter taxes and less jobs. If you think that it will make you feel good to "tax those corporate fat cats" then jobs will go away..

If the top marginal tax rate enters the 50 to 70% range, or if additional regulations are heaped upon major corporations, then most companies will quite hiring or move their operations overseas "en masse"...

Yes, they are doing that now, but if you make it hard for people to do business, job growth will stagnate with the companies that choose to stay here. It makes no sense to punish successful enterprises and penalize the very people who provide jobs, i.e., corporations.

In addition, a bulk of the hiring in this country comes from small business. If you really want to stifle job growth, then just make it harder for small business to grow. Increase payrolls taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes and you will effectively destroy the job market.

The Government wastes about 50 cents of every dollar it collects. When was the last time you got a line item expense report telling you what they spend your tax dollars on year after year?

It just makes more sense for people to keep more of their money, corporate owner, and individual alike, instead of spending it for a "Woodstock Museum" like Hilliary Clinton did for the state of New York.

Other foreign nations have been around for thousands of years and still manage to perpetuate social, governmental, and financial kaos in their country of origin.

The United States, for whatever reason, is always a convenient scape goat when things go wrong within the borders of our foreign critics. There has been a boiling pot of distain for the US that goes deeper then just who is occupying the white house at any particular time.

Sidenote: Remember this saying from Lord Palmerston..

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” Lord Palmerston quotes (English Statesman, 1784-1865)

And if those interests require that foreign nationals put their thumb in the eye of the United States for political or economic reasons, then there will be no hesitation on the part of said country.

The bottom line here is this. Folks, when it comes to rendering your choice for a president, just be careful what you wish for. Pay close attention to what candidates do, not what they say.

Look at how they voted in the past, and what, if any legislative accomplishments they can be credited with. You can find out what you congressmen or Senator is voting on here: http://www.house.gov/

Inspiration and change are great if this country had 10% percent unemployment, or massive inflation and problems that are within the realm of Government control.

Sorry, but I am an optimist. I don't think the country is in that bad of shape, to give the socialist wing of the Democratic party of shot at running this country.

The free market is not a Government run enterprise. I do not believe , as Ms. Clinton proclaimed, that you should take money from oil companies "for the common good". That is socialism, plain an simple.

If the Government takes over of Health Care like Ms. Clinton proposed in the 90's, you will destroy your choice of doctors and put good medica care in the hands of bureacrats.

If you can't get a license from the motor vehicle in less than an hour, could you imagine the wait you will have if you are in a government sponsored health care program?

Do not get "spun" by excellent prose or charasmatic speaking skills.

Most will try to offer you a yellow brick road of promises. Look behind the  curtain and you will won't find a political Wizard living in the Land Of Oz, that is Washington, DC.

Any real, positive, major change, be it social or economic, will never be initiated by most Government entities, but in the private sector. It has to be built on a solid foundation of "reality" not on the basis of "hope".

Robert C - The Wholesale Products Guy