The Greasy Rag

Now is not the time to be cynical or petty. Tonight is a time to be glad that America gets to determine it’s leaders and to be happy that we elected our first black president. I’ve never been a fan of those who sit around and take pot-shots at leaders that they don’t disagree with.

It’s also a time to regroup and learn how to better articulate the principals that we believe in. Many Americans believe that socialist policies are the “change” that we need. As the opposition, we need to hope for the best in this country. We also need to learn how to better articulate our belief that the free market, while not perfect, is a better way to choose how to distribute wealth than the government. We need to better communicate that it is more important to give of your own money freely to those in need than to have the government force you to give to those whom they deem is in need. We need to reaffirm our belief that America is not strong without a strong national defense. We need to protect those living souls who cannot speak for themselves.

Obama has connected with many people because he offers solutions to problems that Republicans have not offered quality solutions to. While we may believe that those solutions are not the right way, we need to recognize that issues that Republicans have ignored are important and we need to offer the conservative’s solution to those problems. The next 4 years are a time for us to participate, regroup, and learn.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sen. Obama and Sen Biden like to talk about big oil. During the debates, they have both mentioned that Sen. McCain’s plan would give tax cuts to big oil companies who have experienced record profits. I really don’t understand why Democrats and Americans in general are against oil companies. Are we so short-sighted that we’re blaming oil companies for the rise in gas prices? Is that why we are so angry at them?

For those who think that oil companies are unfairly making profits, get out and make some money yourself. This country was not founded on equality of circumstances. That country was the Soviet Union. It would be nice to have everyone in this country be wealthy. The problem with that goal is that as long as one person has more money than another, there will be class envy.

In the late 1700’s, there was an economist who began to wonder what it is that makes some nations wealthier than other nations. Why do some countries seem to flourish while others are perpetually in poverty? He was not asking about fairness or pondering the issues of inequality. He was wondering what made countries wealthy. One of his main observations was that countries that do well have a “meritocracy” instead of an “aristocracy”. America was the first country to truly take Adam Smith’s principles to heart when setting up the economy. The idea of meritocracy means that we provide an environment where people can make of themselves what they wish. We have not done a perfect job of that, but we have done a far better job than any country that has ever existed.

Meritocracy means that some people make more money than others. Having other people make more money… lots of money is very important to our economy. The economy can be difficult to understand but if there were one thing that I wish I could make the rest of the middle class understand is that we are NOT the economic engine of this country. We gain, heavily, because the rich pay most of the taxes and pay our salaries. I know it doesn’t seem “fair”, but we gain a lot from the wealthy.

It’s wishful thinking to hope that by sticking it to the oil companies, we will see gas prices go down. Business executives are paid to protect the profits of their companies. If they see an increase in expenses in the form of windfall profit taxes, they are not going to simply eat up those profits. They have an obligation to their shareholders to keep profits steady. In that case, gas prices will go up. I think this is a classic example of how Obama and the far left are going to hurt the American people under the guise of “fairness”. If we are so focused on equalizing and redistributing wealth in this country, we will end up lowering the standard of living of everyone including ourselves.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 6:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This was a rough night for Professor Obama. All of the pundits are saying that all he has to do is look “plausible”. Great, that’s just what everyone wants in a president: “plausible”. Who knows what it is that drives people to vote? From my experience most people aren’t taking the time to look at issues, because it’s difficult to wade through. If you’re not a regular reader of this blog, you wouldn’t know what an economic disaster Obama’s plan is. You would just hear the rhetoric and be glad you don’t have to listen to Bush deliver another speech. Obama’s performance in tonight’s debate made me long for another 8 years of Bush, and I am not a Bush fan.

I’ll start with the generalities and go into specifics. Obama sounded arrogant and condescending. He was like the professor in college everyone hated but couldn’t avoid because he was the only one teaching the required GE class unless you wanted to take it at night at the extension campus. The format had “neutral” (hand picked by the same people who bring you the same damn questions at every debate) audience members asking questions they brought while Broken-jaw read questions from Internet Users (which they still make sound like some sort of alien invaders). Obama began every question with either “well” or “look” as he were beginning an exposition on something he knows very much about and you know very little about. He pointed at people as he answered their questions. A co-worker made it clear to me that he wants a president who is “smarter” than he is. If by “smart”, he means boring, condescending, complex, and rarely getting to the point then, tonight, Obama was his president.

By contrast, McCain was personable, direct, engaging, and feisty. McCain had some great zingers. McCain would address the questioner, repeat their name in the answer and the name of previous questioners, he took command of the stage. He even touched one guy on the shoulder who put his hand out to shake McCain’s (well at least he got one more vote tonight… maybe that guy lives in Virginia or New Hampshire). His best line of the night was to bring up a quote of Senator Obama’s saying,

“I will forgo these tax increases if the economy was bad…” I’ve got some news Senator Obama, the news is bad.

Another damning response was McCain pointing out that Obama ran for Illionois State Senate saying they would have a middle income tax cut. He arrived at the senate and never once proposed legislation to do that. I just get the sense that Obama is promising anything he can to get elected. Alas, I fear the American electorate is buying it. I actually would hope that Obama as president would not follow through on his campaign promises.

McCain really seemed to own Obama on the economy. He made sure to get in a jab for every point to completely knock Obama off message.McCain articulated how disastrous Obama’s economic plan would be for the only bright spot in our economy: Small businesses. Small businesses will see severe taxation because they would fall under the “rich” category in Obama’s tax plan.

In defense of his plan, Obama made the biggest gaff for those who have any understanding of small businesses:

Only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year

Please note there was a big pause between few and percent as he delivered this line. It seems clear that a “small business” in Obama’s mind is a dude in a basement selling old baseball cards on e-bay. In the rest of America, we classify small businesses as having employees from 1-250. $250,000 would only pay for 5 low to middle of the road salaries. My company brings in millions in annual revenue and we are a “small business” with less than 50 people. It’s actually only a “few percent” that would NOT be taxed under Obama’s plan. If the media is doing their job, they’re going to point this out. If America is listening they are going to be worried about this fundamental lack of economic understanding.. Another quote along the same line:

In contrast sen. McCain wants to give a 300 billion tax cut…

Yes, in contrast to Obama wanting to raise taxes. He pretends that he is giving everyone a tax break, but Obama is really raising a lot of taxes (which is why he contrasts himself with McCain tax cuts).

Obama on Health Care

If you’ve got health care and probably the majority of you do…

Okay, so if we all have health care, then why such a big need to federalize the health care system? No, he says that he is taking the middle road (according to his commercials). “We’re going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums,” Obama says. “How are you going to do that?” I keep asking myself. Tonight he finally answered. Here is Obama’s two-point plan to work with your employer to lower your premiums:

• Work on prevention
• spend more money on technology so you can fill out your forms online so there are less medical errors

I am already thinking about what I’m going to be spending the extra two dollars a month I’m going to be saving… oh wait, did he say “spend more money…”? Shoot, that actually costs more money. But who cares because I’m not paying for the extra technology. I also learned that paper forms are the reason that most medical errors occur. I’m certainly glad it’s not due to systems which over-specialize so that you get shuffled from one doctor to another and no one knows your complete medical history. I’m sure with the government in charge, that we’re going to have the finest technology that man has invented. Just look at the DMV and the other government agencies.

Children are relatively cheap to insure.

On Energy:

“A new energy economy will replace the computer as the economic engine for economic growth over the last couple decades”… “we can do it but we’re going to have to make an investment (more spending)”

I’m trying to figure out what it is, exactly, that will drive our economy like the computer did (I’m assuming he lumps in all computer-related technology). I have a friend who is developing wind-farms and he tells me that the Spanish and Scandinavia already own the technology market for wind technology. I would think that building an entirely new energy infrastructure will cost money not make money. Now if he’s talking about letting the private sector go crazy developing new technologies, that sounds great, but that just doesn’t seem like Obama’s style. And please, cut the hyperbole, this will not come even close to the amount that the invention of the PC did for our economy and the global economy.

McCain said very clearly and succinctly that nuclear power is the answer to our contribution to climate change. I think he’s 100% right. He pointed out that Obama has opposed building nuclear power plants and instead of refuting Obama gave his standard “no I didn’t, but that’s not the point” line.

Foreign Policy

This year’s foregin policy debate gets quickly mired down in specifics. These specifics do show a fundamental difference in the candidates, but Obama makes it difficult to distinguish with his non-sensical “Afghanistan” but not “Iraq” (neither of whom attacked us on 9/11). McCain points out that Obama is blathering his strategy all over the air-waves and showing a naivete about foreign policy. Speaking specifically about Obama announcing his intentions to invade Pakistan, McCain brought up Teddy Rosevelt’s line: “Talk softly but carry a big stick. Senator Obama likes to talk loudly.”

On Afghanopakistan: And speaking of invading Pakistna, that is exactly what Obama was saying he would do if Pakistan didn’t find Bin-Laden for us. How is his foreign policy any different than Bush’s? Change the country, but the same tactic still applies. At least Bush thought that Iraq had WMD’s. Obama restated his focus on Afghanistan strategy: “The war against terror began in Afghanistan and that’s where it will end.” I realize that I was in high school during Clinton’s first term and in Kindergarten during Carter’s, but I seem to remember getting attacked a few times by Islamic terrorists before 9/11. I actually don’t ever remember any attacks in Afghanistan so… I’m not really sure…Oh yes, Bin-Laden was in Afghanistan. But Obama said that he’s in the hills of North-Eastern Pakistan now so apparently the war starts in Afghanistan and the middle part is in Pakistan and then Bin-Laden must move back to Afghanistan where we kill him, pack up the Apache attack helicopters and go home. Yes, I know this is all sounding very complicated. Well, according to Obama, in the middle part, we will give even more aid to Pakistan then we are giving them now (We gave a cool, 1.6 billion last year). So if spending even more money doesn’t work (which is what Obama does when there is a problem), we will, then, invade. Obama slammed Hamid Karzai as well saying that he’s unresponsive to the needs of his people. He is really scoring points with the foreign leaders that we’ll need on our side. I’m glad he’s such a great “talker”.

Obama’s plan for Russia: Give more money to other countries. Specifically, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, and the other “former-soviet satellites”. I assume he means former-soviet countries and that’s quite a few. So we will spend more money and give more aid but we won’t be buying any more oil. At least when we were getting gas, we could drive around a pretty bad-a** looking hummer.

McCain’s foreign policy seems relatively straight-forward. He likes the surge strategy: Clear a bad area of insurgents and hold it so that the people start to live normal lives and move over to your side. Then you train their security forces and let them take over. It’s pretty tough for anyone but the most ardent leftist to see the strategy working in Iraq.

Obama’s only criticism is that McClellan said it wouldn’t work in Afghanistan. Palin dismantled that argument with ease. Obama reiterated that the surge won’t work in Afghanistan and said we have to withdraw troops and followed that statement by saying that we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. Professor, I know I’m just a student, but that doesn’t make sense to me. And sending more troops sounds surge-ish.

On Marriage: Obama says that he asks Michelle to point out things he doesn’t know. She did not look happy.

And now for the part of the evening that had me shouting at the television in anger:

If we could have stopped Rwanda… that would be something that we would have to strongly consider.

U.N. Peacekeepers were standing there watching at least 500,000 get chopped up my machetes with guns holstered and did nothing. We sat on our couches and watched it on television. That crisis showed just how little we care for other human beings on the planet. Tonight showed me just how selfish or ignorant Obama is. YES WE COULD HAVE STOPPED IT!!!! I kept shouting as Obama blathered on. We could have and we should have. We did strongly consider it. The world strongly considered it and did nothing. Hundreds of thousands died in front of us. We did nothing.

Summary

McCain was fighting for his life. Obama looked bored and ill-prepared. This reflects the polls. I just hope Obama thinks that he has this one wrapped up and coasts all the way to the finish line. I am more worried than ever about an Obama presidency and no one has even brought up Obama’s record on abortion and voting for killing babies OUTSIDE the mother’s womb.

The pundits will say that Obama did what he had to do and McCain didn’t do enough. I think if you look at this outside the context of the polls, McCain won hands down. I think other countries who hate America now will continue to hate us under Obama. For a guy who continues to run against Bush and his policies, Obama’s seem awefully similar.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (49)

“WHAT???” My lefty friends will say, “All the pundits say it was a tie!”

Let me explain why I think the vice presidential debate was as good a victory for Sarah Palin as she could have hoped. Let’s start with some strategy talk…

In such a 50/50 country, if you want to win, there are two things you can do: get some independents (only 7% of the population) and fire up your base. Sarah Palin has two key roles in McCain’s campaign:

1) Fire up the base. McCain isn’t a true conservative and conservatives haven’t really liked him all that much in the past. We are all terrified of an Obama presidency, but it’s not the same enthusiasm to dislike the other person as it is to be fired up about your candidate. Conservatives like Sarah Palin. They especially like her when the liberal media isn’t trying to make her look stupid and they can hear her without Obama-Extension-Networks get in the way.

2) Say the things McCain can’t say. Palin can point out Obama’s ties to Rezco (a corrupt Chicago slum lord), his ties to domestic terror organizations, and even remind us that he has said some pretty racist things in his books and enthusiastically attended a church pastored by a really hateful nutjob. If McCain tried to say these things, he would be labeled as a bigot running a “dirty” campaign.

This debate, politically, was about one thing: Making Sarah Palin look stupid. No one really cares about Joe Biden. He could read the phone book and Obama supporters would cheer enthusiastically because they hate Sarah Palin for not sounding “smart” enough and for being into hunting and for being attractive and for being a woman.

Sarah Palin quickly showed that she was on a whole different mission than everyone thought. The media kept talking about her being in “bootcamp” in the weeks leading up to the debate (while Biden was “practicing”) as if she was having to do all this work to sound like she knows what she is talking about. Of course, the lefties can’t and will never get over anyone who has anything but the most distinguished east coast accent so there is no convincing the elito-sexists. But conservatives found someone who represented them which we rarely get to hear. And she had absolutely no shame about her conservative views.

My absolute favorite moment in the entire campaign came when Joe Biden tried to mock her for just talking about “drill, drill, drill”. Instead of countering that, she responded, “the chant is ‘drill, baby, drill’ and my supporters chant it every time I speak because they know that we have energy resources sitting right underneath us and they want it tapped into.” I, myself, was chanting “drill baby drill” when I saw her in Golden, CO so I can vouch for the truth of her statement. Which is more than anyone can say for anything Joe Biden said.

He seemed like he was somewhere else. Like, perhaps, some bizarro world where Joe Biden hangs out at Home Depot and Obama votes for tax reductions and funding the troops. The lies Biden told are astounding and are documented in this New York Post article. But, of course, Katie Couric is not out there scheming to make Joe Biden look stupid. When she interviewed Biden, she turned it into a coaching session on how to beat Sarah Palin in the debates (I thought it was funny that Biden couldn’t remember who Russia attacked recently. Here’s a hint: They have the same name as one of those southern states where people have accents).

The left’s biggest criticism of her seems to be that she didn’t answer the questions that where asked. She actually answered the questions simply and succinctly and then used the rest of her time to give her message. What she did was masterful. From the very beginning, you can see that she was able to get Biden to take the bait of her little jabs and keep the debate focused on her issues. In her second statement, she pointed out that McCain warned about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. When Biden had the opportunity to give his message he said, “can I respond to what she said?” Then Biden gave a jab about McCain saying that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.” Palin gave a clear, concise, response and then started talking about her own record as a reformer. Several answers later, Biden was still answering Palin’s first jab. Biden kept trying to say that McCain was trying to deregulate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac when he was pushing for regulation and Democrats were blocking those efforts But the truth didn’t stop Biden, he just kept right on living in his bizarro world. You go, O’biden.

What I loved, though, was the way that Palin went straight at Biden with some harsh jabs. His eyebrows overcame his botoxed forehead and shot up when she suprised him by saying, “It’s so obvious that I’m a Washington outsider, and someone who’s just not used to the way you guys operate because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war, you’re one who says, as so many politicians do, ‘I was for it before I was against it’ or vice-versa. American’s are craving that straight-talk… you had opposed very adamantly Barack Obama’s military strategy…”

She also railed him for looking backwards saying, “For a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future there’s just too much finger-pointing backwards to make us believe that, that’s where you’re goin’”. He quickly responded by saying “George Bushe’s” 6 times. I also LOVED how she drove the NaPeRs crazy by saying, “nuke-you-lar”

There is one thing I would like to clear up… As much as I wish it wasn’t the case, the Middle Class is not the economic engine of America. Small businesses are the economic engine of America. Small businesses fall under the ‘wealthy’ category under Obama’s economic plan and would get taxed through the roof. Biden wouldn’t shut up about “fairness”, even saying that redistribution of wealth is the same thing as saying “fairness”.

So the media and the left did not get their wish that Sarah Palin would fall flat on her face. On the contrary, she was intelligent, composed, and fierce. To the left, this is a simple “too bad” moment. For true conservatives, however, we finally heard someone who spoke for us and that, I think, will do some good for point #1 on the strategy options: Fire up the base.

Did anyone else catch the reuse of the famous Reagan line, “there you go again”? Only Palin put her own spin on it saying, “now doggone-it there you go again, Joe,” hammering him for focusing on the past administration instead of the one he is proposing.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 12:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (54)

• We’re tired of the rich and the greedy on Wall St. getting all of the tax breaks from the government when its the middle class who does all the work for this economy. It’s time that politicians looked out for the engine of the economy which is the middle-class struggling to pay mortgages and health care while the rich get fatter on tax breaks
• You are tired of America looking like a war-mongering empirical state with a cowboy like Bush at the helm. You wish that we had someone who sounded intelligent so that America could hold its head high again in the world. That’s why Obama is the right choice for you. He is someone that we can be proud of when he meets with the leaders of western Europe and Iran.
• We have spent too much time raping the earth of its oil and then spewing the waste into the atmosphere for our kids to breath in. It’s time to lose our glut for oil and start embracing clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.

If you want a change from our current course, then you should vote Obama. You will certainly find a change.

Let’s talk about what that change will mean…

Obama’s economic plan is to lower the taxes on 95% of working families. He’s going to pay for that tax cut by closing corporate “loopholes”. In addition, he’s going to raise payroll taxes and social security taxes on those greedy businesses who pay your salaries. That means that for every dollar I get in salary raises, my greedy employer has to pay even more money to the government. Even if my greedy company takes a pass on giving me a raise next year, I want to stick it to my company. Even if they have some job eliminations because they greedily don’t want to lose any profit, it’s worth it for the cause of sticking it to the rich fat cats. And EVEN if that company decides to move to Ireland where the taxes are more favorable towards businesses, we will sacrifice for The Cause because we support the middle class! So what if those greedy, wealthy fat-cats pay 95% of the taxes in this country that pays for roads, schools, police officers — So what if they pay for the services of our small businesses — So what if those businesses employ us and pay for our health-care… let’s stick it to those rich, greedy, SOB’s!

Those greedy investors on Wall St. and greedy employees who actually have a 401K… those greedy real estate owners who make money off charging other people rent and providing risk-free homes… they need to PAY for their greed by paying an extra 15% to the government for their greedy profit-mongering ways. If we slow investment, then we will consider it worth it because investors are GREEDY! So what if the government revenues will be down (because it’s a proven historically that raising the capital gains tax lowers government tax revenue and lowering taxes on the middle class also lowers government tax revenue), we will consider the extra national debt worth it because we have to make those greedy people who want to make money PAY! We will say NO to earning money unless the government says it’s okay for you to! Because we want the middle class to thrive! We will turn the tables on those wealthy people. They will soon wish that they were middle class and we will have showed them.

And we want to finally be loved in the world. We want to be like… like… URUGUAY! (hat tip: Dennis Prager) No one hates Uruguay and we want to be loved, too. We want to be respected in the world because we stand for openness and niceness. We want the world to know that if you are crazy and you spew forth hatred and vile threats of destruction on neighboring countries, America is your friend. We want to sit down and propose exchanges (for that is what presidents do when they “talk” with rogue nations) with terrible leaders like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Ill where we propose to give them “aid” and they propose to give up their nuclear weapons. America always holds its end of the bargain. And if these leaders lie to our faces and don’t hold up on their end of the bargain, it’s of no concern to us. For we know that deep down they are really just good people waiting to be loved (just like us). We need to pull out of conflicts when we are tired of them. When it gets too much for us, we need to send the troops home. Other countries need to know that we are not mean people. If they would just let us know their opposition to us by killing some of our soldiers, then we’ll leave. We’re not unreasonable people, we Americans. Just look at how we left in Vietnam, Mogadishu, and what we are about to do in Iraq. Other nations and terrorist groups in the world, please don’t fear us. We aren’t harmful people. We just want to be loved just like you.

And as for the earth, we want to save her. We will walk every where we go and develop new technologies where our cars will run on lollipops and candy canes. Why won’t our country wake up and realize that there are other ways of producing energy than nasty, bubbling, oil which is evil in every way? Even if the entire world is already set up to run on gasoline, if products like tupperware, makeup, lubricants are also made from oil… we don’t want to see one more drop raped from our earth because we want to run our cars off the electricity… which comes from a place far, far, away. And we want our houses and businesses to run off wind. No matter if there is no way to store this energy, we know that Obama will find a way. We don’t care if the transmission lines to transport the energy from the wind producing states in the middle of the country to the major energy consuming states on each coast will take decades and billions of dollars to build.. Obama can do it. I’m sure he can build a car with a 10 ft turbine right on top and solar panels on the blades of the turbines so that we can be free from purchasing oil from the middle east in 10 years without drilling! And no, we don’t want nuclear energy. It’s by-product is water, which seems good for the environment… but… um… I think McCain is for it and he’s EVIL so we’re sure Obama must have a good reason for pushing other less efficient technologies like wind, solar, and corn.

Everyone should vote for Obama, because a vote for Obama is a vote for change. Sure it will mean lower salaries, more job losses, encouraging businesses to move overseas, encouraging foreign investment over U.S. investment, discouraging pay raises and new hiring, and higher gas prices. But think of the benefits. The world will love us. Terrorists and evil dictators will lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya with us. France will love us.. er… oh shoot, they are already pro-American… umm.. Poland! … no wait, them to, um, Georgia… oh shoot… Sweden and Germany will love us! Iran will love us. And we will never have to worry about gas prices again because Obama is going to wave his magic wand and make the entire country run on the wind and the sun. And best of all, he’s NOT BUSH!

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 9:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (44)

“I’ve got a bracelet, too” had to be a low point in American politics. It feels like a low point in American culture. At the risk of sounding callous, I have to say that it’s getting tedious to have to wear a bracelet in support of your favorite cause. It’s just so… feminine. I remember when Jake Plummer put Pat Tillman’s number on his helmet and got fined for it by the NFL every week. I was so charged up to see such a strong display of support for a friend that it made me overlook the interceptions he kept throwing. But this culture of “awareness” seems like it’s a race for causes to get the most people wearing the most bracelets — or more accurately, the most famous people wearing your cause bracelet. I guess I’m just not a bracelet guy and it doesn’t necessarily make me want to vote for someone who is a bracelet guy. But at least you can say that McCain’s story about the bracelet he wears might be heartfelt… it might be something that he looks at and thinks about as he puts on his suit jacket right before going out to another stump speech. Obama just looked like a fool to me when he broke out in his retort, “I’ve got a bracelet, too, and it belongs to uh…” I mean, come on, Obama. If ol’ Johnny over there beat you to the punch on the bracelet claim then just let it go. You always have to have the last word even when it makes you look completely insincere… but I digress. The bracelet has become the bumper-sticker of the body. Pretty soon Garfield will have his own cause bracelet which will be orange and black striped with the words, “humans are idiots” written on it.

If this election was a sitcom with McCain/Obama as some kind of odd-couple, I would say that it jumped the shark with that comment.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 9:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Sen. Obama lacks significant executive experience but, through lofty ideas and charismatic delivery, promises change. Now is the time for him to show some real leadership and help to solve the impasse that congress and the White House are at over a bill that could stave off a financial meltdown. Senator McCain has announced that he is suspending all campaign activities after attending a conference on Thursday in order to go back to Washington to help congress pass a bill that everyone can agree on. This includes suspending campaign stops, airing political ads, and the debate scheduled to be held on Friday night. McCain asked Obama to join him in that effort, but Obama has rejected the invitation claiming:

Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time. It’s not necessary for us to think that we can only do one thing and suspend everything else.

According to a press conference that is available at www.barackobama.com, Obama claims that this is the worst financial crisis since the great depression. It would seem to me that when you have a crisis of this magnitude that the president should do focus one only one thing. Do you think President Bush was doing much else on 9/11 than dealing with the crisis at hand? And why, if this is the case, was Bush heavily criticized for doing other things when Katrina hit?

Obama and the Democrats are trying to accuse McCain of using this crisis to feign interest in solving the crisis when he really has selfish political motives behind the move. This is an accusation over motives which could never be proven. What can be proven is that McCain seems to be doing all he can to get a signed bill by Monday morning. I can’t say for sure what his motives are but I can deduce them by past actions. McCain has, on several occasions, taken action that most agree is politically unfavorable to himself. He suspended the first day of the Republican National Convention when hurricane Gustav hit. He also supported the surge when most said it would end his political career. Even if you believe that these actions were politically motivated, you have to agree that he has taken action. What Obama is doing is sitting on the sidelines and making fun of the other guy who is on the field getting dirty. This is not the actions of hope, but the useless talk of the cynic.

When defending his opposition to suspending the campaign until the bill is signed (referring specifically to suspending the debate) Obama stated that right now, debate is more important than ever. Actually, no, debating in front of the American electorate is not what we need right now. What we need right now is a signed piece of legislation and it’s time for actions, not party politics.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 9:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

David started his introduction by saying something to the effect of: to you libertarian-conservatives out there, I hope you enjoyed the roads that you took to get here and meeting in this auditorium at a public school… I suppose he thought this was some sort of zinger. Well, let me tell you, David, the roads actually sucked. They make me think maybe we should privatize them and get them into the hands of someone that will maintain them. I rode my scooter and I was bouncing all over the place. I know Denver has it rough with all the expansion/contraction due to temperature extremes, but come on - these roads really are terrible. On top of that, some people had to pay for the roads that they took to get there. See my post about toll roads being facist. So if this was supposed to make us think about how great liberalism is, well then it’s not starting off so well. As for being held in a public school, well that may have been but someone paid a lot of money to the school to hold the debate there, so it wasn’t exactly public to us. Speaking of public schools, Dennis definitely had the best line of the night. It went something like this: Liberals will fight so hard to give women the ultimate choice over the fate of the unborn child in their womb but they won’t allow moms and dads to have any choices about where they would like the funding for their children’s education to be used. Touché.

Taxes

I couldn’t believe that David actually admitted that he wanted higher taxes. Liberals usually try to hide this fact. He showed such a fundamental lack of economic understanding. He kept saying that life was better economically during the Clinton era as if higher taxes had something to do with it. The Clinton era and the Bush era both share a grave mistake made twice on the part of investors and Wall St: It’s this phenomenon of jumping on the bandwagon of “hot” investments to the point that the amount we pay for an investment exceeds the actual return that this investment could normally provide. This was true when investors were paying over $100 a share for tech stocks from companies that had never turned a profit. It was also true when people were paying $700,000 for a townhome in California. This was also true in the 1920’s when ordinary Americans discovered the stock market and started over-paying for new technologies such as radio. Both the Clinton era and the Bush era showed us what can happen when those bubbles burst: ordinary Americans lose pensions and life savings. If David Sirota somehow attributes the growth of the bubble to higher taxes or does not recognize the grave consequences of an economic bubble, then he cannot see the big picture even when we are in the midst of the second bubble burst in the same decade.

Another fact he seems to not know or conveniently ignores is that the Bush tax cuts produced more revenue to the federal government than during the Clinton Administration. Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cut. And the rich pay a substantially higher percentage of the total tax dollars the federal government receives (which should make the fairness police happy). For more detailed info, see this report by the Heritage Foundation.

How can you cut taxes and bring in more money? Well, admittedly, this is paradoxical on the surface. But it doesn’t take too many economics courses (or just a few listens to my favorite podcast: EconTalk) to learn that the reason you actually bring in more money by cutting taxes is that you encourage more investments. By encouraging more of the activities that you tax, you end up bringing in more revenue. Supposing you have a lemonade stand and you price your lemonade at $1.00 a glass. Let’s assume that you paid 20 cents for the water, lemons, and sugar. Because of the high price of lemonade, you only sell 4 glasses in a day. How much money did you make that day? $3.20. Then the next day, you decide that $1.00 is too much for lemonade and now you charge 50 cents per glass. Now that seems like a great deal on a hot day so 30 people take you up on your lemonade. How much money have you made? $9. How could it be that you charge less for lemonade and make more money? It’s so simple that even a 10 year old could understand it.

David was trying to reframe the debate on taxes, though, into a question of fairness. Is it fair that 60% of the Bush tax cuts went to millionaires? Don’t you think more of those cuts should go to middle class citizens? Dennis had the perfect response: They are the ones that pay most of the taxes. The wealthiest 1% of Americans pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% of Americans. Of course they get most of the benefit from tax cuts. And tax cuts for the lower-income brackets reduced federal revenue the most of all the 2003 tax cuts. Tax cuts for the higher wage earners do more to help our economy. So, yes, David, a rising tide does raise all boats. The lower tax brackets is where Obama wants to focus all his cuts. If history is any guide, then this will likely cut revenues for the federal government. Pair this with raising taxes on the wealth producers and nearly doubling the capital gains tax (this is the tax cut that benefited the economy the most from the 2003 cuts) and you have an economic disaster on the scale of Jimmy Carter. Thanks, but no thanks.

As for me, personally, I am glad that millionaires get to keep more of the money that they earn, firstly, because I am not a vindictive or jealous person. I am glad for them. Secondly, I know that tax cuts for them means more money for me. After all, I’ll bet my boss has a lot more money in his bank account as a result of the tax cuts. The more money that he has, the more money that he has to pay me. He also spends that money on other goods & services that helps out other middle class people. The other part that seemed to be missed by both speakers is that I benefited from the 2003 tax cuts and I am not a millionaire. I make an average, middle-class salary and I received benefit by a lower tax base, child credits, and the lowering of the capital gains tax (I sold an investment property and some stock).

Race

Race, admittedly, is a more touchy subject for me. After all, I’m white. David was unfair when he looked out at the crowd and told us that we were a bunch of white people and we had no business believing that African Americans are poor because of a values problem. That comment seems to say, “you can’t disagree with me or you’re racist.” You just need to turn on the local ghetto rap station and hear the rappers talk about bitches and hoes and capping people to know that there is an issue of values here. Is it unfair of me to put this kind of music on all African Americans? Maybe, but I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that this is certainly the dominate music in the inner city. I live in a rough neighborhood and at it’s worst, all the kids were walking around wearing red and beating each other up with baseball bats. Were they this way because I’m a white, racist bigot? No, I think they are this way because their parents are drunk or drugged out on the couch all day long. I’m not really stereotyping here because these are the kids in my neighborhood and I actually know about their home lives. PLEASE don’t mistake me for saying that all African Americans have drugged out parents. I’m simply saying that it is fair to suggest that the reason that some minorities struggle while others thrive is a problem of values. Dennis pointed out that David conveniently left out Asians when describing statistics on the economic disparity between whites and minority groups. That’s because Asians do better, on average, than whites. Is that because Asians are racist towards white people? I wrote a blog post, some time ago where I wondered if Affirmative Action is good for the psyche of it’s recipients? I’m sure by even mentioning race in this blog, I’m opening up myself to be called a racist. Heck, I’m already being called a racist because I’m not going to vote for Obama. But I’m confident that better values would help minorities. Just ask the minority students that went to college, in-part, because I tutored them, helped them study for their SAT’s, and helped them navigate through the maze of college requirements. Let me just come right out and say it clearly: until African American and Hispanic children aspire to be engineers and teachers instead of thugs and football players, their situation will not improve: I don’t care how much taxpayer money you throw at them. Until African American and Hispanic leaders start crying “EDUCATION” instead of “RACISM”, they will not help the people they are speaking for. I’m sure David felt refined for accusing the mostly-white audience of bigotry for agreeing with Dennis, but he could not be farther from the truth with this audience member.

Separation of Church and State

David, you quoting scripture to me to push your own political agenda is like Obama using Hebrews 10:23 to refer to his candidacy. It’s just wrong. This is a message to everyone out there, including Christians: the Holy Scriptures are sacred, at least to many Christians in the world, so please don’t use it to push your own, earthly agendas. There are some things higher than politics. Let’s just set the record straight about Mathew 5. And, David, I will quote scripture to you.

The words that Jesus spoke on the Mount of Olives separate history into two halves. Pre and Post Sermon on the Mount. It may seem like nothing special for us to say that you should treat others better than yourselves — that you should put others first. But that is only because we have been so affected by these words. Our society is fundamentally different because of this Sermon. These words were spoken amidst a culture that invented some of the most cruel torture-techniques known to man. The concepts outlined in Mathew 5 are present in the Torah and the Old Testament but never so clearly spoken as Jesus spoke these earth-shaking words:

“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.”

“Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”

“Blessed are the peace makers for they will be called sons of God”

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be filled”

Jesus is not talking about economics, but the spiritual condition of our hearts. Jesus is turning the tables upside down on the way that humanity has set up its order. In the kingdom of man, it’s survival of the fittest — only the strong survive. In the kingdom of God, it’s the lowliest of the low who are elevated to positions of power. Later Jesus would say, “the first shall be last and the last shall be first.” In God’s kingdom, the injustices of the world will one day be righted, not for those who oppress, but for those who are oppressed. The kingdom of God is made up of the righteous and the pure in heart. Jesus practiced what he preached by voluntarily submitting to death by one of the cruelest treatments man has dreamed up for the sake of all his past and future followers.

David, does having left-leaning political views make you righteous or make your heart pure? DON’T, David, DON’T use this absolutely profound and life-changing passage to tell me that I should support more food stamp programs or a universal health-care system. These words, when aptly pondered, should make every, single one of us fall on our face in humility to a God who shows mercy crying, “God have mercy on me, a sinner.”

The Iraq War

Did Bush lie or was he just mistaken about WMD’s? We will probably never know. His political opponents will, no doubt, assume the worst. I do know, however, that another test of the American will to win is in our midst. Americans have shown a pattern in the last 50 years of not being able to stomach the harsh realities of war. Therefore, our enemies do not need to defeat us militarily, they simply need to wear down our will to the point where we decide not to fight. I respect the position that we should not have gone to war in Iraq in the first place. But now that we are there, it is in ours and the Iraqi’s best interest to win. Otherwise, we will be nothing but a paper tiger for the rest of the world to mock as our president flies home from the summit-du-jour.

David pointed out that all the polls show that this war is unpopular. He reads the polls and concludes that they mean that we should, therefore, get out of the war. I see it differently. I think Americans like to win and hate to lose. Bush is unpopular, not because he is seen as a cowboy or an idiot, but because he is seen as a loser in Iraq. If he had not under-estimated the need for sufficient troops on the ground (instead of assuming that our superior technology would hand us victory) and Iraq was a stable, democratic, and peaceful place, Bush would be a hero. It was only after many in Washington, led by Sen. John McCain, and some generals in the Pentagon began to call for a surge of troops to rid the most out-of-control region in Iraq of insurgents that we began to win the war in Iraq. THAT, is what I want in Iraq: Victory. I want Victory. I want Victory. I want Victory… Victory for the American soldiers who have given life and limb for this cause, victory for the American will, victory for American influence and respect in the future, victory for the Iraqi’s who have been suffering through years of instability preceded by decades of terror, victory for the American people who are spending 12 billion dollars a month on this war. Who will bring us victory? Will Senator Barack Obama? It’s clear that all he wants out of Iraq is out of Iraq. The man who is proven to have the resolve, the experience and the wisdom to do what it takes to win is John McCain. That is why I am voting for him.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 8:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (42)

Tonight I went to a debate between conservative talk show host Dennis Prager and progressive bestselling author David Sirota. It was such a great debate and I wish that politics were more often framed in a non-election forum because it allows each person to be more honest about their viewpoint. There’s no way that I can write about each point since my memory isn’t quite that good. I will try to post just a few key points from each speaker. I’ll also update the post as I remember pieces (which seems to happen over time for me).

David: Overall, I was thrilled to see a liberal who actually claimed to be a liberal… oh wait, I take that back: he made the distinction of being progressive saying that he would come back and describe the difference, which he did not. In any case, I was happy that he seemed very open and honest about his political views which liberal candidates seem to try and hide.

Dennis: Well, I’m a listener so I’m already a fan.

Taxes:

David: Yes, American’s should pay more taxes. He seemed to suggest that the tax rates under the Clinton administration were about right, although he didn’t say that definitively. It is our responsibility to use tax money to partially right the inequality in our society. Bush’s tax cuts primarily went to millionaires. A rising tide does not lift all boats - it only lifts the yachts while the tugboats get left behind. The economy was better under Bill Clinton when taxes were higher.

Dennis: Money we earn is ours first, not the governments. You don’t make a better society by letting people live off the government. People should live off of their own initiative first, the charity of others second, and lastly a safety net provided by the government. How high do taxes have to be before the left will call it criminal? When the government placed a luxury tax on yachts, rich people didn’t stop buying yachts, they just let go of jobs in order to afford the higher yacht prices.

America’s Reputation in the world

David: A worldwide poll shows that Americans are less-liked than before. We should strive to make other nations love and respect us more. This would help our national security.

Dennis: I don’t care. (somebody has been reading The Greasy Rag?) We should be striving for the respect of other countries, not their love. I love Uruguay. It has great resorts. Nobody hates Uruguay. Liberals always want to be loved by everyone. We should only strive to be loved by our family, friends, and spouses. The UN is responsible for a lot of harm in the world (he excepted the World Health Organization). The UN sat idly by while there was mass genocide in Rwanda. The U.S. is the greatest force for good in the world. More Americans have died for other countries than any other country in history.

David’s Rebuttal: America should be striving for the love and respect of the world at the same time.

Dennis’ Rebuttal: 1/4 to 1/2 (depending on the country) of people western European countries believe that the attacks on 9/11 were perpetrated by either the U.S. or Israel. Germany is fighting with us in Afghanistan but is only allowed to fire when fired upon. They had a top Taliban leader walk right in front of them and they did nothing. What good are allies like that?

Separation of Church and State

David: Sen. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) should have been allowed to have a ceremonial photo taken with his hand on the Koran (he wasn’t trying to take the actual oath on it)

Dennis: This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The constitution is the foundation of our law, but it’s was based upon a set of values which come from the Bible. What is it that gives us inalienable rights if not God? Mitochondria?

David’s Rebuttal: Dennis is being hypocritical when he talks about Christian values. Didn’t Jesus say “the meek shall inherit the earth”? “I won’t quote scripture”… Jesus talks about loving your neighbor, caring for the needy. Republicans are so pious and yet they want to take away food stamps and keep Americans without proper health care.

Dennis’ Rebuttal: I must have missed the part in the Bible where it talks about how many food stamp programs we should have. Was that in Luke? I teach the Hebrew Bible, maybe it’s not in the Hebrew text. Where did Jesus say what type of health care system we should have?… We have to be able to say that Christian values are the best value system for providing an open and fair society. It’s not a put down of the Muslim faith, it’s just a fact that it’s values don’t provide the same level of equality. Until Jews or Christians are allowed to be elected to leadership in Saudi Arabia, you just have to admit that it’s a fact that the values from the Koran does not provide the same level of equality.

Race

Dennis: When I was growing up in a liberal Jewish family I was taught that Race didn’t matter - that our society should be colorblind. That isn’t the liberal stance any more. Liberals put too much emphasis on Race. Race should be about as important as your shoe size.

David: Conservatives don’t live in the real world - they live in the world of ideals. We have to admit that race plays a role in the inequality of our society. Here he quotes figures showing that African-Americans and Hispanics are far behind white people when it comes to wealth (I don’t remember the exact statistic).

Dennis’ Rebuttal: Notice he didn’t include Asians in his statistics. That’s because Asians are far above whites when it comes to wealth. Does that mean that Asians are racist against whites and holding whites back? It’s actually liberal policies that are holding African-Americans back since they are reinforcing the idea that they’re being held down by another group. The real problem for African-Americans is a problem of values. Bill Cosby and other leaders are starting to speak up about the problem of inner-city values.

David’s Rebuttal: Pretty much the same as his first argument.

The Iraq War

David: Bush lied or misled us into the war. The war was about oil. It’s not unpatriotic to want to end the war. The war is unpopular. The war is not worth it.

Dennis: I’m not sure if the war was worth it: time will tell. I was ambivalent about invading Iraq. We have to win. If we don’t win, it will be disastrous for the U.S. If Bush lied, then a lot of other people must have been misled including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Congress. It was not about oil.

Other things said - I don’t exactly remember where the following items fit in

Dennis: If Americans want liberal values so much, then why do they keep electing Republicans?

David: Republicans didn’t win the popular vote.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 9:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I’ve heard comments from several of you suggesting that I would make a good President. Let me just add a touch of realism here and say that I couldn’t agree more!

Continue reading "Pete for President!" »

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 2:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I started to post a comment to refute some of the comments made to a previous post in which I explained why I support Sarah Palin but it quickly became enough material for a whole post. First, let me say that the vitriol in this election is alarming. I respect the positions of Obama supporters who have valid points and honest views. That’s why I began my last post with some honesty about weaknesses of Sarah Palin.

Now on to the rebuttal:

The main problem with the criticism of Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience is that Obama is in the same plight. He served in the senate for roughly 3 1/2 years and has travelled some. At this point, I see nothing quantifiable that gives Obama any more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin. Foreign Policy experience is something that is very difficult to come by and you don’t get it by simply travelling. You get it by being involved in negotiations or discussions or decision-making as it specifically relates to a decision being made between two international groups. Obama has travelled - even to Germany, but I haven’t seen any actual foreign policy experience (please comment if you have concrete examples to the contrary). On the foreign policy front, I don’t support Obama because I disagree with his philosphy about foreign policy. Obama believes that the world’s problems can be solved through diplomacy. If you believe that then vote for him. I don’t mean to say that diplomacy is never an option, but you weaken your ability to solve problems through diplomacy when you weaken your stance in the world. At some level, rogue nations need to believe that you would attack them if provoked. For the last 40 years, the U.S. has been in a disastrous pattern of attack and run as exemplified perfectly by the “Black Hawk Down” episode in Mogadishu where the U.S. attempted to intervene in a genocide, but did not fully commit enough troops to get the job done. The Somalis figured out pretty quickly (as is well documented in interviews) that they didn’t need to defeat our entire army, they only needed to inflict enough casualties to cause the U.S. to cut and run. Clinton played perfectly into their hands and weakened the overall ability of the U.S. to threaten military force. This was a lesson for Al-Qaeda in how to beat the Americans. Bush has followed the same pattern by bringing us into a war without committing the troops needed to win. I believe (as John McCain does) that we HAVE to win in Iraq. If we cut and run, especially when we have been achieving significant victories, we will undermine any influence the U.S. has. Once you take military might of the diplomatic table, you’re left with nothing but economic sanctions — a policy which worked wonders in Cuba and pre-war Iraq (sarcasm intended).

Second rebuttal: I do not respect the opinion of celebrities - especially Matt Damon. They don’t deal with the problems that most Americans do and they usually don’t have any training that qualifies them to comment on politics more than any burger flipper at McDonalds. Acting classes don’t teach you economics or foreign policy. If you’re trying to be convincing, you might try leaving him off the bibliography.

Third rebuttal: Bush is anything but conservative (economically speaking). I suppose its easy to see the “R” next to his name and assume that conservative = Republican. Much to my dismay, it does not. We have not had a true conservative in the white house since Reagan. Bush’s domestic accomplishments have done more to further the liberal economic agenda than president Clinton’s (who thankfully brought us wellfare reform and lower taxes). This could be a whole blog post in itself - suffice it to say: Bush has grown the federal government more than any other president since FDR. Yes, he pushed for lower taxes (which has generated a rise in 20% more tax revenue for the federal government than during the Clinton era) but beyond that it’s been all big government and big spending. As I mentioned in my last post: conservatives want a smaller federal government and want more issues to be decided at the state & local level where government has a better understanding of the needs of the people in the region. I go even a step beyond and think that social issues should be decided at the state & local level. This is also where people have more of a role in democracy since most states have a more direct democracy than the federal system… but I digress. Bush is not a conservative.

Fourth: McCain is about to die? This is just foolish. It’s also eerily reminiscent of something Matt Damon said (see rebuttal #2). You have to evaluate someone’s health on their actual doctor-evaluated health, not national averages. If McCain’s doctor said that he wasn’t fit then you’d have a point about the likelihood of Palin becoming president. You seem to be taking Damon’s 30% statistic, but it has flawed logic. He’s not an anonymous statistic. He’s a known person who’s doctor can check him out and tell us that he’s fit to serve and won’t be croaking soon as best as we can tell. But I find it interesting that the Obama (until recently), the media, and many liberal bloggers are treating this as a race between Palin and Obama. I had previously believed that this is because Obama can’t hold a candle to McCain on experience and he wanted to try and compete against someone he has a fighting chance with. The “McCain is about to die” comment makes me think that maybe most people have written McCain off for dead. Strange. Show me the doctor’s note.

On Palin’s Degree: Palin did not go to Yale or Haahvard. That’s a plus in my book. I’m not looking for another Skull & Bones elitist who’s been brainwashed into the kind of hooey that comes out of higher education these days. I’m not trying to belittle higher education in general: just the kind of education that comes out of the Ivy League schools. On the east coast, you are what is on your wall. In the west, you are what you do. When you’re looking for a reformer, being an outsider is a plus. You want someone who has more experience with the harsh realities of life than with the elbows of other important people. I’ll take a BA in journalism + minor in Political Science over a law degree ANY DAY.

Lastly: Personal experiences are nice but 7 people from 7 countries (that sounds like a British sit-com) is hardly a statistically valid sample. I could easily run into 200 people from 50 countries who say the opposite. We’d still be nowhere in our debate. I haven’t seen an entire-world poll to know who wants Obama and who wants McCain, but let me share a few opinions on the who-would-Germany-vote-for question. I don’t care. I don’t mean to say that I want people to hate us. But I want a president that serves the interests of the USA more than the interests of the world. I think it’s a valid position to say that being buddies with the rest of the world does serve our interests, but I don’t share it. I think we should be friends with reliable allies, on good terms with most other countries, and be stern and firm with rogue nations who have stated ambitions against the United States (which we can’t do very well with a weakened military). I also think that when Obama and other liberals talk about the “rest of the world” they mean Europe — and by Europe I mean western Europe. Most of eastern europe are staunch allies of the U.S. because they know what it is to live under tyrrany and the constant threat of Russia. They don’t side with France because they know that France will never protect them. NATO is better for them than the UN (see Rwandan Crisis). Western europe is not a group of countries that we should be modelling ourselves after. France’s treatment of immigrants and record on freedom of religion is abismal. Their populations are diminishing (only countries with a large influx of muslim peoples are even staying even on demographics) and so is their economies. All this to say that Americans know better what is best for Americans than people who watch MTV and CNN.

In an ideal world, Reagan or Lincoln or Monroe is resurrected from the dead. In fact, let’s throw in Andrew Jackson (for the economic insight) and merge the 4 into one. The candidate has tons of experience with foreign policy, economics, diplomacy, and the inner workings of the miltary. If that were possible, I’m voting for Relincmonson! Let’s give him a classic but vague slogan like “A new direction” or “Don’t change horses” and let him run some attack ads about how his opponent was “insensitive” or “just like the last guy” or whatever non-important issue you can use to strike fear in the heart of voters. I’d sleep through the election season and punch the shit out of that chad!

Let’s get back to reality. We have two tickets in the here-and-now with strengths and weaknesses. You really have to break it down into two categories: experience/trust and policy. Policy-wise I am a conservative and I support the ticket that’s closest to my views. I can and will go into what I see this differences as but we have to get down to issues of real importance. I wish Palin had more foreign policy experience but she doesn’t. But her philosophy is sound. And may I remind that her name appears below McCain’s on the sign. And if you question Palin as president, then you have to think about a Biden presidency: In his latest effort, he got less than 1% of a nation-wide primary vote (that’s about 9,000 votes). We had 6,000 people at the Palin rally in Golden alone.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 7:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

I have to admit that I am a big fan of Sarah Palin and I’d like to explain why. First things first, though… Following are the negatives:

Foreign Policy Experience: Alaska’s proximity to Russia is a terrible defense of her foreign policy experience and she really needs to drop it. The fact is that this is her weakest area and when asked about it, she should remind people that McCain brought her on the ticket for her experience in reforming government and her familiarity with the energy issues that the U.S. is facing right now.

The Bridge to Nowhere: While it’s technically true that she turned down federal money to build the bridge, she was originally for it. Her explanation is that she was initially for a smaller pricetag on the bridge. Beyond that, she hasn’t had a great explanation for the change in stance and I also think she needs to drop this one. While she isn’t technically lying when claiming she said, “no”, I think everyone knows that it’s a weak claim.

Troopergate: There is absolutely no basis to the claim that she pressured the Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, into firing her brother-in-law and then fired Monegan because he would not do it. The closest thing to a fact about this accusation is that Monegan “wonders if Wooten’s situation was part of it [his firing].” Beyond that, there are no proven facts implicating Governer Palin. In fact, Wooten had a long file of complaints against him, some of which are chronicled in this article by the Anchorage Daily News.

Those, in my opinion, are the three major objections to Palin’s candidacy. I believe that Palin would make a great vice president, not simply because of her personality or ability to connect with voters, but because of her skills and experience which are needed in Washington D.C. at this time. First, no matter how her “bridge-to-nowhere” or record otherwise is disputed, you cannot dispute the fact that she has been instrumental in reforming the Alaska state government — A government which was largely run by officials who cow-towed to the biggest special interest in Alaska: the oil companies. Sarah Palin does not just promise reform, she has demonstrated it with real experience. A few of the key points about her reform:

• When the state had a large surplus from oil revenues, Palin signed a $1,200-per-person energy rebate
• She made $231 million in budget cuts in 2007
• To save money, she lives in Juneau during the legislative session and then works out of offices in Anchorage (near Wasilla) the rest of the year.
• She let go of the governer’s personal chef and sold the state’s Jet bought with state credit (this in a state that is difficult to travel by road)
• The voters of Alaska validate the job she’s doing with an over 80% approval rating

At a rally in Golden, CO, Palin outlined the role that she and Senator McCain have decided on for her possible vice presidency: leading the energy independence platform, getting rid of wasteful spending, exploring how government can help further research for major diseases, and setting government policy for helping children with special needs. These are areas where she provides valuable experience to the ticket. As Governer of Alaska and Chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, she has real experience with the issues facing sources of domestic energy. This may be the second most-important issue our country faces (national security and fighting islamic extremist being the most important) and we need real experience guiding the issue, not empty words. Claiming energy-independence on completely renewable sources is just not feasible (more on this issue on a post to come).

Palin is a conservative. Central to conservatism is a basic belief that the government should be limited to only those functions that necessitate government intervention. It’s the idea that the government is not very good at providing most functions and should only be used where it is better than the private sector or more localized governments. Conservatives also believe that you have a right to your money, and not the government. It is not the government’s job to redistribute wealth, but only to provide the best environment to obtaining “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Most conservatives (including me) will go so far as to believing that there should be a “safety net” to keep people from being homeless or destitute when they have fallen on hard times. Of course, you have to say that McCain is more conservative than Obama, but Palin is the only candidate that can be described as conservative. That’s why I’m a fan of Palin despite her lack of experience in some areas. Although Biden has been a senator for 35 years, I think a Biden presidency would be disastrous to our country because of his policies. On Iraq, for example, Biden proposed carving Iraq into three autonomous regions. This has been tried, of course, many times and has some major examples of disaster: North/South Korea, East/West Germany, North/South Vietnam. At the 2004 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Biden said that Americans “don’t have much of a democracy ourselves.” Biden tried unsuccessfully to run for president twice - in his 2008 bid, he only received 9,000 nation-wide votes in the primaries. And Biden is a typical tax-and-spend liberal.

But Palin is not competing against Biden in this election. Palin is competing against Barack Obama. And that, to me, is most telling of what this race has come down to: An ideologue liberal with no feasable, concrete solutions and no governing experience running for president against a conservative with proven reform experience and realistic plans running for vice-president. Biden? No one is really counting his worth in this race. What you’re left with is an experienced reformer in John McCain with valuable foreign-policy experience, a proven commitment to his country, and realistic plans for reforming government.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 6:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Went to the Palin rally this morning in Golden, CO.

The event was supposed to be a pancake breakfast, but as thousands of people showed up the first day the tickets were available, the event was quickly changed to a rally and moved to a venue where more people could attend. Tickets were supposed to be available Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, but all the tickets were given away by Friday mid-morning. We 10 tickets for friends and family.

When we first arrived, it took some time to get parked and get through the line. Along the way were people selling buttons, stickers and t-shirts. There were also protesters who were largely ignored by people in line. They held signs which were directed against Palin, but weren’t too offensive other than the one equating Sarah Palin with Jezebel. The presence of the protested furthered my stereotypes of liberals that they can’t win in the war of ideas so they have to smear the opposition (this idea is directly stolen from Rush ).

I was struck by how fervently the crowd was supporting Palin. It was clear that most of them connected with her as a person and had excitement for what she might bring to the White House. These people were not going to be swayed by Troopergate or the supposed mis-claim about stopping the “bridge to nowhere”. I did have a friend who attended who was particularly interested in these two issues who not only did not receive any feedback on these issues, but was most likely further dismayed that Palin again claimed that she stopped the bridge project. In the hours before Palin spoke, the crowd was excitedly chanting, “Sarah, Sarah, Sarah…” and waving their lipstick back and forth like lighters at a rock concert. Signs read slogans such as “Bulldogs for Palin”.

When Sarah Palin spoke, her style was similar in tone and message to previous speeches and it was every bit as fervent as the speech she gave at the RNC. I was pleased to see her message further refined and that she added a few more details to their plan. She spoke of the first things that the McCain/Palin team would tackle if elected which included: The economy (specifically the mortgage industry), Pork Barrel Spending, and Energy Independence. She mentioned specifically that the government should not be bailing out large companies that have mismanaged their money. She also outlined exactly what her role as Vice President would be which included taking charge of the following issues: energy independence, wasteful spending, funding for major disease research, and funding for special needs children. One other agenda item she mentioned (which my wife was particularly excited about) was that she would put the government checkbook register online as she had done in Alaska presumably meaning that you could go to a web site to view every transaction that the government makes. She spent quite a lot of time talking about how the government needs reform in the area of wasteful spending. A few of her powerful lines from the RNC speech were repeated such as: “There are those who use change to promote their careers and those who use their careers to promote change” (quoted from memory so this may not be exact… if Charlie Gibson can do it then so can I!). She also repeated the line about energy needing to come from American sources, by American ingenuity, produced by American workers.

Leaving took forever as there was only one small way in and out of the parking area. Everyone was polite, however, and it wasn’t unpleasant apart from the wait. My SUV actually got stuck and I had to put the trac-lock on to get unstuck in the manure-mud mixture that was the parking lot. I was really glad that I wasn’t in a Prius.

I’ll give my biased thoughts in a follow-up post.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I thought the lipstick on a pig comment was completely innocent. Until Obama showed up on the David Letterman show and said this:

Keep in mind that, technically had I meant it this way –- she would be the lipstick!

Now he really is being sexist by suggesting that she’s nothing but a pretty face for the ticket. Am I reading too much into that remark?

I aggree with Stephen Spruiell over at The Corner: Stop Digging

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is a big difference between hockey and soccer and there is a BIG difference between hockey moms and soccer moms. I’ve noticed on these talking liberal vs. talking conservative shows that liberals tend to refer to Sarah Palin as a Soccer mom.

People who can’t understand the difference don’t really get why she is such a sensation in American Politics right now.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My general philosophy about taxes is that they should be spent, first and foremost, on roads, schools, and police. Everything after that is up for debate, but I feel that all serious pundits should at least be able to agree on that.

Carpool lanes gained popularity among local governments in the late 80’s and early 90’s. The idea was to reduce congestion by promoting carpooling. Right away, you have to ask the question: should the government be dictating our behavior? Obviously, to some degree, you have to say “yes”. The government should be telling us that we can’t murder or steal - no argument there. But these days it seems that the government is trying to tell us everything about how we should live our lives: don’t smoke, don’t plant grass, carpool to work, work for someone else - don’t be an entrepeneur, invest in real estate instead of the stock market (more on those last two in later topics). Personally, I don’t feel that it’s the government’s job to tell us where, when, and with how many people we should drive. It’s the government’s responsibility to provide the roads for us to drive on - that’s what we pay them for.

Even if you’re a government-is-your-nanny-type, you have to ask another question. After 20 years of carpool lanes, is it working? I’ll admit that I don’t have empirical data on the subject, but just looking around when I drive to work, I see 4 full lanes and one empty lane. I saw that when I lived in California, and I see that here in Colorado. Does it really do us any good to have an extra lane that barely anyone uses? Here in Colorado, I’m pretty sure that the government agrees with my assessment, because they just convinced us to pass a bill that allows them to charge people who ride alone to use the lane. They must be desperate to get more passengers in the carpool lane.

This is wrong on several levels. First of all, why don’t you just open up the lane to everyone? I’m not sure what the stated answer is to that, but I know one reason is that they’ve built this special lane that’s completely separate from the “commoners” on the freeway and it seems strange to have this special freeway/lane that has no significance except for being a relic of a bad idea. But now we’ve made a bad situation worse by turning our freeways into an oligarchy where the privileged few get their own freeway and the rest of us have to sit in traffic. It’s basically a toll road, except we’re not talking about a road that gets people who live in suburban mansions into the city quickly. We’re talking about a major freeway that connects one major city to another major city(with several cities in between).

This leads me to the topic of toll roads. This is simply the government shirking one of it’s most basic functions: building roads. Sure, they built a road (and a nice one at that), but why are they charging extra for something that we already pay for? What are taxes for if not for building roads, schools, and putting police on the streets? If the government can’t adequately provide roads for the number of people in an area, then they need to cut spending elsewhere in order to pay for it. It would be like an airline having a “seat” surcharge and charging you extra to sit in a seat on the flight (which may not be far off).

Why do we put up with this? Because we don’t think about taxes as money given to the government to provide services that benefit the common good. In fact, we don’t really think about taxes at all. That’s because they are taken out of our paycheck before we ever see them. It was a brilliant move on the government’s part to keep us from caring what they spend our money on. If you make a salary of 50k/year, you never really think about the fact that you really only see 35K/year ( source ). That means you pay $15,000 per year to the government and they can’t even build you the roads you need to get to work with that money. That’s just plain mismanagement and we are just letting them off the hook for it.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 1:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today I jumped up out of my chair because someone rang the doorbell after my daughter had gone to sleep which most of my friends know not to do. It was a girl promoting the Democratic National Committee. She started running through her speech as soon as I opened the door. As she was going through her speech I wondered if it would be more polite to stop her from wasting her breath or give her a chance to practice. It was raining.

I think it was the word “staunch” that made her walk away so briskly. I wished her the best of luck. She’s gonna need it!

I’m a republican AND I’m a Law & Order junkie. What could be better than Fred Thompson for president?

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The term "social justice" is getting a lot of traction with Christian communities and organizations in the U.S. The idea carries an assumption that "justice" means equality of standard of living. It is the idea that it is unjust that Bill Gates has a giant mansion and there are people in the heart of the city that are having trouble feeding their families and paying their rent. To a social-justice proponent, this is not only unfair, but unjust.

This concept is based on the assumption that justice means equality of standard-of-living. This is certainly at-odds with our constitution and with the econmic foundations of our country. The constitution explicitly gaurantees "the pursuit of hapiness" as a right. Most constitutional scholars agree that this can be translated "the pursuit of wealth" for legal purposes. The phrase "the pursuit of" is the key difference between how I see justice and how social-justice proponents see justice.

There are two keys to gaining wealth in the U.S.: 1) Education (knowledge) and 2) Excessive Cash. When I write excessive cash, I don't mean to suggest that it has to be an exhorbitant amount, I just mean that you need cash above and beyond what you need to live. One of the reasons there is so much opportunity in this country is that it is relatively easy to borrow money and get the excessive cash you need in order to build a business, buy real estate, or for any other purpose. You can also buy a car or a boat or a television on borrowed money which is where the education comes in. Just as there is an abudance of opportunity to gain wealth in the U.S. there is also and abundance of opportunity to lose it. There are many opportunities which allow you to live like a rich person without actually being rich. I have neighbors who can barely pay their rent and they are driving brand new Cadillac Escalades while I own my house and several others and drive a 24 year old Toyota with over 200K miles. The difference here is the second key to wealth building: Education.

Many Christians will have closed the browser window by now because wealth is considered evil. Wealth implies an over-abundance or a hoarding to many Christians. I call it good stewardship. That is because on the same income, with some better financial practices, the same person can vastly improve their financial situation. That is more than justice, that is freedom.

Most organizations that work with the poor, do not emphasize financial education (or any other type of education). It seems to me that social justice organizations are trying to change laws in order to force the middle class and wealthy to take pay the rent and bills of the poor. Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone to go hungry. But wouldn't it be better for us to be teaching the poor how to escape their poverty? Shouldn't minority leaders be crying "Education!" instead of crying "Injustice!"?

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

My whole argument assumes that we're talking about the U.S. - where we have the greatest financial opportunities mankind has ever seen. What do we do for the poor in countries where they do not have opportunity like we have here? In some cases, they can also be brought education and infrastructure that allows them to improve their situation. In other cases, however, their government or economic structures simply don't allow them to better their situation. I don't know the answer to this question.

Blogged with Flock

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 1:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I’m not a social justice supporter for many reasons. The main one being that it seems to deny or ignore the facts of life - or at least American life. At the heart of “social justice” seems to be the idea that we need to make this world fair for everyone. It’s a nice idea. Karl Marx was big on the idea and there’s nothing morally wrong with wanting things to be equal (financially speaking) for everyone. The problem comes when you try to implement social justice practices in the real world. I’ve never seen it work. I’ve never seen a welfare system that isn’t corrupted and doesn’t discourage people from working hard to improve their situation. I’ve never seen a communist, socialist, or even slightly socialist system of government work for the benefit of more than a few. I’m a believer in capitalism, not because I’m greedy but because it is the most functional and most fair system that the world has yet to see. Capitalism makes no distinctions of race, gender, or sexual preference, it simply rewards those who work hard and work smart. That is not to say that certain people don’t have an advantage in the system - it simply means that no one is completely cut off from the chace of succeeding.

Continue reading "Capitalism Works" »

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The movie title that the title of tomorrow’s rally was taken from is “A Day Without Mexicans”. It is a satirical film which presents what would happen on one day in California if suddenly all the Mexicans were gone.

The news coverage made me laugh because they presented the question, “What would a day look like without immigrants?” while showing pictures of a Panaderia, Carniceria, Pinateria, and a bunch of other shops I never go to except for the week before Cinco de Mayo. Which makes me realize the brilliance of the tactic: You want your fresh, authentic, Carne Asada and some chili-lime candy? Forget it, we’re marching on the capitol.

But seriously, what is the point of these rallies? No high-ranking politician is going to touch this issue with a ten-foot pinata pole. I hate to say that the rallies are just making the situation worse. Here’s what’s going on:

• Some conservatives started to realize that we’re losing out on a lot of tax money because millions of people that live in the U.S. do not pay their fare share. What’s more, they’re burdening the school system and health care system by using those facilities for free.

• A second group of conservatives combines this message with the fact that wall-mart has their signage in English AND Spanish and they start shouting “They’re taking over!”

• Millions of business owners send letters to the politicians they heavily support telling them that they better not take action against their source of cheap, tax-free labor that they’re exploiting all the way to the bank.

• The hispanic television and radio stations figure they can make a lot of money by organizing a bunch of rallies to get people to watch and listen.

What wil be the result of all of this? Other than a bunch of honking cars speeding around my neighborhood? NOTHING.

A message to conservatives, liberals, whites, hispanics, and anybody else involved. Why are you wasting your time? The politicians in power are not willing to solve this problem one way or the other and they never will be. If you feel strongly one way or the other than go to the voting booth - that’s the way to get something done. If Univision and Telemundo would put as much effort into a Get-Out-The-Vote effort as they are into boosting these rallies then the hispanic community would hold incredible political power. As it is, they are the largest growing minority group in the U.S. yet they have no political power because all the politicians know that they don’t (as a group) turn out to the polls.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

No one likes to be put in a box. That’s why I was disgusted when I heard the latest buzz-phrase in political demographics: Crunchy Conservative. Apparently Crunchy Conservatives are more urban than suburban. They embrace traditionally liberal ideas such as environmentalism and trends toward smaller and more conscious business practices. They also embrace religion and traditional family values. According to a post on reverie, Crunchy Conservatives are anti-consumerism.

Well I have to say that in a nutshell, that’s me. Not exactly, but that’s getting closer than any buzz-phrase has gotten in the past. One thing that I think liberals fall prey to is feeling good about action that does nothing. Conservatism has a draw because it is very practical. It asks the question, “Does it work?” Liberalism asks the question, “Is it fair?”. Both are good questions, no? But if I had to choose one or the other, I’d rather have a society that works for most people rather than a society that is (on the surface) fair to everyone.

As an example, let’s take environmentalism. No one wants to destroy the earth or the environment that we live in. Many conservatives aren’t even willing to consider that we might be doing just that. At the same time, most liberals have decided to fight issues that don’t even affect the environment in a significant way. They want to saddle U.S. business with costly limits on pollutants to bring them down microns when China and the former Soviet block countries are dumping pollutants and chemicals into the atmosphere at staggering rates. If I truly care about affecting the environment in a positive way, I’m going to look at Shanghai and not Detroit. I also recognize that Mount St. Helens can do more damage in 10 seconds than all humans combined can do in 10 years so that keeps me grounded.

Anti-consumerism? Yes, that’s me exactly. Our culture is destroying itself with lust and greed in its relentless pursuit of pleasure and power. Sadly and ironically, the very things that give true hapiness and joy in our lives are in our grasp: The pursuit of God, family, and blessing other people. If we would learn to enjoy the simple things in life, then we wouldn’t need to spend years sacrificing our families to get the big promotion and the BMW. When I get to the end of my life, I’ll remember the moments I had with Cora, not the moments I had with the company.

Crunchy? Not exactly. Environmentally and socially conscious? Yes.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you want to get something done politically in this country, vote. Or better yet, give a bunch of money to a candidate. If you want to party and have a good time, protest.

Seriously, when is the last time that any protest affected any political outcome? Vietnam? I was thinking about this when the flood of honking cars invaded my neighborhood last night. I went over to check out the hubub and it turns out that the protests for illegal immigration arrived in my neighborhood. At least that’s what I think the protests are about. I don’t really know because there weren’t any signs or speeches - there was just a bunch of cars driving around the lake and honking. Some people were walking around the lake holding candles but I don’t really know what that was about. I did see someone walking with a flag with Che Guevarra’s face on it. I’m not really sure what that is about. Call me a racist, but that was the lamest protest that I’ve ever seen.

If you ask me, the debate over illegal immigration is going to go exactly where the debate over same-sex marriage went: Nowhere. It’s a sad fact that no one is willing to address the problem and the people that would like to do something about it (for or against) can’t really do anything about it. Illegal immigrants can’t vote (yet) so they don’t have a political voice. It’s political suicide to seem “racist” by enforcing the laws of our country so politicians won’t do anything. Basically, and sadly, this debate is a waste of time and we should get back to figuring out how to take care of the looming social security debt that will bankrupt the country.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 2:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I had a conversation with some people today about company blogs. I quickly realized that it’s pretty tough to explain the benefits of blogging to a non-blogger. I remember when the hype started around me I couldn’t get over what a stupid name “blog” was. I thought having a weblog was the epitomy of dorkdom. It’s probably true, but I’ve join the ranks and I feel like the medium could change the face of communication around the world. To those who haven’t experienced it, there’s no way to explain it. I also have reservations about using a blog to market a brand because it seems to go against the essence of blogging: power to the people. I’m not going to be the one to put my finger in the dike, though, and wait to be the last company blogging.

Unfortunately, the conversation turned to politics. I’m a conservative and the guy I was talking to was a liberal. We talked about how politics has become the equivalent of rooting for your favorite sports team. Yes, it has become that. He’s accepted it and embraced it. I still think it’s foolish and refuse to play a part. I’d much rather let people know why I’m a conservative and let them make up their own minds instead of resorting to villifying candidates of the opposing party and other childish tactics.

I did hear a defense of universal health care that I’ve never heard before: Why make your company pay for your health care? That’s not fair to them is it?

Well, no, it’s not exactly fair although it’s not like they’re just paying my health care for free. I am working for it after all. I suppose I should be the one paying for someone else’s health care whom I have no obligation or connection to instead of someone earning their health care from their company. Here’s a concept: How about we all just pay for our own health care? When you put it like that, you realize what the universal health care proponents really want: The rich to pay for the health care of the poor and middle class. Who doesn’t want something for nothing?

The problem is that the rich don’t pay taxes. I don’t know why people don’t understand that. I think it’s because if people understood the concept, they might try and become rich themselves. It’s the middle class who pay taxes for the poor AND the rich. You doubt what I’m saying? Take a look at what the Kennedy family does with its money to keep from paying taxes. You only pay a significant amount of taxes if you get your income from an employer. If you work for yourself, you pay even more taxes. If your money works for you, you don’t pay taxes. That’s why I own real estate. People think I’m crazy because I spend time cleaning toilets and dealing with tenants who don’t pay their rent. I think they’re crazy because they spend all their money on fancy cars and big televisions and paying the largest share of the tax burden in our society.

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I don’t know what that subject line means, but I think if the mainstream media of today were around in the late 1800’s, they’d be accusing Bush of defending the free silver standard in order to protect his logging company (that he doesn’t own). It’s funny to see what issues divided the Republican and Democrat parties in centuries past. in 1896 it was a fierce debate over which metal would serve as the standard for our currency: silver, gold, or both (ht: lileks). It turns out the press vilified McKinley for his “monometalist” stance and wrote that everyone would become homeless if he were elected. Will historians of the next century have as much trouble understanding today’s political debate as current historians have of describing yesterday’s political debates?

Posted by Senator Pete Larson at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)