About Me

Name: Jen B
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Last night's debate

Well, once again I flipped on FoxNews and tuned in for another debate last night. Clinging tightly to my Bible and my gun within reach (not really, but what do you expect from a bitter middle classer in PA), I sat and watched the two men who want to be President go back and forth on several issues. Let me just say, I thought the majority of the questions were good. At least this time we actually had questions that didn’t focus on the last two debates completely. The economy questions were a given, but I thought McCain did well last night.

I think Obama was on the defensive, but McCain could have added more power to his jabs by mentioning some other facts. Before I get into the list of things I think he should have touched upon let me just say this – don’t these people have staff that funnel news articles, etc. to them about various aspects of their opponent. I mean really, why is it that McCain didn’t go more in depth on several issues. Is it because he doesn’t want to? Is it because he doesn’t know it? Or, is it restraints of the format in the debate, etc.? I’d like to know because Obama misrepresents himself quite often and no one seems to call him on it, except for Sarah Palin.

The list that I think McCain should have pounced on more were as follows:

-         Taxes: Perhaps it would interest people that about 30% of that 95% don’t pay taxes into the system, so they would actually just be getting a check from the government. Can we say welfare? Plus, what about the Bush tax cuts? If Obama lets those cuts fade away, won’t most middle income earners have their taxes raised. I’ve seen articles that say those earners making between $30,000-$90,000 will actually have their taxes increase by about $4,000.

-         Associations: Instead of asking about Obama’s relationship with Ayers, McCain should have set the stage for Obama to refute or confirm the relationship he has with Ayers. For instance, picture this question, “Senator Obama, in a recent CNN investigation, it was uncovered that you have worked with Bill Ayers - who's an unrepentant terrorist that bomb the Pentagon and other buildings, and who has proclaimed himself as a 'communist' with a little 'c' - on a number of boards that have to do with education in the city of Chicago, i.e. Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Foundation. This relationship has spanned from the time you launched your state senate campaign in his living room to the time you shared a stage with him at an event planned by your wife discussing education. Also from that CNN investigation, one could see that your relationship with Ayers was not how you first described it, ‘just someone I knew from my neighborhood’, or how you next described him as, ‘I knew him because our kids went to school together,’ which isn’t true since his children are now full grown and your children are not. So, perhaps you could clear up any confusion that those in the American public might have with regards to your relationship with William Ayers and provide them with the true relationship between the two of you.” Next up would be ACORN. “Senator Obama would you please explain how you can say you don’t have any ties to ACORN when in your days as a community organizer you worked as a trainer for the Chicago area chapter. As well as throughout your senate elections and career, you've shown support to that organization. Not to mention that in December 2007 at their conference you said that you would make sure that they were invited to your administration’s White House to set agendas for the country. These are the same people that are now under investigation for fraud. Would you mind explaining the relationship further?” I too would have brought up Reverend Wright because that relationship also illustrates Senator Obama’s judgment. How can you sit in a church for 20 years that preaches hatred towards this country and not agree with what is said? Especially, since one of your memoirs features one of the preacher's sermon titles?

-         Abortion: He could have nailed Obama on the ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ that he promised to NARAL in the first 100 days of his administration. Not to mention that the same legislation that he opposed to give aborted children a fighting chance was supported by those in the US Senate that are pro-choice.

-         Healthcare plan: “Senator Obama, why would any small business keep paying for healthcare plans when they can dump them off and have their employees pick up the government plan. I mean this eliminates competition.

-         Education: “Senator Obama, you tout how the oil companies have such obscene profits and how much they have increased over the years. Sir, would you tax Universities that have increased their costs from 1986 to today by 423%? And, Senator, many colleges and Universities hold numerous endowments in their accounts; would you encourage them to spend those endowments by taxing them hardily? Perhaps the universities and colleges could 'spread the wealth' around.”

I’m just trying to figure out where all this money is going to come from in these two campaigns. Our country is out of money and no one is admitting to that fact. We have to cut spending drastically.

Anyway, I thought McCain did well. I would just encourage him to flush out more by stating the facts and getting them out there and allow Obama the chance to refute or twist them. Even if Obama tries to refute it, McCain still ignites the facts for people to come to their own conclusion. It’s all about making a good argument.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Get in the ring and throw some punches...

First, let me just say that I enjoyed the VP debate last night. I think Sarah Palin did a great job. I know this might not mean much coming from one of those 'bitter clingers' in Small Town, Pennsylvania (sorry, not holding a gun right now), but I thought she did a fantastic job of holding her own. The only thing that I would say that is lacking in McCain's campaign is that they need to throw out more facts and punches towards Obama. Believe me, I don't need to tell you there are plenty of things to hurl towards Obama: policies, associations, votes, and judgments. (And please, I keep hearing about Obama putting forth legislation about Fannie and Freddie in the Senate. However, I don't recall this and I haven't been able to find evidence of this. So, why not ask the question?) But the thing that I can't understand is why the McCain campaign isn't going after members of Congress that were clearly involved in perpetuating the Fannie and Freddie debacle.
 
I didn't get to see the original airing of the O'Reily interview with Barney Frank, but I did get to see a snippet of it on the web. Thank you, Bill, for standing up and throwing a punch. Look, I'm just as angry that Republicans didn't push harder in the years they were in control of both Houses, but we have evidence that they did try to reform those GSEs. In contrast to that, we also have evidence of sitting Congressman that deny there was a problem with Fannie and Freddie.
 
So, why is the McCain campaign not highlighting these facts? Look, I understand he's trying to stay above partisan politics, but look these people had a job to do and they didn't do it. I'm not looking at political parties, I'm looking at the fact they failed to do what was entrusted to them to do. The ethics in our Congress is pretty much shot and the trust and faith of the American public in our government 'leaders' (and I do use the term loosely) are severly floundering. I mean how many of us would keep our jobs if we had a 10% approval rating.
 
The McCain camp needs to throw some punches. He doesn't have to distribute knock-out blows, but he needs to show that he is the true reformer and that he's fighting for the American people to make ensure and show that their trust is important to him and his administration. Sarah Palin does a good job communicating with typical Americans (remember, we're clinging to our guns and religion); perhaps, she should take up that fight and get a few jabs in on that front. She's considered a Washington outsider, so that would be an appropriate battle for her to take up.
 
Come on McCain get into the fight and throw some punches...just some thoughts.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And now I remember why I stopped watching network news...

Well, last night I sat down and pain-stakingly watched Charlie Gibson's "interview" of Sarah Palin. I say pain-stakingly because I started to develop chest pains from yelling at the television. I wanted to give Gibson a chance and see how he treated Palin in this interview. I like to see things for myself and make up my own mind about it. Well, let me just say, did anyone else imagine an old woman staring down her glasses at you telling you, "you don't know what you're talking about, dearie." I swear I don't think I've ever seen an interview where the interviewer had such condescension in his tone. Don't get me wrong, interviews should have tough and honest questions. But Gibson didn't ask honest questions, and a lot of the time his arrogance permeated through his speech. Not only were some of his 'facts' incorrect, something that could have been checked on various non-partisan websites like FactCheck.org, but his apparent disdain for even being in Alaska came across to me (sparcely populated state comment). I don't know, maybe it was just me.
 
First, the biography at the beginning didn't bring out all the facts and seemed to smack her in the face. Second, his questions were not framed very well. I was an English major in college, and while I wasn't in broadcasting, we did do quite a bit of interviews, peer reviews, etc. It seemed to me that he didn't really want honest answers, he just wanted to trap her in something that he could brag about later. Perhaps the question, if you can call it that, was when he asked her about her/McCain's tax policy. He described Obama's tax plan and said that 'clearly this would benefit the middle class...' I couldn't believe the way he framed that question. When in fact, earlier in the primaries Obama was caught in sayin that 'raising taxes wasn't about increasing government revenue but instead it was about fairness' (I am paraphrasing what he said when he was informed that raising taxes does not increase government revenues, tax cuts do.)  But something Gibson forgot to say in the interview was that Obama recently said he wouldn't rescind Bush's tax cuts on the 'wealthy 1 percent' if there was a recession. That naturally begs the question, why raise taxes then at all.
 
So, to make a long story short, I think Gibson looked down his nose at her as a small town gal, who doesn't know her foreign or domestic policy because she hasn't met the right people. But how is it that she actually described the NATO agreement more accurately than Mr. Gibson did. We small town gals may not have met world leaders, or traveled to foreign countries extensively; however, amazingly enough we know how to read, which can open doors to almost every corner of the world. I would say that Sarah Palin did very well with the questions she had to work with. I don't think Gibson did himself any favors in his interview. I think he came across very arrogant, perturbed, and very condenscending. I really think all of this disdain and mocking from the 'Left Wing' is going to backfire on them.
 
We shall see in a little over 50 days.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And it's a Grand Slam!

I don't know about anyone else, but I thoroughly enjoyed Sarah Palin's speech last night. Romney did alright: I always enjoy when he talks economics. Huckabee had some good points: I loved the story of the teacher and her student's, reminding them that freedom comes with a cost and our soldiers pay the price every day. I enjoyed Rudy's point, and I'll paraphrase: Obama looked to the past to pick his VP. McCain looked to the future with his. I couldn't agree more.
 
As much as I know about Sarah Palin, (and I pray she's all that) I think she's exactly what this country is hungry for, what we've been asking for. We want a leader who goes to serve the public, not special interests, media, or their own self-interests. (Did you cheer when she made the comment about the media and how she's going to serve the American people, not get in their good graces and 'rub elbows'? I'm paraphrasing.) I'm realistic and realize there isn't any perfect candidate; and truly, I don't want perfection - I want a statesman who holds the Constitution near and dear to his heart and serves the people.
 
Sarah Palin's discussion of energy was a home run. She understands our need to get off foreign oil and providing for ourselves. She also highlighted the growth that America will get from providing energy for ourselves. (Think of all the jobs created for oil rigs on the Outer Continental Shelf [and I'd love to see the 2,000 acre plot in ANWR opened] and the jobs for clean coal, nuclear facilities, etc.) The jobs stay here and so does the majority of the energy. (If only she'd talk to John McCain about how bad an idea Cap and Trade will be for our economy.) We become self-sufficient and we are no longer held hostage by foreign nations that would try to ration our energy to make us see things 'their way'. She also showed her foreign energy expertise when she addressed Russia's dangerous strangle hold on Europe and their recent incursion into Georgia to cut off the pipeline in the Caucasus.
 
Her poise and her demeanor during the whole speech was fantastic. The 'zingers' she presented on Obama were well delivered and hard-hitting. (I laughed so hard. I enjoyed the point she made about his legislative track record: he hasn't introduced meaningful legislation, or reform issues since his arrival in the Senate, or even when he was in the Illinois State Senate. He's never taken on his own party. I also enjoyed her 'bitter clinger' comment. Since, I am a 'bitter clinger to my religion and my guns' living in Pennslyvania.) And I think her comment on the 'do-nothing' Congress was totally accurate. I believe conservatives have really found a voice in Sarah Palin. She's not afraid to take on her own party. That is rare, but a very welcomed change! (Note: Obama's campaign has repeatedly said that McCain agreed with Bush 90% of the time. And that may be true, I haven't crunched the numbers; however, what is Barack's percentage on voting against his party's line?) I am a conservative, and while I'm a registered Republican, I don't give unconditional allegiance to the party. Before the VP announcement, I was leaning to pull the lever for Bob Barr. And now, Sarah Palin has changed the game. It doesn't mean I can pull it for McCain, but it does make me rethink my vote.
 
What a grand slam, Sarah! Congratulations on a great speech and all of your accomplishments! I look forward to hearing more from you!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Christian Perspective on Governor Palin attacks...

On my previous blog, I commented on how much I liked McCain's pick of Governor Sarah Palin. This has not changed. So, this evening, as I have been reading several articles, I've noticed that most of the attacks on Palin focus on her home life. Funny, I don't recall any of her family members campaigning for her, which would bring them to the front and perhaps make them easier targets. This in contrast to Mrs. Obama, who did campaign for her husband, very Marxistly might I add. And yet now we don't seem to see her in the forefront. (I can't imagine why.) And yet only a few months ago, Senator Obama told the press and others to back off of his wife. I just want to make sure I have it correct: Michelle, who campaigns for her husband quite vocally (and she has the right to do that), is to be left alone; however, the children (most of them minors) and husband of Governor Palin, who have not to my knowledge openly campaigned for her in this race, are drug through the mud and muck. I just want to make sure I've got that down.
 
I think Mr. Colmes of Hannity & Colmes should rethink his strategy, as well as other bloggers on the numerous websites. Mr. Colmes is alleging/suggesting that Governor Palin and her husband eloped because she became pregnant. And that may well be true. I don't know. However, he also made a snide remark about 'how can she be a Christian?' Well, as an Evangelical Christian I will say this, "Who, sir, are you to say Christ's grace isn't sufficient to cover sin?" I was not born perfect, as my parents and siblings seem to love to point out on numerous occasions. The fact of the matter is, as Christians, yes we are called to a live differently and set ourselves apart from the world. That doesn't mean we don't ever sin. We are to try everyday to live as scripture calls us to live and follow Jesus' example. I've made mistakes in my life that I don't proclaim to the world, but I do bring them before the Lord and I know my Lord's grace and mercy are sufficient! I stand convicted of the sin, ask for His forgiveness, and He gives it to me. And then I go out the next day and try my best not to fall into that sin, along with others, again.
 
My church's mission statement, if you will, is 'Becoming Like Jesus - Head, Heart, Hands, Knees and Feet'.  We, as Christians, are always a work in progress. We don't achieve perfection until we stand before the Lord. We are made complete in Him. And as a Christian, I'm sure Governor Palin communes regularly with God and asks Him to guide her in her choices. And whatever sin Governor Palin has is between her and the Lord.
 
Perhaps, political pundits should stick to politics. I'm just sayin'.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »