It's The Economy Stupid

We all remember the famous words of James Carville that summed up Clinton's 1992 presidential bid. "Its the Economy Stupid". It worked then and I sense it will be making a comeback. With growing concern over economic issues coupled with success in Iraq it seems that the economy could be the top issue of the 2008 campaign. Both the Democrats and the Republicans will have to compensate for this considering they're both on the road to nominating their weakest economic candidates.

The Democrats have lost their best candidate (in my opinion) overall in John Edwards today. Edwards disagreements aside was by far the best at articulating the liberal prospective on economic issues. Like wise the republicans will lose Rudy Giuliani and may lose,perhaps by Tuesday, Mitt Romney arguably their strongest candidates on the economy. Assuming Hillary will beat out Obama which I think she will that leaves us with a very interesting match up in 2008. On one hand you have Maverick McCain who not a good at articulating economic issues as his rivals; and on the other hand you have Hillary who can articulate them but as we saw in the past (Hillary-care) shes not always received well.

Now obviously if Obama is the nominee it will be a different scenario but his loss in Florida was telling to how the national stage will view him. My point here is simple with all of us gearing up for an election based on Iraq, Iran, and National Security we might want cool our jets and gear up for a full fledged economic debate.

Where Have All The Conservatives Gone

The Results are in and it seems The Maverick Republican John McCain has Won the Florida Primary. Though this victory may in the current environment benefit Republicans dying to avoid a Hillary Clinton Presidency, it could derail the very ideology that has defined the party since its inception. McCain is no doubt an honorable man, and first class war hero. Yet this dose not negate the damage he could do to the Republican party as President.

Lets first examine the various issues that McCain has failed the party on over the time.

1. Placates Global Warming Alarmist


2. Considered Running As John Kerry's Vice President


3. Opposed Bush Tax Cuts


4. Co-Authored McCain-Feingold


5. McCain Kennedy Amnesty Bill

These are just a few examples. I am truly sick and tired of hearing how wonderful McCain is. Its time that Republicans understand that if the liberal social programs under Bush have them upset, then McCain is not the solution. Our next best option Mitt Romney is no prize either, but at least he will serve the people who elected him; with the Maverick who knows. We are at a critical junction in history. If the Democrats win in 2008 we should be in store for some of the biggest increases in federal power in the history of the nation. By picking McCain your ensuring that this will happen regardless of who wins.

The Republican Party is supposed to defend the constitution not repudiate it. Repeal Federal Power not grant it. Republicans need to understand that Win or Lose we must change the party or risk the crumbling of the very values we hold sacred.

Economic Rollercoaster

Well, as of now everyone should be clued into the new rebate program that Congress and the White House have thrown together in an effort to stimulate an economy that some are saying is on the brink of recession. The big question of the day seems to be: Is a stack of $600 checks going to fix anything?

Perhaps, but if anything it will be a short term fix and a "warm and fuzzy" feeling that the government is hoping will convince us that everything is alright.

Why? Well, when it comes down to it, the status of our economy is entirely up to us. Perception is reality. For example: At last years State of the Union Address (a year ago), President Bush used the economic success of the US as a huge positive of his administration as he attempted to rally support for the upcoming "surge." We were seeing increasing wages WITHOUT government intervention, 40 months of constant job growth, inflation in check and unemployment at record lows. Overall, people were making money and living happily.

What happened?

Well, the housing market (which was already a bit shaky compared to previous years of prosperity) began to crumble due to overzealous lenders and incompetent borrows. The media constantly reported this negative while continuing to ignore the positives that compiled over several years. Poll's were released often showing that Americans were increasingly pessimistic about our economy (like here, here and here) even though the experts and numbers told a completely different story (like here and here). As a result, we have become weary overtime about our spending and enter a bit of a rough patch.

Will this result in a recession? Again, perception is reality here. If we choose to back off in fear of the economy falling apart, then the answer is yes. Makes sense why the government would hand back money in an effort to promote our recent habit bountiful lifestyle, huh? It'll be interesting to see what comes of these rebates. Here's the story from CNN.

By the way, we are now at 52 months of consecutive job growth, wages are still going well, the markets are still standing tall and unemployment is still down around 5%.

Hired Gun

To many of us pundits, the rise of Obama was unexpected to say the least. Although, one thing was certain...with Hillary's political future on the line, the Clinton's would pull out the stops to bring him down. This task was proving increasingly difficult. It started with the anger over a Clinton staffer alleging that the Clinton camp planned on using Obama's past drug use against him. It was clear then that any such attack made by Hillary would fuel a race based discussion.

Rightfully so, it has been clear this entire election that Hillary and company. have tried to undermine Obama in the eyes of Black voters. At one point, not too long ago, there was actually a discussion in this country over whether or not Obama was actually Black. At no point did Hillary come out and point out this absurdity, rather she allowed it to continue as long as she benefited. After the incident with her staffer, it was presumed Hillary would let the past drug use rest. Quite the contrary, she did not let it go but rather found a way to make it work. Her plan came to fruition at a recent campaign rally in South Carolina. The hired gun, Robert L. Johnson (Founder of B.E.T.) was (as to be expected) African American. He came out on stage and uttered the very paragraph the Clintons have been dying to use.

"And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved."

Mr. Johnson apologized later stating, that he was merely talking about how Barack at the time was a mere community organizer. Really Mr. Johnson? Why didn't you just say so during the speech? Let’s be real the only reason to not fully explain his message, is to say something without saying it. What better way for Hillary to question Obama's youthful indiscretions and have it resonate with Black voters, then having the founder of BET do it for her.

Now I know what you’re saying. Chris why are you giving Barack a pass on the drug issue while you hammer Bill Clinton on it? I will tell you. Barack was honest forthcoming and handled his scenario with dignity. As for Bill I got four words for you, "I did not Inhale". At least Obama treats me as if I have had a brain wave in the 19 years I have been alive. But that aside the way Hillary is attempting to woo Black voters is a disgrace. I would think at this point in our society that winning over Black voters would entail explaining valid solutions to their problems. Perhaps propose some solid plans to even the playing field by improving Schools, and reducing crime in inner cities. Nope they're getting the same dog and pony show that is given to the rest of us. This country is owed better then childhood shenanigans.

Hillary if you have something to say, say it. If you are truly a leader and capable of handling Americas enemies, have the integrity to call out Barack instead of using a political hired gun. But in reality you can't handle a character debate, because in order to do so you would need to have character. I may disagree with Obama, but he has got a heck of lot more character then the Clintons. At bare minimum I rarely hear a report of Barack getting an ash tray thrown at him by his wife Michelle because he fooled around with an intern.

CNN: Whatever Happened to the War?

CNN is reporting this weekend that issue of the Iraq War and War in Terror are lacking on the presidential campaign trail (Full Story). Why are candidates avoiding the issue? Well, I actually agree with their analysis in regard to both sides:

"Here's a theory: Republicans know that a defining characteristic of the electorate now is widespread distaste for the war that Bush launched and has continued with the help of the Republican Party...But why aren't the Democrats talking it up so much anymore? Simple: The war is going much, much better than it was a year ago -- even a few months ago. You might even say we are winning. I fully accept that anytime our young people are dying and civilians are being killed in the midst of combat, it is difficult to even talk about winning or losing. But fatalities for troops and civilians alike are way down."

So, the Republicans are avoiding the war because of past damages, yet the Democrats are afraid to engage the topic at the level they have in the past because of the high level of success...maybe even the fear of looking wrong on the issue that carried them into power in 2006.

What bothers me about this whole situation is that we hit the moment (that I have talked about for years now) the war takes a turn so drastic that even the high and mighty media is admitting its high level of progress, the entire issue becomes null and void! We put so much effort into these epic, elaborate debates (see the photo) but the main issue of our time is being ignored? Why is it the positives of this war remain silent, even when the effort reaches the point where its producing so many of them?

The answer is political agenda...and it goes far beyond the politicians these days.

By the way, the left is still sticking to their whole "we should get out as soon as we can" dribble, but as stated before on this site, their reasons as to why are constantly subject to change. Again, another trait of the typical liberal today; they continue to drive the issue into the ground even after loosing the debate.

Thats right hippie, you lost. (See, my sense of humor is still intact despite military training)

Coffee Wars

As Reported by Fox News, McDonald's is poised to begin competing with gourmet coffee giant Starbucks. McDonald's plans to add a gourmet coffee bar to each of it's restaurants, selling all types of coffee at prices 60 cents cheaper then Starbucks. This will most likely trigger a showdown between the two companies, that will ultimately benefit the coffee consumers.

For those of you who have your doubts about free market capitalism, and its ability to drive prices down trough competition this is a clear example. As many of you have noticed Starbucks, is the definition of a monopoly. It essentially has a stranglehold on the gourmet coffee market, and with that comes the ability to charge what ever they please for their products. McDonald's, no doubt benefiting from its recent upgrade in its regular coffees, smells blood in the water and is looking to take a chunk out of Starbucks' market.

Now I myself am not a fan of gourmet coffee. I prefer my Dunkin Donuts Great One with cream and sugar. However on the occasion that I have been dragged into a Starbucks, the prices have been ridiculous to say the least. Let this be a message to all of you who feel that America is no longer the land of opportunity; If McDonald's can produce a challenge Starbucks why not you. Find a product you feel is overpriced and respond with a better cheaper product. Or perhaps you should find a void in the consumer market and fill it. Enjoy Capitalism while we have it, cause if Hillary or Obama get their way it won't be with us much longer.

Now The Race Begins

Allow me to bask in my "I Told You So" moment as Barack Obama's victory in Iowa failed to equal a win in New Hampshire. He lost to Hillary Clinton by 3% despite leading by an avg. of 8% in the polls (Polls from Real Clear Politics). That is a 11% differential. Quite a comeback for the wife of the Comeback Kid. Not only is Hillary feeling the jubilation of a revitalized campaign she now has the coveted media storyline her campaign always dreamed up. Rather then being the establishment candidate of inevitability, she is now the comeback queen.

Barack Obama now has a serious problem on his hand. Facing a resurgent Hillary, media scrutiny into his qualifications, and growing questions about his New Hampshire loss Obama has taken a turn into political Limbo. As previously stated this is not to indicate he is finished as a National Candidate it merely constitutes a slightly rockier road to the nomination. The best part of this week has been watching 7 out of 10 pundits proclaim the death of Hillary only to watch her surge to victory in a state she was predicted to lose by 8% or more. Now some people are wondering what killed the Obama bounce. The answer is the same thing that derailed Kerry in 2004, the fickle nature of young voters.

Obama had been counting on a huge turnout from the youth of New Hampshire. Most sources indicate however that no such surge occurred. The same level of young people who voted in 2000 and 2004 voted in 2008. The fact is young voters are very interesting voting bloc. Every four years we see efforts like "Rock the Vote' or "Vote or Die" which aim at registering America's youth to vote. However this has yet to materialize into a substantial electoral result, this years Iowa caucus being the exception. Now it could very well be that the youth comes out in droves and eventual propels Obama to the nomination. They could also stay home and doom Obama to defeat. In my humble opinion support from America's youth is important but its value is not to be overplayed.

The Results on the GOP side were far less dramatic. John McCain, as expected, caped off his New Hampshire comeback with a win over Mitt Romney by 5%. This did little to help or hurt Mike Huckabee, it dose however revitalize a once near dead McCain. The key is whether or not he can raise the necessary funds to compete on the National level. It looks based on last months numbers that he may be well on his way. The race is now, baring a Thompson/Romney comeback in SC, a three way contest between Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani. At this point its advantage McCain but as we all know nothing in this race is a sure thing.

On a side note do not discount the possibility of Giuliani rebirth. He still polls well in Florida, and while McCain, Huckabee, and Romney battle for supremacy in South Carolina, you will find Giuliani strengthening his lead in Florida trough speech's and a rigorous ad campaign. Also as noted by a pundit on the night of New Hampshire the endorsements of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are still up for grabs. If Romney is slain Giuliani will become the most appealing option for conservative host and he may pick up those endorsements in an attempt for the conservative big wigs to destroy McCain-Huckabee.

Remember stop reading predictions and speculation because it was made clear last night that none of that matters. The only thing that will determine this race is the voters.

The Iowa Crowning

Well Iowa is past us and other then the obvious fact that Mitt Romney is out of the Republican Race (Please someone let him know!) nothing is set in stone. Well not of course if you ask the pundits. For the last couple of days I have read upwards of 30 stories on the Democratic Race. One out of those 30 dealt with who will actually win; the other 29 were about Barack Obama. Comparison's range from J.F.K. to Ronald Reagan.

Andrew Sullivan of the Australian alleges that Obama, like Reagan before him, would woo Republicans disenfranchised with George W. Bush's brand of Conservatism (Aka Socialism Lite). Lets be real people. The conservatives who hate Bush, do so because hes liberal! Why would those very same conservatives pick a straight out liberal in reaction to this hatred. The idea is plain stupid. Now what Obama could and might do is recapture the Reagan-Democrats and the Independents while a bad Republican suppress GOP turnout; Yet to assume Conservatives angry with the President will choose liberalism is insanity. It would be like suggesting that a Democrat fed up with their parties inability to end the war would vote for John McCain.

We need to all realize that Iowa is not that big an event. Let us take a stroll down memory lane and maybe we would notice that, as stated by Susan Estrich of Fox News, in the last 40 years only two people have won Iowa and become their parties nominee; Clinton in 1996 (Running Unopposed) and George W. Bush in 2000. That's it! The fact is that Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama have a long rode ahead. Huckabee faces slicing ads criticizing his conservative credentials and experience that have already halted his march in the National Polls. Obama is subject to the very same attack ads considering his experience on the national level is a couple of years in the Senate where he has spearheaded...oh that's right nothing. I am not alleging that their victories in Iowa are meaningless, however, it might be smart to put away the crown because this race is far from over.

Maj. Andrew Olmsted

In my web browsing I have come across the blog of Major Andrew Olmsted, an Army Officer who was killed on January 3rd when his unit was ambushed in Iraq. He had prepared a post to have published in the event of his death...here is a quick excerpt:

"What I don't want this to be is a chance for me, or anyone else, to be maudlin. I'm dead. That sucks, at least for me and my family and friends. But all the tears in the world aren't going to bring me back, so I would prefer that people remember the good things about me rather than mourning my loss. (If it turns out a specific number of tears will, in fact, bring me back to life, then by all means, break out the onions.) I had a pretty good life, as I noted above. Sure, all things being equal I would have preferred to have more time, but I have no business complaining with all the good fortune I've enjoyed in my life. So if you're up for that, put on a little 80s music (preferably vintage 1980-1984), grab a Coke and have a drink with me. If you have it, throw 'Freedom Isn't Free' from the Team America soundtrack in; if you can't laugh at that song, I think you need to lighten up a little. I'm dead, but if you're reading this, you're not, so take a moment to enjoy that happy fact...

...On a similar note, while you're free to think whatever you like about my life and death, if you think I wasted my life, I'll tell you you're wrong. We're all going to die of something. I died doing a job I loved. When your time comes, I hope you are as fortunate as I was."

Here is his complete Final Post. I recommend reading his words. As a future Army Officer, I hope to be as influential as it appears Major Olmsted was...he was quite the writer too; humorous, informative and inspiring. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.

Musharraf takes on Bhutto...

While Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf does concede that a gunman may have shot Benazir Bhutto, he goes on to "blame the victim" for her own death stating that she knowingly exposed herself to the danger. "For standing outside the car, I think it was she to blame alone. Nobody else. The responsibility is hers," Musharraf stated in an interview conducted by "60 Minutes." 

Regardless of what killed her (gunshot, explosion or mysteriously clever sunroof), this is terribly poor logic on the part of Musharraf. Yes, she had to have known that by re-introducing herself into the political realm on a soapbox of anti-terror that she would become a prime target for extremists. However, how can you blame her for stepping up and say that it is her demise is ultimately her fault? Is it the fault of a young woman who wanders down the "wrong street" and gets mugged?  Is it the fault of the person who leaves his car out in a "questionable neighborhood and is then robbed? Or how about the good Samaritan who gives to a "good cause" and is subsequently conned and taken advantage of? Some would utter that "they should've known better." I say don't blame those who are taken advantage of when they give society the benefit of the doubt and maintain a certain level of trust in those around them. This idea that we should not engage in certain actions because of the wrongs others may commit needs to go...instead, we should be focusing on the criminals of this world and stopping them from hindering the rest of us.

So too here with Bhutto. She knew the risk, but still believed that she needed to take the stand for those who wanted a stronger policy on terror. Don't blame her, remember the cause she believed in and ultimately gave her life for. Fighting terrorism is much like obtaining a strangle hold a foe in battle...they only become more violent as desperation and fear of the end sets in. The only way to finish the job is to stay strong, focus on the task at hand, tighten your grip a bit and wait for that final gasp before they ultimately submit.

We cannot waiver in this fight. Bhutto's sacrifice should only support and strengthen the need for this cause.

ITS BACK!

It appears bird flu is making a slow but steady comeback. For the first time in over 6 months of show prep I discovered two stories on infected birds. One that came out of Israel mentioned that 18 Birds had died from the H5 category of the virus that kills only birds. However, scientists were still examining the birds to discover whether or not they had been infected by the H5N1 which poses the huge threat to mankind. This is the virus that was predicted to ignite a pandemic, yet I have not heard any reporting on this since the big foreign affairs article on the subject in 2006. Its resurgence, however, is not a surprise.

If in fact if the Israelis conclude that the H5N1 strain was found, get ready for a month-long media blitz on the subject. Hell, you might even forget people are running for President. I am pretty sure at some point Dateline's Chris Hanson will start doing a running special known as "To Catch A Chicken Farmer." With the housing market issue dying as a panic issue, the media is in need of story to send this country back into a paralysed state of panic. What better then birds that can kill you. If I am correct in my prediction by next month the stock of KFC should have plummeted and whacked out shoppers will be holding chicken up to the light in their local grocery store.

The fact is the media should be using its valuable resources to actually report the success in Iraq. Here we are at a crossroads of a major conflict and the media is ignoring it. The fact is they know if public opinion goes up towards the war then Democrats lose, and the big bad liberal media can't have that.

UPDATE 12:49am ISRAEL DISCOVERS BIRD FLU

Clinton Faces Defeat In Iowa

It appears the "inevitable" triumph of Hillary Clinton looks to be in serious jeopardy. The once dominate Hillary is now facing not only defeat in Iowa but potential humiliation. All indications are pointing towards a Obama victory in the first contest of the 2008 primary calender. Furthermore many pundits including Robert Novak of Human Events claims she will finish third behind Obama and John Edwards. One may be thinking how could this be possible. She is the wife of the ever popular Bill Clinton and she has been trumpeted by the liberals as a woman of great "experience". She is the best candidate in the field some claim and her service to her party is extensive. Yet by that same logic Joe Liberman should never have had his senate seat challenged.

The fact is, much to their eventual detriment, the Democrats have begun to swing to the far left. The old Hillary of 1992 fits this bill perfectly. That was when she was proud to push the leftist agenda most notable with her famed HillaryCare. Yet Hillary is no dope, she understood that in order to compete in a general election she must move to the center. Her fatal mistake is that she made that move too soon. She is the representation of the establishment at a time when the Democrats look for a new populist who will embolden the far left wing of the party. It appears at this juncture Hillary may be too smart for her own good.

So on the eve of the caucus that will kickoff the 2008 primary calender, Hillary must be wondering if she moved to the middle too soon. If Iowa becomes the undoing of the Hillary Express she will have no one to blame but herself....Oh and her husband probably isn't helping things either.