The College Conservative

Rough Start for the Democrats

2009-01-14T21:06:00.000-08:00

Coming off a huge election win, both in the Presidential and Congressional elections, it looked as though the Democrats were riding on an unstoppable wave. I'd think twice though, having seen their less-than-stellar start to 2009.

So everyone's aware of Blagojevich. Old news, boring, washed up, we're sick of hearing about him. So I'm not going to write on that, you know the story. But I would like to point this situation out, just to help illustrate my point.

In Baltimore City, good ole Mayor Sheila Dixon was indicted on 12 counts. Good luck getting yourself out from that one, Mayor...especially with attorneys having been hard at work on this case for months.

Who else is under the radar? Dood, Spitzer, Richardson, etc. It's been a rocky start for the Democratic party, who suddenly has found themselves knee-deep in cases that they really don't want to be handling.

So what does this mean for the Obama administration? People have already cast a wary eye on the President-Elect, and the hype has significantly died down since the election ended. Granted, we will see a rebirth of that come Inauguration Day, but for now we see a sense of uneasiness among the Democratic Party. What would be the result of the emergence of an Obama scandal? It's hard to tell, but his links throughout the corrupted party (Blago, Richardson, etc.) ive us reason to be wary.

The Illinois Senate Seat

2008-12-30T16:54:00.000-08:00

Admittedly, I'm bad at this "I'll post again next year" thing. I just feel like I should keep posting when I see interesting things now.

So obviously, story of the day today is Blagojevich naming a replacement to the Illinois Senate Seat. Now, I'm not from Illinois, so I don't have a solid idea of the political climate there (I judge it based on my preconceptions...I'm pretty sure they're right), but it feels like this was a really ridiculous move on the Governor's part.

I think it's a long shot to say that the appointment will actually pass. The chances of someone being seated by Hot Rod's recommendation seem slim to none, giving the current situation in which he finds himself. I have to say though, I'm thoroughly surprised that he would come out and pull something like this, I can't imagine his logic -- how he thinks that this would be warmly embraced by the people of America (or, more importantly, Illinois).

I'm a fan of the idea that we should just have a special election...but I guess the issue is that there isn't really time for nominating, campaigning, electing, and determining the result. I mean, that's an ideal situation...but unrealistic. That aside, I think Illinois should just forfeit that Senate seat until the next mid-term election (radical? Maybe. Appropriate? Absolutely).

Caroline Kennedy, You Know?

2008-12-29T10:34:00.000-08:00

Maybe I did say "See you in 2009!" At the end of yesterday's post, but this was far too good to pass up. I have admittedly been behind on my political news until today, but I finally got to see the interview with, you know, Caroline Kennedy about, you know, the New York Senate seat.

Now I don't dislike Caroline Kennedy (frankly, I don't know much more than that she's a Catholic, Democrat, and a Kennedy). But she seems a little bit less liberal than a lot of politikers that come out of New York politics, and I'm not at all opposed to her filling Clinton's Senate seat (Anyone But Clinton, right?). Just so long as I don't have to listen to her speak. She's smart and all, sure, but I can't stand hearing "you know" in between every single phrase. And it might seem like I'm just looking for flaws or whatever, but I'm not. Like I said, I don't hate her. Just hate having to listen to her speak.

It's my 2 cents. I'm not really sure. We'll see how that Senate seat falls.

Side Note: I'm having surgery Wednesday, so depending on how it goes I'll either be too exhausted to post, or too bed ridden to do anything but post. So we'll see how it goes...wish me luck.

Double Post! Two-In-One! I Swear I'm Back Now!

2008-12-28T14:56:00.000-08:00

I've really been behind. I guess it's just disappointment with the lack of political scandal and mystery. But anyway, I'm gonna get rolling on some things that I've been begging to talk about.

SO, Change is gonna come, right? We've been hearing it from the Obama campaigns since primary season, and I'm frankly a little bit confused as to where all this change is gonna come from.

-Joe Biden? He's been in Washington since 1973. He's been a part of the problem, what makes you think he can be the solution as ell, Mr. President?

-Hillary Clinton? Don't even get me started. She has been the posterchild of Political Error since she decided that "First Lady" roles weren't going to be enough back in 2001. Frankly, I think she was best suited for the role of First Lady of Arkansas, but those days are long gone, I suppose.

-Robert Gates? Don't get me wrong, I love Gates. But is this change? Not exactly. Give me something, Barack. I'm tired of recycled cabinet members.

I dunno, maybe there's something I don't know going on, but I don't really like the way the Cabinet is shaping up for the next four years. I mean, I'd like to see change (it's why I voted for McCain), and I really don't car who brings it, as long as it comes. Unfortunately, showing me the same people I've been seeing is Washington since I was a toddler isn't helping much.

I've decided not to even get started on Blago. I'm so sick of hearing about him in the news, and frankly don't want to be part of the problem. Just another example of the Illinois Political Machine, right?

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt! Gosh, I'm angry with the Bailout ruling. I think it's a failure across the board. I don't care that they employ millions, I'm a firm believer in the free market, and it's not like those people will never work again. Without the Big Three here, I'm sure we'll see either a) The emergence of a new auto company, or b) The expansion of European or Asian companies into America. I mean, Detroit's just spilling over with warehouses and parts...it would be a shame to see all that go to waste.

Let the free market decide: it's what we do best, America.

PART 2! 2008, A Year in Review!

I'm going to sum up the entire political season of 2008 in two paragraphs or less. it will be rapid fire.

New President! America seems pretty happy, I'm not. Mitt goes down early (all skies darken across the nation). McCain wins early, Democrats can't make up their mind. Obama wins, bitter Hillary supporters defect (but come bak when they realize they don't want to be Republicans). Vice Presidential picks are surprising...Joe Biden hooks onto the Obama train, Sarah Palin comes out of nowhere to become the Republican party's postergirl (I'm excited, are you?). Obama wins in November, McCain gives an amazing concession speech. The cabinet doesn't live up to expectations. Blagojevich tries to sell the Illinois Senate Seat, and will Coleman and Franken make up their minds? Good grief.

See y'all in 2009! (Or, if something big happens early this week).

Long Time No See

2008-12-19T08:31:00.001-08:00

Yea, it's been forever since I've posted here. Things have gotten pretty hectic with end-of-semester work and finals week. I'm down to one final to go, though, so I expect I'll have a whole lot more free time on my hands soon.

There's a lot that needs to be talked about: The bailout, Blago, the cabinet, etc. I promise I'll try to get my head back into the game.

Post with ya soon!

So What's Next For The Republican Party?

2008-11-05T14:07:00.000-08:00

The election has come and gone, and our nation has selected Barack Obama for our next President. I was strongly behind McCain, but I extend my sincerest congratulations to Senator Obama, he ran a heck of a campaign, one of the most monumental campaigns in a long time. It was a hard fought fight, and I'm glad to finally see it resolved.

I could write for hours, days, weeks, months, etc. about what Obama did right, what McCain did wrong, what worked, what didn't, etc., but that seems to be the topic off too many blogs today, I'm sure you can find some pretty good answers to those questions.

So the next step for the Republicans? They're definitely in a "rebuilding" phase. With the Democrats in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, the GOP has nothing to do but look to the future. So what exactly is the Republicans' future?

First and foremost, the party needs a strong leader. Unification needs to be number one on the GOP's priorities list. Very few people have stood out as being outstanding leaders for the Republican party, and although I'm sure some people will present themselves as viable candidates for the presidency over the next four years, there are four people now that I think the GOP may be looking towards.

1. Number one on a lot of people's minds, despite unpopularity, is Sarah Palin. Although she has been targeted constantly by the Democrats, she has brought an energy to the Republicans that they have not seen in a long time. Clearly, the key issue surrounding Palin is experience, and over the next couple years, she'll need to start to develop that experience if she wants to have any shot at the 2012 election. She has already proved herself a great speaker, as well as a strong campaigner. I think, with a firm grasp on the issues, she could be a great administrator.

2. Rudy Giuliani. Another controversial figure, but another Republican ignitor. Despite his pro-choice leanings, Giuliani has always been one of the foremost figures in Republican politics. He has a way of inspiring an audience, and also possesses the leadership abilities/credentials that could lead him to the White House. He may have shown poorly in the primaries this year, but I wouldn't count him out for the future. He's certainly still in the pool for 2012.

3. My third choice is someone a little less known in federal politics, but not someone that I think the GOP has ever really ruled out of their mix. My third option for the Republican party is former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland Michael Steele. Although he has not shown campaigning strength, he has shown excellent leaderhsip in his political experience. His controversy? He's young, he hasn't had a lot of experience, and he ran a failed Senatorial campaign in Maryland in 2006. His pro's? He's young (funny how that works both ways), he's black, he's Catholic, and he knows how to be an administrator. Look for Michael Steele on the scene for Republicans in the upcoming years.

4. My final potential leader for the GOP is former presidential candidate Mitt Romney. I was a big fan of Mitt, I think he has exactly what we need in charge of this country. Obviously his religion has been the subject of a lot of speculation, but hopefully America has moved past religious discrimination (although I doubt that, especially with the Muslim rumors still circling Obama). If Mormonism is not a stigma to Romney, he's a strong, charismatic candidate that we definitely have not seen the last of yet.

Honorable Mention: Jeb Bush, John Boehner, Mike Duncan, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, and Bob Ehrlich.

What Constitutes The Upper Class?

2008-10-30T13:10:00.001-07:00

So we've all been hearing a lot about the Obama tax plan, the "break" for "95%" of Americans. We all know that the upper class is going to see a tax increase under this plan, but what constitutes the upper class?

--When he initially released the tax plan, Senator Obama said that everyone making less than $250,000 a year would receive a tax credit. Upper class was considered to be everyone making $250,000 or more.

--During his infomercial last night, the number was stated as $200,000 a year. The bar for "upper class" dropped a solid $50k a year.

--Earlier this week, Joe Biden said "tax cuts for everyone making less than $150,000 a year". Lower than either of the Obama numbers. (Note, some pundits call this a slip-up, I don't have the authority to make that decision, but Biden hasn't called it a mistake yet).

So what do we believe? That's a $100,000 window where we may or may not be getting a tax break. To the undecided voter, this is a little unsettling. Say, for example, an Undecided voter is making $175,000 a year. Under Biden's number, this guy's gonna see his taxes go up, but he would get a tax break under either of the Obama numbers.

We need this number set straight now. We need to be informed to vote, not confused.

One Week To Go: State of the Race

2008-10-28T12:40:00.000-07:00

When Obama said that the race will "tighten up", he wasn't joking. his once-double-digit lead in the polls has shrunk to somewhere between 7 points and a statistical tie. Now, I'm not a fan of the polls. In fact, I think they're one of the worst ideas for our political system. But that's another story for another day (I seriously have said something to that tune a million times, I don't know when I'll get to writing about all of them).

Anywho, onto the race today.

A few posts ago, I mentioned how McCain needed to rally the Republican base. Boy has he done that. Republicans left and right are coming out of the woodworks, and this election is looking tighter and tighter by the day. What is it that makes Republicans so excited come election day? Fear? Nah. Loyalty. Democratic thinktanks all over the place will tell you how the Republican support has been deteriorating over the years, but they never fail to come out and make a race of it. Even when Democrats have called this race already won by Obama, the Conservative base is still radically supporting their boy, John McCain.

The VPs are hitting rough times, with the Liberals finding more and more pointless things to say about Palin and the Conservatives questioning the sobriety of Joe Biden. But this is typical. The VPs get more scrutiny than the actual Presidents, it's whatever. Not a huge issue.

One more thing to touch on. Obama boycotting an entire news station? Yup. In Florida, Joe Biden was slammed by Barbara West, a television anchor. Hard questions for the Obama campaign? UNHEARD OF! Anyway, they reacted by shutting down all potential interviews with that station. So that's why the media puts the baby gloves on when they're interviewing Obama.

The Bradley Effect: A Look Inside

2008-10-26T10:24:00.000-07:00

The phrase is almost taboo. Very rarely do the words pass through the mouths of any reporter in the media. Why? Because no one wants to validate the existence of an election phenomenon known as The Bradley Effect.

The phenomenon is named after Tom Bradley, an african-american California politician who lost a 1982 governor race, despite leading in the polls. The idea proposed is that Bradley's race could be attributed to the loss of the general election. Something worth noting is that the Bradley Effect only applies to candidates belonging to any racial background other than White/Caucasian.

So how does it work? Essentially, the idea is that a candidate can lead in pre-election polls, as well as in exit polls, but still lose the general election. The idea behind this discrepancy is that, although people will support a candidate of another racial background, they will "secretly" not vote for them come election day.

So should Barack Obama be worried about the Bradley Effect? Absolutely he should. It's no secret that he's ridiculously popular, but how many people are actually going to vote for him? The polls like to think that Barack Obama is comfortably ahead, but polls do not account for the dreaded Bradley Effect. Pundits have massively underplayed the aspect of race in this election, and it will be interesting to see how the election results relate to the polls.

Will the avid Obamanites ultimately vote for him, or will they be secretly voting Republican? it's sad to think that ethnicity can alter the outcome of an election, but we can't outlaw the fact that it will probably be an issue in this election, as it has been in so many past years.

The Changing Tides: Biden's Gaffe vs. Powell's Endorsement

2008-10-24T12:16:00.001-07:00

In recent days, we've been hearing a lot about how the 2008 Presidential Race has tightened. It was less than 10 day ago when most polls showed Obama with a double digit lead, and now we see polls across the board at a statistical tie, or at least a much closer race. So what is it that has altered the climate of the race the most in these past weeks?

Interestingly enough, Colin Powell's endorsement hasn't even come close to generating the amount of change that most people expected. Yes, he was a very powerful Republican who worked under GWBush and now supports Obama, but with him came virtually none of the weak Republican base. It's tough to say why this hasn't had the expected effect (it definitely has had ample media coverage). What is it about Colin Powell that the Republicans aren't rallying behind anymore? The most expressed opinions seems to be that people don't legitimize what he says ever since his Iraq policy. Interesting to note, the Democrats who victimized Powell for being wrong about Iraq are now the Democrats rallying behind him as one of their "most respectable endorsements" yet.

It's possible that the Powell effect just hasn't registered in the polls yet, we'll be able to know more definitively by the end of this week when the final rounds of polls come out.

But McCain has closed the gap. The AP shock poll showed a 44-43 race (Obama leading) just this week. What has caused such an insurgence? Conservatives will tell you a slew of different things: Joe the Plumber, Socialist fears, Obama's new re-worked economic plan, or Joe Biden.

Personally, I like to think of Joe Biden as the reason this race has closed up. Why? He finally planted the gaffe we've all been waiting for. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama". What was he saying? What did he mean? Two completely different answers.

Obviously, what Biden meant to say was that Obama has the ability to handle any crisis that the world can throw at America (and with an economic crisis in the works, crises of similar nature are bound to pop up). In no way did he mean for this message to come across as a crutch to Obama's foreign policy efforts. Too bad for Joe, thats exactly how it came across. We don't want to see our Presidents faced with a crisis. Even if they end up successful, any crisis is a bad crisis for America. The McCain campaign has pushed behind this statement, promising that McCain's administration would be able to deal with any potential crisis before it became a "Cuban Missile-Style" Crisis.

Did this kill Obama? No way. What the VP Candidate says hardly ever has a major damaging effect on the public opinion of the Presidential candidate, but it did work to rally the weak or moderate Republicans. Everything that the Republicans had hoped for is coming true: their base is finally starting to rally around John McCain, and the closing of the polls (especially in battleground states) is nothing but a good sign for the Republicans.

Bank on a Bradley effect? You Betcha! (More on the Bradley Effect later? Probably)

OPEC vs. Americans

2008-10-21T12:06:00.000-07:00

So the big news now? OPEC. Our boys with the Oil. What kind of shenanigans are they up to this time? Well, they're set to hike the price of oil once again (and in the midst of an economic crisis, not exactly what the Americans want to hear).

So what's the biggest myth surrounding the oil companies today? It's that they're greedy beaurocrats bent of sucking the life out of Americans so that they can make a ridiculous windfall profit. Is this true? No sir! In fact, oil companies only make about 8-9% profit on gasoline. Where do their windfall profits come from? Maybe from the fact that the majority of America uses their product? Oh yea. 8-9% is usually nothing, but when the country is so reliant on gasoline, it does translate into an incredible profit for the big oil companies, but they aren't to blame. Who sets the price of a barrel of oil? OPEC!

So why is OPEC going to raise prices? Americans are finally settling into the cheaper gasoline phase, and it's about to get swept out from under them. Blame our good friends in Iran and Venezuela. Ahmadenijad and Chavez (yea, those names just scream "pro-American") have talked our boys at OPEC into a higher price for a barrel of oil. Great. Like we didn't have enough to worry about, what with home foreclosures and a crunch on credit.

Is this timing coincidental? No way, these guys are always looking for a new and improved way to screw America over, and this comes at the most perfect and opportune time (for them). How will Americans handle? God only knows, but hopefully we can make this work.

Saturday October 18th, The Week In Review

2008-10-18T13:10:00.000-07:00

Yes yes, I know that I haven't updated since Monday. I know a lot happened, and I know that I could write about it all. I can't give you a good reason why, but I can give you a really long blog to highlight everything. Will it be a really long blog? Nah, but I'll try to give it the old one-two.

Debate

Obviously the most important issue of this past week. We had the third and final Presidential debate. I know most of the public and pundits have already weighed in, but I still want to give my opinion on it, because no opinion is totally right, it's just a matter of what you believe in.

Who do I think won the debate? John McCain. Why? Well, it's how the game was played. John McCain came in with a fire under him, and he took shot after shot at Senator Obama. What was Obama's strategy? Defense. And defense doesn't win debates. Obama sat on his lead, and didn't try to do anything spectacular. Also, we finally had our first (and only) "defining moment" when John McCain told the country (as well as Senator Obama, who really needed to hear it) that he was not George W. Bush.

All in all, Senator McCain came out with a strong attack, and just left Obama in the dust for the third debate. In an election where the debates have been extremely boring (at best), debate three proved to be pretty exciting.

Joe The Plumber/Socialism

This guy has been shot to superstardom! One short question to Obama has led to "Joe the Plumber" being mentioned during the Presidential debates, across the board Cable News Networks, and even late-night TV shows. But why is Joe to important all of a sudden? Becuase he brought out Obama's inner socialist.

Obama's comment to Joe involved the phrase "spread the wealth around": Pretty much the motto of the socialist party. Has this been exploited by the GOP? In the word's of Sarah Palin: You Betcha!

Is this eletion-changing? probably not but it can change some minds. Obviously, the wealthy don't want to see their wealth redistributed to the lower classes. Obviously, no one wants to see their wealth redistributed to the lower classes. The only people that want to see wealth redistributed are the lower classes, who only gain from this.

It's not fair, it shouldn't happen, I could complain for paragraphs on end about how Socialism will destroy our country, but I won't. If Joe comes up later this week, I'll drop a post all about socialism and it's awfulness.

Everything Else

So to rattle through the rest of it. We have our first newspaper endorsements (for both Obama and McCain), the candidates are rolling through the swing states for the home stretch, Colin Powell may endorse Obama, both candidates exchanged jokes at an exclusive dinner event, and Sarah Palin has been off the radar for 4 days now.

Peace Out, Readers.

McCain Campaign: Too Aggressive, or Not Aggressive Enough?

2008-10-13T13:58:00.001-07:00

The question has been looming over the McCain campaign for weeks now: How aggressive should they be? It's clear that the Republicans attending the McCain rallies want blood, but is that really the right way to go? John McCain is walking a thin line between angering his party y not being aggressive, and angering the crucial swing voters by being too aggressive. Is there a happy medium to this? Sort of, but not one that is at all plausible for the McCain camp.

One of the dominant issues for the Republican party in this election is unification. Specifically, we have seen (in recent years) the disintegration of the GOP die-hards that have commanded elections throughout recent elections. What the Republicans are suffering from his the same thing that the Democratic party went through, really starting after F. D. Roosevelt. The party is intact, of course, but the voters lose their fire, and the potential to win a national election dwindles without that fire. Since 2004, we have seen a surge from the Democratic party, but a sort of recession from the Republicans.

What does this mean for Senator McCain. He needs to re-light that fire, but he needs to do it in a way that is respectful enough to appeal to undecided voters. Therein lies the problem. The GOPpers at McCain rallies want nothing more than to see Barack Obama crash and burn. Fair Enough. But the crowds have become ravenous. Infamous lines like "He's a terrorist!", "He's an arab", and "He's a ______" (insert racial slur here) have been nothing but common to these Republican rallies, and McCain wouldn't try to stop them until recently. Arguably, if he ahd stopped the personal attacks when they started, we wouldn't be seeing so many of them. However, that boat is long past, and we are seeing one of the most energetic crowds in election history show up at the GOP rallies. And there is no shame, these people will say ANYTHING about Obama.

The recent cry has been for McCain to step up his attacks, and going into Wednesday's final debate, the nation is on the edge of their seats to see if he does that. If he does, it's sure to appease the angry Republicans, but how will it affect the swing voters? Pundits take both sides, saying it could either help or hurt him, really depending on how he goes about with his attacks.

It's all up to McCain. After Wednesday's debate, we'll have a good idea as to where the campaign is heading for the final stretch, but as of now it feels like it will be an aggressive finish.

Obama's Tax Plan: Worse Than He Could Have Imagined

2008-10-11T20:39:00.000-07:00

We've been hearing a lot about Obama's tax plan, and how he intends on restoring the middle class through tax breaks for them and tax hikes for the rich. Well, most people have jumped on that bandwagon, thinking it's the greatest thing since Laura Bush or something. It's not. LB is still the greatest thing. And there are a few myths that need to be dispelled.

Myth #1: Obama's Tax Plan Will Be Good For Business

FALSE! It absolutely will not. Why? Because it targets the businesses directly. Obama's tax plan runs on the idea that "with more money, the middle class will buy more, thus boosting business and the economy"...the same idea that the government's economic stimulus checks run on. Is this true? Not really.

Here's the rundown. Obama's tax plan will gives tax credits (discussed later) to everyone that makes less than $250,000 a year. Sounds great for the middle class, right? Hold your horses, it's not. Who makes more than $250,000? Doctors, Lawyers, etc. but most notably, Small Business Entrepreneurs. Yea, entrepreneurs make more than $250,000 (the successful ones, at least). So how does this tax plan affect them, if it's everyone below them that gets this credit? Well, it means increased taxes for them to fund the Obama Government's pet projects. What will these small business owners do with higher taxes? Cut jobs. Entrepreneurs are the leading creator of jobs in the United States (duh), but if they have to carry the middle class' weight via higher taxes (when over 30% of the nation already doesn't have a tax obligation), they will have to make up for that money through higher prices and creating less jobs.

So tell me, how does that help the economy? Sure, the middle class gets tax breaks, but that extra coin is going to be spent buying the same products as before, but at higher prices because the business needs to meet a higher tax requirement. And how about middle class jobs? People won't be much help to the economy if they are unemployed, which is inevitable with this tax plan. Unemployment is high enough, we don't need to coax it higher.

Myth #2: It's A Tax Break!

Think again, darling. It's not so much a tax break as it is "tax credits". What does that mean? it means money back in your pocket, but only in certain scenarios. Which scenarios? It really depends on how the government administers it. In other countries, tax credits are given to people who work, as well as working couples, people who send their children through school, homeowners, the elderly, etc. Many of which are covered in Obama's plan, no worries.

It's true, a lot of people would get credit from Obama's plan, but the more the credit goes up, the less money the government gets. The less money the government gets, the higher taxes have to go (first, to the upper 5%, such as small businesses, then to the middle and lower class).

Obama says he won't tax the lower/middle class in this time of crisis, but how else will the government support itself, especially under a democratic president? In order for a "big government" to run, it needs money to fund its programs (except for Obama's healthcare plan, which is more of an "unfunded mandate"). The government gets this money through taxes. Sure, the credits sound nice, but they just ease the pain that will be inflicted down the road when our brilliant government finally realizes that we're in debt up to our necks, and we need to fish ourself out.

Myth #3: The Best Tax Plan Since Before Reagan?

Not really, what people tend to do with our economy is to look at our horrific Wall Street drop, but forget about the magnificent debt that our great nation has accomplished. With a tax break help Wall Street? A little. Will it do anything for the national debt? Not a lick!

What we don't realize is that somewhere down the road, we need to get money back into our government, and maybe lower taxes aren't the way to do that. Economic stimulus works, but it can only do so much. Eventually, a politician will need to step up to the podium, bite the bullet, and say "Hey, see our debt? Ridiculous! We need to jack taxes and get our country's credit back to a respectable level!" Will this politician ever get elected? No, that's not what people want to hear, but it's the truth. A tax break is fine and dandy for the time being, but in the long run, taxes are going to go up no matter who is elected to the Presidency.

Why should we deal with a temporary relief, only to get hit (and get hit hard) down the road when the government needs money. Nothing lasts forever, and Senator Obama's tax plan sits atop the list.

Voter Fraud in Battleground States

2008-10-09T09:08:00.001-07:00

Voter Fraud. "Don't You Mean Potential Voter Fraud?" No. Voter Fraud.

So what's the deal with this voter fraud across the key battleground states for this 2008 election? Well, apparently, the company ACORN has registered thousands of fraudulent voter registrations in most of the election-deciding states. In Ohio, some people have been registered to vote up to fifteen times.

So how does this affect the election? Well, ACORN targets the lower class/minorities, likely to vote for the democratic party. Could ACORN have links to the democratic party? Absolutely. In fact, Senator Obama used to work for/with the ACORN group. Does he know about the scam? Is he aware of the voter fraud? Probably, but it's really hard for us to know. Senator Obama has not come out and say one way or the other how the ACORN scandal relates to him or his campaign (if it relates at all). Only time will tell (as seems to be the predominant theme in this election).

Since 2004, over 211 thousand have registered to vote in Ohio, and Ohio Democrats say as many as 75% of these voters could be Democrats. Does ACORN factor into this? Absolutely. As the media delves deeper into this case, we see more and more examples of ACORN over-registering voters (some people up to FIFTEEN times!). Absolutely the fake registrations pay in, especially considering that most of them did come from low-income/minorities families (once again, the majority votes Democrat).

As I have done many a time in this blog, I'll leave this here. You can draw your own conclusions and do some further reasearch, but, as always, if anything significant comes up (which I'm sure it will), you'll see it here.

Second Debate? BORING!

2008-10-08T09:00:00.000-07:00

In what should have been an event where both candidates looked for a game-breaking moment, they layed down and played Tuesday night's debate safe. Neither candidate really came out with a definitive victory, becuase neither candidate did anything definitive.

While no candidate came out with a upperhand, it's safe to say that John McCain came out without the win he was in need of. He didn't "lose" the debate, but he didn't give himself any election-changing moment that he is so desperately in need of. Had McCain, or Obama for that matter, been able to give a knockout punch, this would be a much easier debate to examine, however they did nothing of the sort.

With Obama still leading the the polls, Senator McCain needs to step his game up if he wants to make this one close. He's falling behind, and it appears as though his poll ranking is following the stock market. On a more positive note, a more recent poll showed john McCain leading in a poll which asked who was better prepared for the job by a significant 83% in his favor to 58% in Obama's. However, the election isn't decided on that poll, and the McCain campaign needs to wake up the close the gap.

With Sarah Palin on the war trail, it could be only a matter of time before they strike gold, but on the other end of that, a significant gaffe could set them even further behind.

With just under a month to go, there's plenty of time for politicking, and we know it's never over until it's over.

The Gloves Are Coming Off...

2008-10-07T09:38:00.000-07:00

As the election moves into October, and we are not less than a month away from the election, both candidates have moved away from the issues and onto the flaws of their opponents. Could this affect tonight's debate? Absolutely it could. Today, Yahoo! News wrote that the mudslinging could lead to an "awkward debate" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081007/pl_bloombrg/aeqhidejpots).

So what is it that the candidates are focusing now? it can all be summarized into the "guilty by association" idea. Back and forth, the presidential candidates are drawing on shady relations that their opponents have had in their past.

Sarah Palin called Barack Obama out on his association with 1960's radical Bill Ayers, as well as re-opening the association with Jeremiah Wright. Are these associations as awful for Obama as Gov. Palin would like you to believe? It's really hard to tell. We know how dangerous Ayers was, and we know that Jeremiah Wright has surrounded his career with scandal, but how legitimate is the link between them and Obama? Was he really "palling around" with Ayers? Only time will bring out the truth on the Ayers issue, but for now, it is a hit with Republicans. As for Jeremiah Wright, that association has already hurt Obama in the past, and a re-emergence of that issue is the last thing that the Illinois Senator needs to deal with in his campaign.

In the Democrat camp, they are hoping to retaliate to the Ayers/Wright accusations by bringing up McCain's association with the Keating 5 and Iran-Contra scandal. Little has been said about the Iran-Contra scandal, and the Obamanites are just throwing it out "experimentally" to try and counter the negative attacks that the McCain people have been throwing out. As for the Keating 5, the Democrats are just kicking a dead horse. McCain has made statement after statement about how wrong he was to be involved in the infamous 1980s banking scandal. He has, numerous times, apologized for his involvement.

Does that make it all ok? Not really, but does it make it better? It does. Obama has dodged the issue of his association with the Radical Jeremiah Wright, leading to more and more questions about their relationship. What Obama needs to do is face the music and say "Hey, yea, I've been around some shady people, I've had intimate relationships with them, I know it was wrong, I would never do it again, let's move on". But until that happens, we can only speculate.

Preview To Tuesday's Debate

2008-10-06T14:03:00.000-07:00

So, this Tuesday marks the second of the presidential debates, the third of the official 2008 Election debates (that number includes the VP debate). So what can we expect? What does each candidate have to do? Who has the upperhand? Oncemore, I'll take off my bias-hat and try to approach this from a rational and level-headed perspective.

So the debate is coming from "Town Hall" format, where citizens (usually undecided voters, if I understand correctly?) ask the questions to the candidates. Based on experience alone, one would assume John McCain (R) to have a slight upperhand. He has participated in hundreds upon hundreds of Town Hall style debates, and knows very well how to handle whatever may be thrown his way. Barack Obama (D) is not at all inexperienced either. Although his Town Hall record is not as extravagant as John McCain's, he does know how they work.

So what can we look forward to? Maybe some really off-the-wall questions. Both candidates need to be able to respond to something that is ridiculous, positive, negative, or pointless. It's part of what make Town Hall debates so exciting. You never know exactly what will happen.

John McCain is coming into the debate with a more-than-slight deficit in the polls. He really needs to focus on his record vs. Obama's for Tuesday's debate. He can't bounce around the issue of experience, or any issue for that, like he has in recent weeks. The McCain campaign really needs to turn on the heat if they want to come out of this debate on top. Also, he cannot be vague with his answers; one of the biggest criticisms of McCain's last debate was the clarity of his answers. If he can be his usual, straight-talking self and hit the issues hard and concisely, he is golden. Finally, he has to attack Obama. Both candidates have turned up the intensity of their smear ads, but that will need to come across (professionally) in the debates. There is a lot to attack Sen. Obama for, so it is likely that McCain will be turning up the intensity of his debate strategy as well.

Obama needs to play this debate safe. Again, he may have to field some completely ridiculous questions, and he'll need to watch himself. It's his race to lose at the moment, and he can't let a gaffe hurt his lead at any point. He'll need to play more defense when John McCain attacks him and his campaign. If he can stick to the issues, he should keep himself safe. If McCain's temper gets the best of him, Obama needs to be able to show himself as cool and collected.

It's all about how they play the game. McCain has an advantage in this style of debate, but Obama has a lead in the polls. As in 2004, we know that the outcome of the debate does not necessarily reflect the outcome of the election, but it can be a significant part. If either candidate stumbles, it will cost them, but both are looking for that "golden" moment ("Say it ain't so, Joe") We'll see what happens.

Sep. 28-Oct. 4: A Week In Review

2008-10-04T20:46:00.000-07:00

So I don't know how many of you turned your TVs off this week, but if you did, you missed a TON. I had my TV off for a whole day and was mind-boggled by the time I got back to current events.

So I'm not going to go ridiculously in-depth on any issues, but I do want to blog a little bit about some of the more important things that went down this week. So what's important? (and by important, I mean important to me. I understand very well that the most important issues in the world are controlled by the mainstream media. These issues may or may not be important to you, it's a matter of opinion). I'll touch on the "Bailout" and the VP Debate.

Is this all that went on? NO! But This is my first post, and I can't let this week go unnoticed, so we'll play cafeteria politics.

The "Bailout"

Boy, was this a political disaster. You couldn't say two words about the bailout without someone up in arms about it. It was such a roller-coaster ride, but I guess we're finally at a conclusion (or, at least, a temporary resting place). So how did we get here? Was it good, bad, decent, unnecessary? That's for you to decide, reader. I'm just here to push you along.

So the thing that bothered me most about the bailout process was the increasing level of partisanship shown in what should have been an entirely non-partisan issue. The economy of our country is one of the most important things in sustaining our standard of living. Whether you are a free market capitalist, a socialist, a communist, or a government interventionist, it shouldn't matter when it comes to saving our system. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals claimed to be working towards a bipartisan solution, but as the days dragged out, the party lines were outlined, the bolded, the highlighted, then underlined, etc. Reaching across the aisle became almost a joke.

Did any politicians win/lose on this legislation? It's hard to tell. Really, it's too early to tell. Do I think I have an idea? Yea. I think the Congress' miniscule approval rating (now down below 10%) could dip EVEN FURTHER. Yea, it was that painful. Know the worst part? 3/4 of the leading presidential figures are straight outta the Congress. Senators Obama, McCain, and Biden are all a part of this radically unpopular arm of the government. Is this bad for them? Not really, because it's mutual failure. One can't accuse the other of being a part of one of our nation's most unpopular legislatures. (Gov. Palin could, but she's a different story. Disclaimer: I love her).

I know the title of this segment was 'The "Bailout'" and I really didn't talk about it much, but I more wanted to express my displeasure at the way it was handled. Once we see the results, I'll have a better grasp on the effects of the legislature. For now, though, we got there in one of the most inconvenient ways imaginable. And I could spend another page on Nancy Pelosi. Oh Golly, I could. but I won't. That's another barrel of worms

The Veep Debate

This made my week, it really did. It solidified everything I love about Gov. Palin. She really may be the best thing to happen to politics since Alexander Hamilton. She may be the most relatable person to run for a federal executive office in my lifetime. (Sidebar: I really like Bob Ehrlich and Michael Steele, they are also excellent and relatable). I know a lot of people don't like her, and think she's a ditz/unqualified/a ridiculous choice for VP, but I really really like her. And one day this week, when I don't have a whole lot to write about, I will write about Gov. Palin. But for now, allow me to take off my bias-hat and write about the debate.

Both candidates came in after having played "the expectations game" heavily in the preceding weeks. The Obama/Biden campaign had tried to paint Gov. Palin as a "leviathan of a debater". The GOP camp did the same thing with Biden. By raising the expectations for the other candidate, both parties had set each other up for quite a carcrash. (For those of you who don't understand, if you paint your opponent as a fantastic debater, then go in and beat them, it makes you look a lot better. The same is true for if your opponent makes a horrible mistake). Did this strategy pay off for either party? Not really. Neither candidate made many mistakes, and as for the winner? Eh. It's up to you, personally.

But really, Conor, who won the debate? It's really hard to say, both candidates came out with COMPLETELY different styles.

Joe Biden: He's an enigma. Why Barack Obama picked someone who has been in office since 1973 as the Vice President on a ticket for "Change" is beyond me. It boggles my mind. That aside, he did present a very good debate. He is a straight talker (a lot like John McCain). He says what he needs to say, and then says as much extra as he can to fill in the rest of the alloted debate time ("I need to wrap it up, the light is on"). His style is very heavy on facts, and not so much on personality. Obviously, it's the campaign choice to send him out with so many facts. Is it bad? No! A lot of Americans love a knowledgeable candidate (on the other hand, a lot of Americans love Barack Obama. Har Har. But I digress) so this strategy works well for Biden among those voters. Among people like myself, not so much. I value personality (I value Sarah Palin, again, I digress) which is something that Joe Biden felt to be lacking in the debates. His eye contact with the camera was awkward, his jokes were very dry, but his facts were solid (for the most part, but if you fact check the debate, everyone flubs).

Sarah Palin: TOTALLY the opposite of Joe Biden. She's a newcomer to the scene (Fun Fact: She was 9 when Joe Biden took office in the Senate), but she is so full of life and energy that the GOP is witnessing an infusion of support behind her (20,000 people came to hear her speak in CALIFORNIA. WOW!) Anyway, her debate? Different style. She attacked the questions in a different manner, and a lot of people feel like she gave little or no effort to actually answer them. She did answer them, just not like Sen. Biden. She was snappy, quick, and to-the-point, and filled her time with personality, rather than factual substance (some people hate this, I love it). She was WAY more comfortable looking at the camera, and made me smile more than once (She's an adorable debater).

It usually takes around a week for the real debate results to be finalized, but so far, there's no question that Gov. Palin has benefited the most. A recent poll (by recent, I mean I just saw it on FOXnews) showed her approval rating above 50%, her perceived ability rating above 50%, and her likeability above 60%. WAY higher than in previous weeks. The Palin-Pop (As FOXnews called it, that's probably copyrighted or something...) is really helping her image, as well as the image of the party. Although Obama maintained his lead through the weekend, anything can happen. (Disclaimer: Most polls released this weekend were conducted, in majority, before the debates. More accurate post-debate polls will pop up soon.

Have A Good Weekend Everyone!

A Quick Introdution

2008-10-04T20:36:00.000-07:00

Hello there, reader. Before I jump into talking about those pressing issues that need to be talked about, I thought I'd be nice and give you a nice, short introduction to myself.

I'm Conor, and I'm a College Republican (a college republican? What? That exists?) Yea, I was surprised in myself, too.

I'm from Maryland (What? A Maryland Republican?) Yea, I'm a walking contradiction to my surroundings.

Anyway, I'm currently (as of October 2008) a Freshman Government and Politics Major at a University that I will not disclose here. It's pretty rad, I love being able to study government, especially in these pressing 2008 elections.

So this blog...Well, I can't promise anything about it. Except for one thing. I'll write what I feel. Yes, I will be biased. Yes, I will probably lean (read: topple over) to the right side. Yes, there is always room for debate on any issue. Does that mean I want to debate? No, not really. I just want to put my views out there for someone to read. If you hate it, you hate it, and that's that.

I read both conservative and liberal blogs everyday, and yea, I know what it's like to read someone's work and think "What the HELL is this guy thinking? That's ridiculous!" Will you say that when you read my blog? Probably.

I don't mean/want/intend to offend anyone. I really just want to put my voice on the internet, because when I put it out in person I get nasty looks.

Let the games begin!