Recently in Elections Category

It's Night Three of the Democratic National Convention and the time of decision has arrived.

It was after I returned home from an errand that my wife informed me Obama was nominated by acclimation after Hillary Clinton interrupted the roll call votes of states to ask the delegations to do so.

I have no doubt 18 million people that voted for her felt disappointed.

****************

Hillary's speech on the behalf of the New York delegation, and her motion to suspend the convention rules and allow nomination of Barack Obama by acclimation, certainly seemed to bring the party together. But I wonder how many of the die-hard Hillary faithful will actually vote for Obama come November? Some polls suggest 20% or more will not vote for him. That's a substantial number. However it doesn't automatically mean the disaffected will vote for John McCain.

****************

The headliner tonight was former President Bill Clinton.

I find it interesting he has so drastically changed his tune in regards to Barack Obama's qualifications to sit in the Oval Office. Tonight he praised him to high heaven. Only a few months ago he was slamming him for being so inexperienced.

Bill Clinton did bring up the Republicans claims during the 1992 campaign that Clinton was too inexperienced and too young to be President. Obviously Clinton was not. But Clinton was the governor of Arkansas, the type of office that does give the kind of experience one needs to become President.

Barack Obama has none of that kind of experience. Not one bit. Clinton was a font of experience in comparison to Obama. He's never had to run a state, never had to balance a budget, never had to make the tough decisions of the kind a governor makes. His time in the Illinois and US Senates adds up to less than 6 years. And in all that time he's done little in the way proposing and passing legislation.

That doesn't bode well for one aspiring to the highest office in the land.

****************

Joe Biden's son gave a rousing introductory speech for his father. I have no idea if he has any political ambitions, but he could certainly follow his father into office. There's some talk that if the Obama/Biden ticket wins in November, Beau Biden could be appointed by the governor of Delaware to fill his father's Senate seat.

Biden praised Hillary Clinton, graciously mentioning that she will continue to make great contributions.

He then accepted the nomination as Vice President, and did it with uncharacteristically few words. (He is known as a talker, being able to use 500 words when 10 will do.) He also made a Freudian slip, talking about the nomination of George Bush, then corrected himself and saying John McCain.

He then got into bashing John McCain, using the phrase "That's not change. That's more of the same!" He talked about some of the votes McCain made, not bothering to mention that in many cases he himself made the same vote.

Basically it was the same liberal tax-and-spend blather, saying black is white, up is down, Left is right and Right is wrong.

Will an Obama administration stand up to Russia as Joe Biden claimed in his speech? Or will they merely make strong sounding noises, yet do nothing? I believe it will be the latter and not the former.

Biden is claiming Obama was right on withdrawing the troops from Iraq, and John McCain was wrong. Biden conveniently forgot to mention that Barack wanted to surrender two years ago when withdrawal meant a bloodbath and the need to return at an even higher cost. Now that conditions have changed in Iraq after the surge, a staged withdrawal makes sense. Yet Biden is claiming Obama was right all along?

****************

The night closed out with the surprise appearance of Barack Obama after Biden's speech. A nice finishing touch.

Tomorrow night is going to be interesting.

****************

A closing observation:

My wife was telling me a number of her clients were opining the Republicans shouldn't even bother to hold their convention because the Democrats have blown them out of the water. My words to them: Remember that the Democrats were preaching to the choir, a Democratic choir. Do they really think there won't be similar actions and speeches at the Republican convention?

We've survived the first night of the Democratic National Convention, the only high points being speeches by Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama. Let's see what the Democrats have in store for us tonight.

****************

Tonight's headliner? The big speech delivered by Hillary Clinton.

There's no doubt this isn't the speech she was hoping to be making at the convention.

The question about her speech has got to be this: Will it be what she says, or how she says it that will be remembered?

****************

Is this 1992 all over again?

Apparently the state of the US economy is the number one issue of the campaign at this point, with the war in Iraq being a distant second. Can Obama win based upon economic issues just as Bill Clinton did 16 years ago, even though the economy isn't nearly as bad as the media and the campaign rhetoric make it out to be?

****************

There was a slew of speakers tearing into John McCain during today's convention session. That in and of itself is no surprise. But at least they could have been original rather than reading from the same script.

As far as they're concerned John McCain isn't enough of a Democrat because he supported some of George Bush's moves in regards to the War on Terror, the economy, and energy policy. He's guilty of being a Bush clone because he's a Republican!

I wasn't aware John McCain was supposed to be running against Obama as a Democrat.

Someone inform the media!!

****************

After a video paying tribute to Hillary Clinton, she was introduced by her daughter, Chelsea. Call it a rhyme, an echo of last night's headliner, Michelle Obama.

The video was well done, no doubt about it.

I wish I could say her rhetoric was as well done. At least she let everyone know that she's proud. She said it often enough.

She claims George Bush's leadership has failed over the past eight years. I guess she has a short memory. All one needs to do is remember September 11th, rousting of the Taliban out of Afghanistan, chasing Obama bin Laden into Waziristan and making him nothing more than a tinny voice heard every once in a blue moon when an audio tape could be smuggled out of the mountains where bin Laden hides. I certainly don't call that a failure.

She laid out a lot of plans for a Democrat-dominated government - the House, the Senate, and the White House - implying that all would be cured once that day came. The lame would walk, the blind would see, the ignorant made smart, our enemies made to melt away, the economy would magically heal itself, oil would flow from every faucet, our teachers made powerful, our children indoctrinated, global warming reversed to bring on a new Ice Age, partisanship eliminated by eliminating political opponents, make the government the provider of all things and the controller of all our lives. After all, we aren't capable of making decisions for ourselves.

Yeah, and pigs will fly.

She also slammed John McCain, making it appear he is nothing more than George Bush in other clothing. I think McCain's voting record says otherwise.

She mentioned our country has been around for 232 years. I fear that if the Democrats get their way, America will likely become unrecognizable, and our freedoms and our economy will fade away. We will likely become more and more like Europe and something unique will have died, and done so to the adulating cries of "Obama! Obama! Obama!"

She used every cliché in the book.

No surprise there.

****************

And so the second night of the convention comes to a close.

First, I am not claiming to be unbiased in my reporting on the Democratic National Convention in Denver. While I will report on some of the speeches and activities taking place there, I will also be offering my opinions about them as well. I will do my best to separate the two such that anyone reading my posts will be able to differentiate the two. But I'm not perfect, so please bear with me. If I get it wrong, feel free to tell me. The only thing I ask is that anyone doing so be polite. Invective/expletive laden comments will be ignored and deleted. Period.

Second, I will not be covering every minute of the convention. I have a life that requires me to go out and earn a living in order to pay a mortgage, bills, and web hosting fees, as well as a family that requires my attention, including helping my son get ready to enter high school in a couple of days. Get used to it.

With those caveats in mind, Let's get started.

Note: Newer entries are at the bottom.

***************

A report on this evening's ABC News Tonight brings up one of the paradoxes of the Convention: Obama has promised he will not take money from Washington lobbyists, yet it is many of those lobbyists and the corporations/industries they represent paying for much of the convention costs. As the report states, it is a loophole in the law that allows corporations and their lobbyists to donate money to a nominee.

I have no doubt we'll see exactly the same thing for the Republican convention as well.

***************

Why is it that just about everyone making a speech about Barack Obama at this point (7:30PM EDT) focus so much on the fact that he was raised by a single mother? Is this supposed to give him some kind of street cred?

I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't brought up by just about every speaker. I have little doubt the convention delegates will soon tire of it as well.

"Alright already! We know he was raised by a single mom! Give it a rest, willya?"

***************

There's lots of mid to late 1970's R&B music filling interludes between speakers. Aretha Franklin, War, and Earth, Wind & Fire, just a name few of the covers being performed. I've got nothing against R&B, being a fan from way back. I only hope they aren't sending a message that Obama wants to take us back to those days. You know, the days of Jimmuh Carter, high unemployment, deep recession, oil embargos, and hostage crises.

***************

During one of the early Q&A sessions, it seems all the answers started the same way: "We won't do it like Bush did. Obama will do it better." And then the answers would address the specific question. One of the most common questions dealt with health care and the answer was always some variation of universal health care funded by the government. Questions about jobs drew answers about trade and how Obama would make sure no more jobs would go overseas.

My question about the last part: How will he prevent that? Will we see a return of the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act? Will he abrogate NAFTA?

***************

Senator Ted Kennedy spoke a few moments ago (around 10 PM EDT), showing little ill effect from his brain tumor and treatments. He hasn't lost his oratorical touch, bringing the delegates to their feet, cheering "Teddy! Teddy! Teddy!"

He brought up one of his favorite subjects, universal health care, something he's championed for decades. He reminded us about the triumphs of his brother JFK, and pointed out that an American flag still stands on the moon, one of JFK's legacies. He also made mention about Obama's promise to not get our armed forces involved "in a mistake."

He echoed some of Obama's sentiments, saying we are the United States.

There was little he said that surprised me, though I have to comment upon his next to the last statement.

It must be great to be prescient, knowing in advance what will and won't be a mistake. I didn't realize this was one of Obama's talents. It usually only in hindsight we see what actions were mistakes, and which were not.

***************

After showing a film about Michelle Obama made by the DNC, narrated by her mother, and an introduction by her brother, she made her keynote speech to the delegates on this, the opening night of the convention.

My first impression? She's a much better speaker than either Teddy Kennedy or her husband.

She mentioned Barack's being brought up by a single mother, and by his grandparents. I knew that was inevitable. But it didn't sound cheesy like it did when brought up the speakers preceding her. At least not the first time she mentioned it. She delved into Barack's history and the work he did leading up to his decision to run for President, working to make him sound almost Lincolnesque.

She did manage to work in some praise for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, though only in passing.

She also managed to create entire classes of victims, implying nothing good can come from working hard unless Obama makes it happen. Does she mean to say that unless Obama is elected that we'll see the breadlines return like those seen during the Great Depression? It sounded like it to me.

She did manage to wrap up her speech on the right note, trying to link all the various groups supporting Obama's run for the White House.

***************

And so ends the first night of the Democratic Convention.

The 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver begins in a few hours and already opinions are flying fast and furious about Obama, his Veep choice, Hillary, and the love affair that the MSM and the Hollywood illuminati have with the presumptive Democratic nominee. The party's barely started and already I'm staring to feel a bit overloaded and weary. All I can do is hope the actuality of the convention will be far more interesting and entertaining than the hype from both sides.

I am also looking forward to seeing the post-convention polls, as I wonder whether the usual post-convention "bump" will materialize or be a non-event much like the polls following Obama's running mate selection.

Stay tuned....

Obama announced his selection of running mate early Saturday morning. I must admit some surprise.

While Joe Biden does have the experience Barack Obama does not, I find it puzzling Obama would choose someone who's been one of his biggest critics during the primary season. Even with Obama's claims he wanted someone who would challenge him, I wouldn't think he'd choose someone that made some interesting charges about the Illinois senator's lack of experience and numerous gaffes. Or that he'd choose someone who claimed there's was no way he'd settle for the vice presidential slot. Yet he chose Biden, and Biden accepted.

I don't know if this gamble will help or hurt Obama's chances. I'd like to think he's managed to shoot himself in the foot with his choice, taking on someone with his own set of well documented foibles and mis-steps, some which prevented him from becoming the Presidential nominee more than once. He's also managed to piss off a large block of potential supporters by selecting someone from the Old Guard of the Democratic Party and not someone 'new', and specifically not someone female, as many Hillary Clinton supporters had hoped. To paraphrase the old Knight Templar in Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade, "He has chosen poorly."

If nothing else it will give John McCain's campaign plenty of fodder to use against Obama, painting him as not capable of making good, sound choices. It's quite possible Obama has just lost the election, even before the convention in Denver. McCain can seal Obama's fate with a good selection of his own. It will be interesting to see if McCain will make smart choice for his running mate.

Received via e-mail:

An interesting view of the upcoming Presidential elections in the US from our cousins in Ireland...a point to ponder regardless of your political affiliations.

We, in Ireland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.

On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run!

Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship!!

What in God's name are ye' lads thinkin' o'er in the colonies?!

Indeed.

It's interesting that Republicans and Democrats have a different definition of the term "Swift boating".

To the Democrats it's the attempt to smear an opponent with innuendo and straw man arguments.

To the Republicans it's calling into question claims made by an opponent when veterans that served with that opponent debunk claims he made both during Congressional hearings in 1971 and during his presidential campaign.

During the 2004 Presidential race a number of US Navy veterans that served with Democratic candidate John Kerry on swift boats in Vietnam disputed claims he made, including his memories of being in Cambodia quite some time before President Nixon authorized US military personnel to pursue NVA regulars and the remnants of the Viet Cong into countries bordering North and South Vietnam. They disputed claims about how he received his three Purple Hearts. One of those vets was a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. So, who would you believe?

In 2008 the Democrats are trying to turn the tables on the Republican candidate, John McCain, by making claims he plagiarized an incident that he recounts took place while being help as a POW in North Vietnam, saying the scene came right out of Gulag Archipelago by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.. The problem with the Democrats' claim? It's untrue.

First, McCain had a number of other POWs that backed up his claim. Second, Gulag Archipelago wasn't published until 1973. The POWs recall McCain had related his tale in 1970, and other POWs had related the same kind of incident as McCain. So, who would you believe?

With the Democratic Party Convention a little over a week away, the hype about the Veepstakes is approaching a fever pitch. While Senator Obama has remained mum about possible running mates, the media has certainly been having a field day, taking odds on who Obama might pick.

On the other hand, the media seems barely interested at this point about who John McCain will pick as his running mate. An informal, non-scientific poll over at Instapundit shows Sarah Palin as the frontrunner for the vice-presidential slot, with Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson showing second and third, respectively.

While Obama's choice may not be all that important (I figure there's no way he'll pick Hillary, for obvious reasons), McCain's choice will be vitally important, because it will make or break his run for the Oval Office. He has to choose someone that can actually replace him should he be unable to continue to hold the office of President. Let's face it, he's no spring chicken. Also, the true conservatives in the GOP only grudgingly support McCain, mainly because he's anything but a conservative in their eyes. McCain can capture the moderate voters in both parties all by himself, but he needs someone with the conservative credentials that will pull in the conservatives of the party while not turning off the moderates and the undecideds. That narrows his choices.

This should make Mitt Romney one of the last people McCain should choose, because too many in the GOP see him as a RINO (a Republican In Name Only), trying to wear the mantle of a conservative. But all anyone has to do is look at his record as governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to see he's no conservative. What proof do I have? That's easy: RomneyCare.

One thing McCain should do is choose someone not already in Congress. That pretty much leaves those holding office as a governor, or that formerly held office at state or federal level. That person will also have to have 'street cred' as an effective conservative that knows how to get things done. That narrows the field even more.

McCain must choose wisely. Frankly, by choosing Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, former US Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, or Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, he'll have a pretty good shot at being able to move into the White House next January.

The latest McCain-bashing ads by the Obama campaign and the DNC lambastes him for taking campaign money from the oil industry. Of course that same ad mentions nothing about Obama accepting campaign money from the oil industry as well.

Barack Obama...is up with television spots that accuse Mr. McCain of being "in the pocket of Big Oil" before touting a plan for a windfall profits tax.

But wait. According to FEC data examined by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in a new report released this past week, Exxon executives and employees have broken in favor of Mr. Obama over Mr. McCain this election cycle -- by $41,100 to $35,166. Chevron's and BP's contribution margins also favor the Democrat -- by about $6,600 and $4,500, respectively. Guess those Democratic commercials now could use a footnote or two.

So it's OK for Obama to take oil money, but not John McCain? Talk about a double standard. Of course it could be a case of sour grapes as McCain has received more money from the oil industry in toto than Obama. Then again, McCain hasn't made promises to take away their profits with an ill defined "windfall" profits tax.

One of the things that always bugged me about belonging to a union was the union's use of my dues money to support politicians that supported policies and laws I found objectionable. I had little say which political candidates my dues money would support.

Some things have changed since those days, but a lot of union money funds candidates which the rank and file may not support. That can lead to trouble for the union, particularly if those dues are used to support a candidate in a federal election. If members of the rank and file object to their dues going to support a candidate they do not support, it is illegal for the union to do so, at least for that portion of the dues paid by the objecting members. But that hasn't stopped some of them from doing so anyways.

The SEIU (Service Employees International Union) may find itself the subject of an investigation by the Department of Labor and Department of Justice for doing just that.

The mighty Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend some $150 million in this year's election, most of it to get Barack Obama and other Democrats elected. Where'd they get that much money?

That's a question the Departments of Labor and Justice are being asked to investigate by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Specifically, the labor watchdog group wants Justice to query a new SEIU policy that appears to coerce local workers into funding the parent union's national political priorities.

The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in "local union funds" equal to the "deficiency," plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized.

No other major institution could get away with its bosses demanding that every single one of its workers step in line behind its political preferences. This is the sort of imposed political obeisance that infuriates so many workers and turns them away from unions.

It's not much different than outright robbery or strong arm "protection" rackets of the past, where money is involuntary taken from union members and given to campaigns that are the antithesis of the political beliefs of the members. Stuff like that gets people sent to prison, even in this day and age.

Just because the SEIU has always had that as a "policy", doesn't mean it's legal, ethical, or moral. It's time for the union to realize they have to follow the laws, just like everyone else. Such strong arm tactics tend to drive people away from the unions. It's one of the reasons I left the employment of a company where I once worked. I got tired of the union BS, the mandatory dues, and the union's campaign contributions to politicians whose ideology was just this side of Lenin...or Al Capone.