Welcome Moderate Democrats &; Republicans

Michel C. Zala, Editor and Publisher
Fluff Zala, Foreign Policy Advisor
Bisoux Zala, Economy & Energy Consultant

Welcome to our Blog, which speaks to Moderates, Independents, Reagan Democrates & Republicans.

There are many inflammatory Blogs out there supporting pretty much every extreme point of view.We are not in the business to stir up emotions, other than the occasional smile, if not hearthy laugh.

Please use the Navigation Links to the right for easy and quick navigation to the topic of your interest.

Fuer die Schweizer - Bitte finden Sie die Swiss Debate in der Liste rechts ganz unten.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

National Security & Foreign Policy

Biden - Obama will be tested

October 22, 2008
As I have mentioned several times in the past, if Obama will be elected, there is a significant chance that some despot, terrorist or regime may try to find out, how far they can go with this unknown quantity - hence the probability for conflict is much higher, if Obama is President.(See below older posts)

Senator Biden now , providing his newest gaffe, just confirmed my statements to this matter. (See video).

We will not qualify Obama at this time. He may be up to the task, or he may be not. But that is not the relevant quastion to ask.
The real question is for us voters: Why even go there?
Why even experience a "generated" crisis or conflict? Don't we have enough to cope with at present? Can we afford another (unnecessary) conflict, just because we have an inexperienced President?

Already the Obama campaign is trying to open up the backdoors, shoring up influencial leaders for that case that the public opinion will be against Obama very soon. They obviously foresee that those many promises can never be kept and the polls will swing soon. I ask again: why even go there? Why do we have to first land brutally hard, before we acknowledge that he is not the right President for these harsh times?

Obama will (be forced to ) abandon most of his lofty promises. He will raise taxes. He will move away from drilling and nuclear power. he can never follow through on his domestic almost socialistic plans. He will have to go back on Iraq. he will have to go back on Pakistan. He will not keep his promises and at some point the American People will feel massively misled, when the consequences kick in.

Why not do the right thing right now and prove the media and pollsters wrong?
We are a fundamentally fair people.

Is it fair to have a 20:1 Marketing Money advantage and swamp the field with adverts?
Is it fair to see 57: 16 of the leading Newspapers in the Obama tank?
is it fair that 8:1 of the TV networks support Obama?
Is it fair to blame the GOP and most of all Bush for an economy crisis which had been 40 years in the making?
Is it fair to completely overlook Pelosi and co. who dominated congress during the last 2 years, killing legislation which could have averted the collapse?
Is it fair to speak of tax cuts but in effect raise taxes, hence mislead the American People?
Is it fair to link McCain to Bush?
Is it fair to woreship a candidate, who is a lawyer, trained to never say anything of substance but stay ambivalent?
Is it fair to completely overlook the qualifications for the most important job in the world?
Is it fair to overlook the kind of people Obama surroounds and surrounded himself with?
Is it fair to see an election decided by a huge ground operation dominated by strange organizations such as ACORN, investigated by the FBI in more than 14 states?

We once again call on the American People to be fair and go with the underdog.
Prove those media pollsters wrong. Exercise sound judgment and not emotion.


History Will Judge
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- For the last 150 years, most American war presidents -- most notably Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt -- have entered (or re-entered) office knowing war was looming. Not so George Bush. Not so the war on terror. The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue.
>>>> Read entire article


Hamas, Hezbollah: 'Legitimate claims'?
Oh, how I wish Barack Obama would take my phone calls …
I would surely like to follow up on
an interview he gave David Brooks of the New York Times in which he stated Hamas and Hezbollah have "legitimate claims" that are being undermined by the terrorist groups' commitment to violence.
My question to the Democratic Party presidential candidate: What are those "legitimate claims" of Hamas and Hezbollah?
Perhaps I won't have to ask directly.
Maybe some enterprising reporter who has access to the anointed one will find the chutzpah to ask the obvious question.
Then Obama might get a chance to elaborate on what he believes are "the root causes of problems and dangers" currently being unaddressed by U.S. foreign policy.
But I for one would really like to know which of the claims of Hamas and Hezbollah are "legitimate" in the eyes of Barack Obama. I think it's a very important question.

Hamas Endorses Obama
On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio.

The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."
Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President."
Yousef was asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, but didn't seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics; this is the election season, and everyone wants to sound like a friend of Israel. Nevertheless, he hopes that the Democrats will change American policies when they take office.


Russians invade Georgia
First proof for the danger Putin poses with his reactionary vision towards former glory is presented by the current invasion of Georgia.

Who was again the one candidate who saw this coming? You guessed right - it was John McCain. - heavily attacked by the Democrats for "living in the old daysof the cold war". It was McCain who warend us again and again of the danger of these tendencies. It was McCain who called for expansion of NATO with the republics of the former Sovjet Union, while Obama was silent. Who, do you think has the calibre to lead us during a time, where Russia rediscovers its imperialism?
Radical Islam - Threat to the entire Free Western World

I invite you to click here and watch the controversial dutch documentary about Radical Islam and the Quran "Fitna"

I was not able to embed the player, as Youtube considers this documentary as too cntroversial... This is not about fear mongering or scare tactics - FITNA is a brutally realistic depiction of the mindset of many thousand of orthodox muslims. While we must consider, that a majority of Muslims are peaceful, it must nevertheless be said, that this religion never saw any reformation, and the Quran is still an archaic piece of dogma. It poses a huge moral dilemma on Muslims, as they, if they wanted to adhere strictly to the verses, would have to follow a way of confrontation.

Even though the images will shock you, we deem the posting of the movie as appropriate, as we must remain vigilant and aware of the kind of threat the Western Free World is facing still. Most of all - Many amongst us are already taking our domestic peace and safety for granted. A Bit of a reminder will serve us all, when we have to elect a strong president.

The threat is too grave to leave it to an amateur or a person who will appease these fanatics as Hitler had been appeased initially. This aspect alone deserves a man with deep experience and realism. No room for error.

A Gaffe, an Absurdity, and a Policy
by Charles Krauthammer
>>>>>Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."
After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity. >>>>

Next - let us examine Obama's Stands on IRAQ:

by Charles Krauthammer
Obama's Plan for Defeat
>>>>>The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their "narrative of defeat and retreat" (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed. >>>>>

Wouldn't you agree that a commander in chief should personally know the horror of war and hence use the defense forces wisely?

A strong defense ensures peace in times of war. And we are in a war, let us not kid ourselves. Eliminating Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do - even if only for humanitary reasons. America has a moral obligation to propagate the pronciples and freedoms of the best constitution in the world.

I think that John here as well has the right position and will be a respected and worldwide appreciated president. After years of POW this man will never use the army lightly, but will at the same time never shy away to use it, if needed. That's the man I would like to see as commander in chief, surrounded by millions of Islamic fanatics who will never shy away to commit atricities against civilians.

Just spotlighting the Islamic threat, go ahead and watch below videos, secretly taped in the Mosque in Birmingham. Not only will you see some distinctive similarities with the hate speeches given by Reverend jeremiah Wright (see facts about Obama), you will on top of that be appalled by the hate the Western World is facing by a growing segement of the Islamic Population.
You be the judge:
Dispatches - Undercover Mosque I (UK)

Dispatches - Undercover Mosque II (UK)

Dispatches - Undercover Mosque III (UK)

Dispatches - Undercover Mosque IV (UK)
Please Pay Attention to The Statement, that We created the Aids Virus and other diseases to eradicate the Muslim (See, where Wrigt took his intelligence from?)Does it strike you as disturbing, how the Wright rhetoric, Obama and his family was exposed to for over 20 years, is almost identical to the teachings of most extreme, radical , and fanatic islamists?

Dispatches - Undercover Mosque V (UK)

Dispatches - Undercover Mosque VI (UK)

I leave the conclusions to you, Dear Reader. If you, after having watched, what is in fact preached in Western Mosques, still think, that we do not need to remain vigilant and strong and there is no real danger posed to us by Radical Islam, you are beyond help. If only 0.1 % of all Muslims are orthodox believers, we face thousands of potential terrorists of the calibre of Osama Bin Laden. It would make for the single largest Terror Organisation of all time. Estimates of supporters of radical Islam are however much much higher.........

This is no scare tactics or fear mongering - It is the cold hard reality we are living in, which is why we must elect a leadership which acknowledges this threat and is willing to conofront it without ifs and buts.

Some disturbing material about the IRAN Threat consolidated by Wolf Howling:

>>>>>>The case for attacking Iran's Qods Force (see here and here) as a means to stop their proxy war and attempts to “Lebanize” Iraq is picking up ever greater evidentiary support as new revelations of Iranian arms shipments and training of militias using Hezbollah surrogates is making the news. This is no longer an “American” issue. It is now recognized by at all levels of Iraqi government and society as a major threat.>>>>>>

The IRAN Threat goes even farther, which is why we must keep a military presence in this region.

Why the Iranian Theocracy's Nuclear Plans must be stopped

>>>>>>There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples>>>>>>>

Inasmuch as it is hard to conceive for us Western Infidels, how anyone can blow himself and a bunch of innocent people up in a market place, it is even harder to appreciate the fanatism of an entire government, willing to "sacrifice" their own people and country for their skewed mission. As long as this Theocracy is in power, driven by their mission to wipe Israel off the map and destabilize the entire region, a solid military presence by the US is mission-critical. Not only to stabilize IRAQ as a counterbalance to IRAN and Syria, but moreso to be able to mount a fast response and deter IRAN by conventional means. The Cold War presents great historical evidence to support this position.

Solid evidence for IRAN seeking to establish a nuclear Arsenal is presented again on wolf's website.

Now - let us ponder the question of a hasty withdrawal from Irak as proposed by Clinton and Obama once again...... Talk about judgement.

Great contributions to this topic by Wolf Howling:

Obama and Piece in Our Time
>>>>Obama's foreign policy resembles and portends to be every bit as disastrous as Neville Chamberlain's .

Indeed, Neville Chamberlain's choice to talk with Germany and seek peace in the late 30's missed the last real opportunity to stop, at then minimal cost in blood and gold, a war that ultimately claimed near 60 million lives and destroyed Europe's economy for decades. >>>>>>

Obama disparages the military and gets a pass on IRAQ.

>>>>>Whether to withdraw from Iraq has tremendous ramifications for our national security, given the effect such a withdrawal would have on Salafi terrorism and Khomeinist adventurism. Yet not a single Democrat has been seriously questioned on this by the MSM.>>>>

Obama on Afghanistan's Casualties:
(Washington Post)
Which once again is a bit of evidence to this inexperience and lack of detail knowledge about key defense issues. We can not afford a layman in a time of war to make one single bad decision. The room for error in the meantime has become tiny. I'd sure sleep better, if McCain was our Commander_In_Chief.

The Advancing Iranian Nuclear Program
By Charles Krauthammer
>>>>>>It is time to admit the truth: The Bush administration's attempt to halt Iran's nuclear program has failed. Utterly. The latest round of U.N. Security Council sanctions, which took a year to achieve, is comically weak. It represents the end of the sanctions road.
The president is going to hand over to his successor an Iran on the verge of going nuclear. This will deeply destabilize the Middle East, threaten the moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony and leave Israel on hair-trigger alert.>>>>>

Obama's Position On IRAN - shockingly naive:


Nonproliferation's Time Has Passed
By Charles Krauthammer
>>>>>WASHINGTON -- The era of nonproliferation is over. During the first half-century of the nuclear age, safety lay in restricting the weaponry to major powers and keeping it out of the hands of rogue states. This strategy was inevitably going to break down. The inevitable has arrived. >>>>>

In light of above evidence, would you possibly consider giving a Newby the handshake for his foreign policy platform? Obama's lack of experience, his naivety, outright dangerous propositions and plans would in all probability lead to a desaster of global magnitude.

it is our strong opinion that these times require strong, predictable leadership.
We do not like Romney - but for onvce he got it spot on:

"This is not the time for an internship with the Presidency of the USA".


Anonymous said...

On the point of National Security, I think the Republicans have bungled the whole Iraq War and having served in the sandbox myself I still ask myself "why are we over here?" I'd like to see the Democrats in office to avoid pointless conflicts, so long as they are not Islamic sympathizers which I perceive Obama to be. I am no fan of Obama, and no fan of Islamic extremism. It does seem at times that we are surrounded by enemies, but we shouldn't let fear or paranoia dictate our decisions. Historically, Republicans have always been better in their approach to protecting our country, so I would consider McCain. His time as a POW is not a factor in his favor, though his military service is.. . .

Weisz said...

Good Points.

I always felt, we did the right thing for the wrong reasons - and we did it without thoroughly addressing the post war situation.

As former member of the armed forces you should be proud of he fact that the US removed one of the worst dictators ever and at the same time established an urgently needed presence in a region we still procure half of our oil from. Stability in this region is of significant importance to the National security of all western democracies. That should give you a hint of an answer as far as the WHY is concerned.
Inasmuch, as I argue for pragmatism and not a widespread Islamophobic panic, we must at the same time acknowledge, that we are enemy 1 for millions of islamic fanatics. Establishing a solid Iraki Democracy (which takes time) counterbalancing the Iranian fundamentalists is of strategic importance.
Obama's stand of withdrawing the troops in 2009 is not only naive and would send the wrong message to these people, it woul dbe outright dangerous and a slap in the face of every soldier who bled for the liberty of the Iraki people.
Yes Rumsfeld and company blundered the post war effort - but let us not forget that John was instrumental in sacking him and brings a deep knowldege of t hese issues to the table. Exactly because he is a POW and knows the horrors of war on a personal level, he will never send the troops lightly to war. On the other hand, put yourself into the shoes of Osama Bin laden or any rogue country such as IRAN - whom would they rather like to see in the White House? Can you imagine the propaganda after an early hasty withdrawal? Who would literally jump into a vacuum ? Iran, Russia, Syria....
As hard as it is to imagine for many, we have entered a new form of Cold War with Russia, China and couontries like Iran, Nkorea, Syria et al. Only deterrence is a proven methode, keeping such regimes in check. No messages of hope and kumbajah will ever work. It is a historical fact.
I spoke about "predictability".
John brings that to the table. Ask yourself the what if question and you know as potential enemy of the US, what the ramifications of aggressions would be. That is a good thing, as it makes them think twice, before messing with the US and its allies. That is the reason the Cold War never erupted into a hot one.
Not knowing, what Obama would do (other than is idiotic notion of invading Pakistan) the room for interpretation would be much wider.
His suggested retreat with a promised time line wouol dbe interpreted by islamic fundamantalists as victory, motivating many more recruits to join their forces. The consequences on every dimension of the issue would be disastrous.

Dear Friend, Fear and Paranoia with regard to our personal and national security is not necessarily a bad thing.Before 9/11, if anyone had predicted such an atrocity, he would have been laughed out of the building. We all then watched these towers come down in utter disbelief.
Now look at IRAN - an entire country full of fundamentalists with a govermnent full of radical Fanatics who still openly proclaim that Israel must be eradicated.
This country alone warrants a solid presence of the US in the immediate region to keep their nasty ambitions in check with a tough and experienced commander in chief. Please try to imagine the region after Obama;s hasty retreat. A nightmare scenario without a doubt.

Kev said...

That's an interesting point about Rumsfield I had no idea McCain was a part of his sacking. It was in no small part due to Rumsfield's misguided military opinions that the Iraq war was bungled. I remember that he wanted to send even fewer troops there than we did, relying more on special ops units, a recipe for disaster. Boots on the ground still count for too much during an occupation. But it was his was post-invasion expectations for stability that were off, not his estimate of how easy it would be to invade. Our commander-in-chief I think relied too much on Rumsfield, and that contributed to how events have unfolded.

But what about Noam Chomsk's opinion in one of his more recent books that the Iraq War has created more terrorists than it has vanquished? I think that's a valid point, and quantifying the good or bad outcome of the war is too difficult so that we can neither condone nor condemn our decision to invade.

I agree that Obama is too much of a blank page. I remember seeing him interviewed on MSNBC, and he was asked to cite personal history for future decision making, and he had to backpedal and polito-speak. On the point of national security McCain may in fact be our best choice. But other issues warrant consideration, such as health care, the state of our economy. I cannot base my vote solely on my uncertain prediction of how well the U.S. may project strength if one candidate is elected over another. And I cannot believe that Republicans in office will help middle and lower class Americans.

Weisz said...

Hey Kev - nice of you to come on board.

Kind of sad any effort to have a spirited debate on the OPT site is being extinguished right away. Boring in fact to see everybody kind of parroting each other.... and keeping the discussin on a superficial level...
Your thread as well as mine immediately created views and replies and all the others just seem to stagnate.... I do not really see, where the moderators come from....

Any how - here, I invite honesty, openness up to a spritied debate and will not exercise censorship, even, if my positions should be attacked vehemently - and they will, as people are as emotionally vested in this year's election as never before. So - please, do not feel the same way as in the OPT site, where you backed off quite a few times to "keep the church in the village", as they saying goes...

This is about a refreshing, spirited debate, where you can dish out as hard, as you are willing to take, for as long as we do not innsulot each other on a personal level. Hope you can bring a few friends with a sharp mind over to this not advertized blog - Hey - I would even invite Fekim and Yorko to prove my points. As I am no longer on the OPT site ( too much censorship), please go ahead and invite anyone over who has an outspoken mind and wants to have a truly gripping debate.

I am more than willing to go as far an open up a thread with regard to Healthcare/OP issues in context with these elections, if you wish in order to continue "The decision making process", qwhich has been closed on OPT, where some form of hibernation has set in again....
What do ya think?

Weisz said...

To Kevin's last comments:

NOam Chomsky, a writer of the uttermost left spectre, must always be taken with a ton (not a grain) of salt. Brilliant at times but a hardcore socialist.

The argument of the Irak War having created more terrorists is certainly a valid point, but can not be proven either way. After all, please do not forget that it was Saddasm also who offered a reward to any suicide bomber (family) in Israel. While WMDs haven't been found after the chaos, it was fact that he tried to acquire them, inasmuch as the Iranian's do it now.
Fact is that while the losing Sunni may have been radicalized, the so called war on terror has worked and we have not seen one more attack since 9/11 other than a few thwarted ones. Due to a coprehensive effort on various dimensions and locations, Al Khaeda does seem to be on the run and not able to mount the logisitcs of a successful attack from their hideouts in Somalia and Afgahnistan/Pakistan. At least as far as homeland security is concerned the often blamed Bush Admin did something right.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Think back at 9/11's aftermath. Very very hard decisions had to be taken with mistakes almost a given in such a tumultuous moment. Almost all Americans including the Europeans stood behind us in our disgust for a genocidal dictator who gased 25000Kurds in Halabdja. For that alone he deserved to go.
Now look at the geostrategic situation with the crude oil price exceeding $100 just this week. For as long, as we depend on 25-40% of our oil from this region, we must keep the region stable and have a local presence, exactly the same, as when we staioned troops in Germany to keep the Sovjets at bay.

As far as Health care goes, John still needs to present his plan.
One thing is for sure - neither Clinton's nor Obama's Cloud castles can be implemented. Want to know, how universal health care in Europe in effect look like? 500$/month mandated insurance cost and 50% co-pay on treatment. Up to 25%of income towards health care. Trillions of debth. Pension age at 72. It is not financiable.

Economy ( special thread in fact) I will only say that the DEM platformns result in a desaster. ONly free trade and a non-interfering gov lends itself to a stable economy. Economical ups and downs are natural biorythms which shoul dnot be mistaken as fault of the current admin.

And by the way - we are not in a that bad condition, as the media tries to let us believe.

I can guarantee you, should the Dems come to power, we will slide into a deep recession almost immediately.

IN the end you are right - we face enormouos challenges on almost any front, which is exactly why I can not bring it over myself to disregard experience, track record and qualifications and bet the country on promises and slogans.

One reason why Obama lost TX and Ohio was that finally the media and the voters grew old of his slogans and started to examine the man a bit deeper. I hope that this trend continues, forcing Obama to take clear positions on issues. His inexperience and naivety will very quickly manifest itself.

Just ask yourself, what an election of Obama woul din fact mean to you and your family individually:

- you will pay several k more taxes every year.
- You will find yourself mandated, as far as health care is concerned. Choices will be taken from you.
- The gov will interfere and legislate aspects such as OPs almost immediately.
- Treatment will even more than in the past be governed by Washington and the insurance...
- Choices wil lbe taken from you in almost any aspect of our civil liberties...
- Irak will be abandoned hastily with Islamic Fanatics proclaiming victory, hence gaining enthused recruits for a further motivated terror strategy against us "infidels".
- Resulting instability in the region will cause your gallon gas prize to hit 6-10$.....pushing us into a true rezession.
- your retirment age will be ending up at >70, as no one can npay for these programs...

Just a few direct home hitting consequences possible, if we elect Obama......and I could go on and on.

In conclusion: this election will have direct consequences to you, Kevin and me. Doesn;t that warrant a bit of due diligence for the hiring process of this position?

Can we really afford to just buy into promises, image campaigns and slogans of change and hope, when the consequences of that choice hit home that hard?

With John, we know precisely, what we will get. No buts and ifs, backpedaling or flip flopping. A known quantity, honorable, honest, stiff, stubborn, passionate, worldwide respected by Reps and Dems alike and driven.

Ask youself, why John uses the means of Townhall Meetings for his prevalent campaign methode and not just speeches. He allows for questions, follow up questions and a discussion. The others deliver mainly stump speeches and Saturday Night live.
As I do, John does not shy away from a debate with his own voters.

Finally I get a president who is willing to offer honesty, even if sacrificing votes.

Once again - I vote for substance over style.

Kev said...


I apologize for taking so long to get back to this blog for I had meant to return much sooner. Unfortunately, my primary mission at this point in time is to secure employment as quickly as possible, a task which I have diligently but unsuccessfully set myself to with great vigor.

How's that for painting things in a more favorable light?

Well I'm not sure at this point which candidate I'd have the most criticism for although critiquing McCain is a little more problematic. Those are interesting and valid points you raised in the last blog about the potential for a worsening economic crisis. Presently I would say that the economy in West Michigan has already been in a recession w/ an 8% unemployment rate and a housing market that crashed long ago. It stands to lose many of the jobs and could get much worse if the Big 3 automakers continue to lose market share to foreign companies as they have been. So many of the issues you bring up---health care affordability and its impact on our own wallets---gas prices---legislation of OP's (inevitable but hopefully delayed) I think hearken back to the expression "it's the economy stupid". I agree a hundred percent that Obama is a blank page and the wrong choice in that you don't take a guy out of MBA school and make him CEO just as you don't take an ivy-league groomed candidate and make him president so early in his career. But if Hillary pushes through this and gets the super delegates, wouldn't she be the better choice? When we hit the Great Depression and unemployment was at 25%, there was no safety net at that time, no social programs in place. It was FDR that put these into place, later on LBJ and (if I remember correctly) his war on poverty. In any case it was the democrats that put this into place and not the Republicans. So how can I be sure that McCain, even with his likable down to Earth personality, would look out for the little guy (because I still fall into that category, though I'd much rather fall into the "wealthy corporate friendly" one)???

On the OPT and OP issues, I think that's a viable idea as the forum is pretty dead at the moment. It used to be more interesting but as funds are limited I've diverted attention elsewhere anyways. But good ideas.

Weisz said...

Hi Kev

I sure understand your situation and time constraints. As Top Exec I hired (and fired) many - if you want a second pair of eyes for a review/edit of your resume, I am happy to help and come back with some advice, if you wish. You can attach a copy or your resume (and your cover letter to an e-mail to michel.zala@roadrunner.com.

Well, Michigan is a tough place - but believe you me - California has been hit hard as well. In this thread ( I must try to be disciplined) I can not go any further, as it is devoted to National Security. I will say as much, as that I do agree that Clinton would certainly be the better Dem Candidate, albeit she is simply not electable, as she polarizes the coountry to a far worse extent as Obama. On tp of that, At this point, if Clinton somehow managed to get the nomination, it would set the Dem Party back for a decade, disenfranchising a large segment of traditional Democrats, while rasing an army of Reps due to deep seeded animosity.
To your last remarks - do not confuse our current state of the economy ( which has nothing to do with Parties, but is a normal biorythm) with a result of the current or recent administrations.

Democratic Platform ( as again demonstrated) is large Gov, interfering sytle, trade subventioins and trade protection, higher taxes and traditionally higher deficits.

John McCain stands for a better, healthier America, not just one segement of the population.(I'll fight for the small guy is just a campaign slogan). he is right. If America does better, everybody will do better. as simnple, yet comprehensive) as that.
Right now it very much looks like Obama vs. McCain. I researched Obama's record a bit more and realized, that there is no record. From the get go, the man planned to become US president, the Senate only a stepping stone.
Evidently one can find a lot with McCain to disagree with, as that man did not only vote but took hard tough stances with built-in controversy. To attack McCain on that, while accepting that Obama did not take onoe hard toough decision one could hold against him later, is simply against any sense of fairness.

Today - on MSNBC ( left oriented media) one could find a long article to Obama's role during his Senate Term...... I linked it under "Facts about senator Obama".

Clearly it comes to the conclusion that Obama is a great fund raiser, a rock star with great popularity. A pragmatist running on nothing but this image.

Do you really think this man has the credentials, experience, willingness to get anything done he shied away in the past? Right now, America needs a doer - not a talker. Michigan deserves it to get change implemented - not just talked about.

Kev said...

Indeed, I did stray a little from the original topic in my last post so I will endeavor to stay more on the issue of "national security" here. But before I start, let me say that it is very generous of you to offer such a critique and I will eagerly accept and follow up with an email.

One thing I learned recently from an article in the NYTimes is that Senator McCain has a son in Iraq serving in the Marines. Or at least he had been serving---I'm not sure if he still is. It should come as no surprise given that military service is often a tradition in families. Nevertheless I find it interesting that he tries to downplay his son's role. That he could be in favor of a presence in Iraq at all must mean that he is willing to divorce personal interest from professional judgment. It speaks highly to his degree of honesty, and sense of modesty. On the issue of national security, I will concede that McCain is probably the best choice. However, the press has mentioned his temper at times. Does that temper inform on his ability to govern and decide on issues of national security? I think it would be folly to ignore it unless we are sure such displays are not representative of the person.

Weisz said...

Hello again, Kev
Thanks for spreading your comments corresponding to the specific threads.

In terms of job search and how to make the best of your resume/coverletter, I am sure I can help. Go ahead and mail me your basic material.

With regard to your specific comment here - Yes, it is exactly this kind of modesty I like about John Mccain. he is not using his children in a cheap manner, but always tries to do the right thing, even if nobody looks. Yes, Character counts indeed.

As far as the often mentioned temper is concerned - my answer is "gimme a break!".
Look, it is such a thin line between passion and being passionate about something and emotion. Why should our President not feel passionate about something up to sometimes "losing it" over some stupidity? It is just plain human and nobody can say that John's Temper has ever led him to a specific decision or shooting from the hip. I find a bit of a temper quirte actually refreshing in this world of caution and political correctness with politicians who could have been massproduced out of some mold.
Once again I sure can identify with this man, as sometimes it is really difficult not to show emotion. In other words - the so called temper of John McCain is actually something positive. He is no robot but just another human being like us. As long as this temper does not interfere withhis duties, causes bad decisions, hell, show me some emotions and allow me to identify with you. We give John McCain so much credit in terms of experience and integrity. His track record as well should allow us to give him the benefit of the doubt that emotion would never motivate him to take any action.
Could you sincerely think that this man, who has now truly been there and done that, seen and experienced the worst in mankind, could possibly "blow a fuse" and take action with grave cnsequences in the heat of the moment? Not in a million years.

The End, Folks

Photobucket Fluff Zala, Foreign Policy Desk ....................................................... Even though my Candidate is stereotyped quite heavily, the video below is hilarious. It should remind us all, not to lose our humor and buy into predictions of doom, but have faith in The American People to do what's right. America is powerful and strong, and , so God will, we will remain a beacon of hope and freedom not just to our own melting pot, but to the rest of the world. God bless you, Dear Reader, for doing the work and taking the time to study the provided material, then go and vote with a clear conscience of having made an informed decision.
Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!
Most of all: God Bless America