Today, Senator Obama spoke on the Reverend Wright controversy and made clear what he believes. Three points came out of his speech and I am sure he only intended one point. The biggest issue resolved was that he explained why he continued to befriend Reverend Wright and why he continued to be a part of his congregation. His explanation was both eloquent and clear. He personally understands the reasons why Reverend Wright thinks the way he does and he understands why it is different from the way he (Senator Obama) thinks. Barack Obama defined the differences so well that it had the ring of truth and clarity. This writer is convinced that Senator Obama has not exercised poor judgment when sitting through Reverend Wright’s sermons; that he successfully compartmentalized what Reverend Wright was saying compared to what he believes.

He did not address or explain the previous statements that he had never experienced these sermons personally yet now in this speech stated that he had heard the questionable sermons all along. Do we chalk this deception up to political gamesmanship? The straight talk was absent here. Two other issues surfaced during his speech, that shine a clearer light on what and how Senator Obama thinks.

His statement, that he will find a way out of the war in Iraq, did not ring as clearly as his previous definitive proclamations regarding the speed of removal of our troops if elected and taking office. Does this mean that he now understands that unraveling Iraq will be like cutting a fine diamond and that it cannot be done haphazardly or hastily? To improperly unravel or to just leave Iraq may create more world problems for us in the future than remaining and continuing to stabilize the country, which is currently happening.He needs to be pressed on this by the unbiased media – if we can find them.

His statement that we need to stop corporations from sending jobs out of the country just for the sake of profit demonstrates a glaring lack of understanding of how capitalism works and creeps up upon a socialist agenda. Under capitalism with some controls, the better the environment for profit, the better the environment for growth and prosperity.This means jobs – good jobs! The jobs are leaving because the corporations need to make profit to survive and will seek out the most advantageous environment to make that profit, even if it means to create and manufacture elsewhere. It is the responsibility of a government in a capitalistic economy to foster an environment to entice corporations both foreign and domestic to produce here thus creating good jobs and plenty of them.You cannot regulate jobs unless you are in a failing communist or socialist economy where the standard of living misery is balanced and widespread.

He should be seeking to change the health care system by relieving corporations of this burden and ameliorate the corporate tax rates to foster a profitable environment for corporations producing in this country and trading with the world.This should be the fix he seeks. This will place corporations doing business in this country in a position to grow and sustain good paying jobs. Remember, corporations do not pay taxes they collect them for the government from you in the form of higher prices, but in the world trade environment they cannot pass these taxes on so they become uncompetitive. When they are uncompetitive they move to an environment where they can be competitive and move the jobs elsewhere. He should not be condemning profit, which is the engine of prosperity and standard of living as long as it is heavily laced with successful world trade.

Earmarks

The Senate just doesn’t get it.  Friday, March 14^th, the Senate had an opportunity to end earmarks, at least on their side of the Capitol, but chose not to do so.  We have to ask why?  Earmarks are essentially spending without representation.  These appropriations are not voted per se, they often are inserted into a bill after the vote or are inserted into an unrelated bill that needs to be passed.  Earmarks are used as leverage for re-election (look what I have done for my state) and they are used to curry the favor of other Senators on a bill.  Senators simply do not wish to give up this effective re-election perk. After this recent vote we now know that the majority of Senators find nothing wrong with this practice of spending without representation. Remember 33 of these Senators are up for re-election in November. Perhaps checking to see how your Senator voted before casting your Senatorial vote in November would be a good thing to do.

Choosing the Right Person

If you like Senator McCain or dislike him, it is probably based on his recorded history. You can look at his accomplishments and failures and get a pretty decent picture of how he thinks. You can do this to a lesser degree with Senator Clinton. We could not do this with Senator Obama because we have no history - all we have are his words. Remember, words from any politician are just words designed to obtain our favor and vote. Now Senator Obama has some of his history revealed - yes he has condemned the statements of Reverend Wright, yes, he is now further distancing himself from Rev. Wright.What do we really know about Senator Obama? He wants us to believe that he had never heard these rants from Rev. Wright. Yet he was disinclined to have him speak at his Presidential announcement because the Reverend often uses rough words, according to Senator Obama - that was some time ago. I am sorry Senator Obama, what you say only rings true to those who desperately want a Democrat in the White House without regard to a good vetting of the candidate. Twenty years is a long time and you have made Reverend Wright a close part of your family for years. You have NEVER heard about his rants? Why then did you choose to not have him speak at your announcement? Comments from your spouse may now be better understood when held up against the ideology of Reverend Wright.

Our Choices

It is our plight to have to pick from second tier candidates again as we have had to do in the past elections of recent memory.Looking back, have we had any really good candidates for the Presidency on the ballot?Of recent years we had a choice between George Bush and John Kerry, George Bush and Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, Bill Clinton and George Bush 41 and Ross Perot (he had sufficient vote to be listed), George Bush 41 and Michael Dukakis. Are there candidates out there with the capability, experience, and judgment to be President, who do not have to dance around, obscure, and mislead us on their history to be elected?Is it us, the voters, is it the press, or is it the flood of people who make politics a career and not a calling that allows us to be presented with and to accept second tier candidates time and again?

Democrat Super Delegates

What are the reasons for the existence of super delegates?Well, the reason may be the same reason as the requirement for the Electoral College.First, can there be any other reason than to insure that party regulars can steer the party away from the choice of the primary voters and caucus attendees, if they feel that these rank and file non-party regulars may be picking an unelectable candidate or a candidate who is not in step with the Party?Is there any other reason – I can’t think of one – please comment if you have come up with other valid reasons.

The Founding fathers felt that the populace, with a very high illiteracy rate at that time and no national press, would have difficulty making a choice for the President because they would not know enough about the candidates.Also at that time this was truly a states rights nation with the federal government to be subordinate to the states in all matters except foreign affairs, international trade and defense.So why shouldn’t the states choose the President.It was not until 1872 that a popular vote was used at all, and that was to decide on who the Electoral College members would be for each state.Prior to 1872 the state legislators determined the members of the Electoral College.We were founded as a Republic and to this date we operate as a Republic in Presidential elections, with a hint of Democracy – popular vote only counts toward the Electoral vote for each state.

It does seem surprising that the Democratic Party would choose to use super delegates, representing 20% of the overall delegates, appointed by the party based primarily upon positions now or previously held in the Congress and State Legislators.It also is surprising that the Democratic Party would use proportional delegate counts, if not to provide more impact to the super delegates.No one candidate can really win a state so the delegate count would remain in a region where no candidate can get a commanding lead unless the other candidates fall or drop out along the way, thus the super delegates’ votes become prominent.This smacks of the Electoral College, in that the Democratic Party might not believe that their membership is incapable of choosing a candidate.At least the Founding Fathers had a compelling reason to make this country a Republic and not a pure democracy.What is the Democratic Party’s reason for operating like a republic and not a pure democracy?Perhaps someone will enlighten me with a comment – be nice.

http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com

Senator Obama says it is all about judgment and not about experience.He minimizes experience as a requirement to be President and points to his judgment demonstrated by his voiced opposition to the war in Iraq.He offers that judgment is preferable over experience.Let us assume that he is right and judgment is the key to being a good President.Does a voiced opposition against a war, which at the time had some compelling reasons – now debunked, represent that Senator Obama will bring King Solomon like judgment to the office of the President.

For the past twenty years Barack Obama has chosen to be a part of a religious congregation in Chicago – in fact he did not just fall into this congregation, but selected it as it suited his needs.He and his wife chose to have Reverend Jeremiah Wright marry them and they chose to have their two children baptized by Reverend Wright.During this twenty year association he has chosen to call Reverend Wright his friend and has remained a faithful member of Reverend Wright’s congregation.

I had thought about providing a link to the most recent inflammatory video of Reverend Wright, there are plenty of them on the internet – just search Google or go to Fox News or ABC News.It is not necessary to post the video, but it is necessary to comment on the commentators at this point.The commentators seem to talk in terms of an apology from Senator Obama, or a rejection of the rhetoric of Reverend Wright by Senator Obama.

This is not a matter of apologizing or of distancing oneself from Reverend Wright.It is a matter that Barack Obama been a friend to, been affiliated with, participated in the congregation, been married by, and had his children baptized by Reverend Wright for a twenty year period.What does Barack Obama truly believe – clearly we know little about his thinking as he has not had time in public life to demonstrate that thinking.

More importantly, what is his judgment capability?If he believes the rhetoric of Reverend Wright, should he be President?If he does not believe the rhetoric of Reverend Wright, why has he been a prominent member of the congregation and a friend of Reverend Wright for twenty years?What kind of judgment does Senator Obama possess? Does he buy into Reverend Wright’s rhetoric – if so, than I cannot vote for him – this may be the Real Change that Senator Obama talks about?Does he reject the rhetoric of Reverend Wright – if he does, then what kind of judgment does it take to associate with the Reverend for twenty years and subject your family to rhetoric you do not believe in?

One last point – now you can connect the dots to what Mrs. Obama said – paraphrased (first time being proud to be an American).Do she and Senator Obama really buy into Reverend Wright’s thinking – when connecting the dots, it is starting to look like it.America, look out!You had better peel back the onion on Senator Obama – because the media will not.What kind of Real Change are you seeking?