“Number two, create jobs.”

When asked how to deal with the economic troubles recently, Biden answered that he would create jobs.

Thankfully, the interviewer didn’t let him get away with it.  This reminds me earlier when an Obama ad said that he would “fast-track” new technology for alternative fuels.  You can’t fast-track science.  You increase spending in a particular field, but there’s no guarantee that usable technology will come from that science.

They criticize McCain for supporting drilling, but drilling is the only proven source of energy here.  It may be 5-10 years away, but we have no clue at all how far away usable alternative fuels are.  I’d rather pursue the “all of the above” strategy that will at least give us a back-up plan with having more of our own oil.

That’s all I’ve heard so far out of Obama-Biden is vague goals of what they want to accomplish, but not how they are going to accomplish them.

This is especially true with their economic policies.  They are shooting for policies that sound good now—taxing oil companies and big corporations and giving money back to people.  However, that idea is extremely shortsighted.  What I want is a candidate not just with ideas, but with plans.  There’s a huge difference.

When looking at examples of these tax and spend policies, we look no further to the "laboratories of democracies” the states themselves.  California and New York have adopted the approach that Obama has advocated with dire consequences.  The Wall Street Journal recently noted:

Anyone who thinks the path to "fiscal discipline" is through higher taxes ought to look at the current budget spectacles in New York and California. The two liberal states have among the highest tax burdens in the country, yet both now find themselves with huge budget deficits and are debating still higher taxes to close the gap.

Ideas make for great rhetoric, but plans make for great results.

Whoopi should not fear a return to slavery

We don't get The View in Korea, but this is hitting the blogosphere. McCain was on The View and Whoopi had this to say during a discussion on abortion:

Really Whoopi? A return to slavery? Its amazing how a discussion on abortion somehow turns into a quasi-civil rights issue.

McCain is calling for a strict interpretation of how the constitution is written. The 13th Amendment bans slavery outright. Unless the Constitution is changed, there will be no return to slavery. This is a made up concern. Really.

What Roe v. Wade did was create a sweeping change of public policy, based on principles not clearly written into the Constitution. A strict constructionist judge would never find a right to abortion in the constitution. Nor would a strict constructionist allow a return to slavery.

Come on.

The Gender Card

Jon Stewart has a funny clip about the double-standard some of the conservative talking heads have used in regards to Palin.



Couple things to respond: I'm not going to defend Rove, O'Reilly, or Morris's remarks. They are blatantly hypocritical.

However I think that what Nancy Pfotenhauer, who works for the McCain campaign said is complete different. Clinton was being accused of coming out after one of the debates and complaining that all the male candidates were picking on her. This is the same line of campaigning that was said to have helped her with her iner her debate against Rick Lazio when she was running for senate in 2000.

In regards to Palin, the argument is that the media is the one with the double standard. They have been asking questions they wouldn't ask of a male candidate. When has a male candidate ever had his parenting ability questioned when he was running for office with a new kid, or even where the status of his kids came into play?

Palin is not playing this card. The McCain-Palin campaign is merely asking they they treat her like a candidate, and not a female candidate.

Also, Stewart failed to mention the many double-standards the Obama campaign has been using. These aren't from talking heads, these are coming directly from the campaign.

Ignoring Palin's experience as governor to focus instead on her being a small-town mayor. When Palin made a remark about Obama's experience as a "community organizer," he complained that she was ignoring his subsequent experience.

Playing the race card, while accusing Palin and the GOP of playing the gender card. I have not heard, or seen one attack from the McCain campaign or the GOP regarding Obama's race. Yet, Obama said statements like the one below a few times:

“They know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me,” Obama continued, repeating an attack from earlier in the day. “What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’”

After Obama himself said this, I think its hard for his surrogates to accuse Palin of using her gender to advantage--even if she actually has been (and she hasn't been).