Piece by Piece.
My Decision Making Process in brief -
500 pages, 2h of Video, 200h of Newsanalysis condensed into one thread.
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, the honeymoon coming to an aprupt end.
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 surrounds and surrounded himself with? (Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Farrakhan just don't matter?)
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 check and balance a hugely liberal congress with a solid centrist candidate.
Go with the underdog and prove those media pollsters and opinion makers wrong. Exercise sound judgment instead of emotion.
If Obama will be elected, America will see a shift to the left of unmatched historical magnitude. Free reign for Pelosi, Reid and radical socialist politicians? No Checks and Balances. Heck to all of you craving for change we loudly say: be careful, what you wish for, as you may get it. This change may well break our back and lead us into a deep, deep depression.
________________________________I am the typical average white caucasion independent, moderate Reagan Democrat.
This year, I felt like so many, that the USA is in fact facing many grave challenges which require an outright turn around strategy, as far as economy, environment, energy, education, infrastructure are concerned and at the same time serious leadership with regard to foreign policy challenges, such as Russia, Iran, The Middle East and global Islamism.
This time around, I felt, the choice was not irrelevant, as in the past, when I used to think that it does not matter, as nothing will change. This time around, I felt, the choice we make , will have consequences.
So I approached my own decision making process with a business type approach.
I looked at the current situation, sliced up the whole animal into topics I consider as important dimensions, gathered material (videos, articles, arguments, facts), placed them into the corresponding areas and then derived my own personal conclusion in each of those topics. Only after that,a did I name our blog and added in my personal thoughts to each of the topics.
The Areas I personally
(others may well see other or additional areas of importance)
considered as key topics of importance for the current election are:
3. Resume&Track Record
5. Foreign Policy
6. National Security
8. Uniting a deeply polarized country
10. Experience & Change
All of the above addressed with a comprehensible, feasible vision for this country, with America in the center and not any individual
A few remarks to the first debate.
Tax cuts for 95% of the people
Sounds good, right? Did he mention that he will massively raise taxes on businesses which in turn will result in entire corporations relocating to places abroad which offer so much better business environments?
Did he mention, what that in effect would mean to the American People, job losses, higher prices, lesser insurance coverage provided by the companies? Did he mention that his "indirect" tax increases would in effect result in less money remaining for you every single month?
The Wall Street Journal
Obama's 95% Illusion
>>>> One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut.">>>>>
Drilling and Nuclear Power
All of a sudden Obama promotes additional oil exploration and nuclear power? He just forgot to mention the small print of both legislations. On Drilling he restricts it to such extent, that it becomes a lipstick issue.
On Nuclear power, he is "for" it, yet he prevents and opposes storage of waste, hence makes this another populist argument, which sounds good, yet never will happen..
Meeting foreign leaders such as Iran or Cuba without preconditions
All of a sudden, they are in advance prepared?
Obama came across as smooth and slippery. He sounds as if he is on our side. He certainly knows his history and facts. He is a lawyer after all always with the right sentence at the right time and always with the media at and on his side. Does anyone actually care about the tiny little fact that for nothing he now takes credit for, he actually can provide solid hard cold facts and a track record?
We saw substance and we saw style. We saw a true Manchurian Candidate who will, if we let him, run this country into the abyss.
Sept.17. 2008, A few remarks to the credit Crisis
As with the energy situation a long overdue baloon finally exploded. Very unfortunate, that this should happen during an election campaign, where such will be exploited as just another Bush economy failure.
Here in brief, what I examinne in much more detail in the specific Thread, "Economy":
People, this is not - hard to believe - an economy crisis. This is a finance sector crisis, which was long overdue. It has a lot to do with another one of those structural design flaws of our economy. It has a lot to do with the lending market, which went totally overboard in competing for clients. No downpayment, no interest mortgages and loans combined with spending and consumer habits of the American People who are by design much more risky than other societies. A lack of regulative oversight allowed these firms to take risks no normal business usually would.
For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads.
That’s called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.
As opposed to one classical and reputable country of banks and finance institutes, Switzerland, here in the USA one can apply for a loan, when one has a ton of debt already. Only then can the consumer establish, what we call here "Credit". There is something totally wrong with that system. If a client does not have any credit cards, does not show a car or other payment, he/she will not get a loan. in recent years, credit cards were being distrinbuted like candy without any regulation or oversight and the whole thing by means of a terrific marketing pressure, the whole ting with a ton of small print, leaving the clients with double digit % interest after a few months.
The American consumer could not resists and hence incurred huge private debts.
All it takes in such situations, is for instance a real estate correction, a 1 % prime rate interest hike, caused by things like terror attacks or natural desasters, or a bancrptcy of a large firm, and millions of overstretched customers go broke.
In Switzerland, one has to show that one does not have debt, car payments etc., while having a solid income. If the debt to income ratio exceeds the capabilities of the client, loans and most of all mortgages are not being granted. They ask for a significant downpayment and grant never loans without any interest. From day one, as opposed to the USA one has to calculate hard and make true payments including paying down the capital.
As with Energy, the chicken have finally come home to roost also in the finance sector.
This is neither Bush's fault, nor can it be attributed to any individual congress or administration. It is a long term structural design flaw. Nothing much a president or a government can do about it, other than instituting a much tighter oversight in terms of lending. Legislation could be passed which require all lenders to follow basic business and risk assessment principles, as for instance practised in Switzerland.
Appropriate legislation is a duty of Democrats and Republicans alike.
Are the fundamentals of the US economy really strong?
We believe that they indeed are.
GDP, Economy growth, Job Creation, Unemployment, Productivity, Inflation are all factors for measuring the state of the economy.
In all these aspects the state of the ecomomy in comparison to similar economies such as Japan, Germany, France, England, Italy etc., our economy is in about the same average to stagnating, but basically stable state.
Certainly not in a state of catastrophy, as the Obama team, which desperately tries to change the subject toards to same old lame McCain=Bush=responsible for all pain message of doom.
Do they really want us to examine the 2 years of a Democratic House?
Obama blames Mccain for being the original ".De-Regulator".
Well, thank you for that.
Deregulation lowers prices to the consumer, as for instance in the telecom industry.
Deregulation is good, decreases government size, as no large gencies are needed to supervise various industries.
Deregulation increses competition and hence leads to a lower burden on the consumer.
The trick is however to find the right middle ground and have regulation and oversight, where it in fact does make sense, as for instance in the financial sector. McCain proposes exactly that, while not buying into the panic message of doom and gloom and abandoning the fundamentally right idea of deregulation.
Are the fundamentals strong or weak? You be the judge.
The fact that even the mainstyream media has jumped upon the bandwagon of doom, was beautifully demonstrated just yesterday by CNN. (Regarding Liberal Media Bias, see evidence presented in thread "Media Bias").
I watched all day the CNN news cast, and all day long, McCain was outright mocked by Blitzer, Campbell, Cooper and the likes for his statement that he believed the fundamentals of our economy to be strong.
At times, like in a cheap YouTube Video, this statement was mockingly repeated 3 times....
This is just another proof for even CNN having abandoned any principle of neutrality or balanced reporting.
Not only are its viewers to 65% Democrats, their reporters are to 80%.
The Bias towards Obama became so evident, that whole Obama speeches t the subject were presented, while McCain got nothing but his aforementioned statement repeated again and again. They harped on it time and again to a disgusting level.
Evidently the liberal Media sees an opening after the staggering turnaround in the polls speaking to the appeal of the McCain/Palin ticket. The rest of the day was spent in talking about Palin's Troopergate......
I'leave it at that, but invite all readers to exercise much caution, when comsuming CNN analysis.
1. Cut spending
2. Reduce the overhead, eliminate the fat.
3. Streamline Management and organizational structures
4. Create additional (new) revenue streams
5. Improve competitiveness, re-invent yourself, invest in innovation
6. Motivate your workforce to work harder and smarter
7. Stimulate your consumers and customers, not burden them.
When an economy is in a downturn, raising taxes directly and indirectly would be devastating.
It demotivates the consumer and hampers the economy. Both candidates will lower taxes for the individual, but Obama will raise taxes on businesses significantly (corporate, payroll, capital gains, profit etc.) , which will naturally trickle down to the individual in form of higher prices and/or higher deductions on their paycheck with lesser support in terms of insurance).
Obama's platform is a very well hidden Tax hike, we call indirect tax increase.
Quite actually even logical, as somehow he must be able to finance a bigger government and his lofty plans domestically.
He will raise taxes on investment gains, hence hamper the will of American businesses to invest (new jobs, new technologies etc.) while the individual will also less invest in stocks and other vessels.
He will raise the death tax and overall increase the burden on American Corporations.
Can anyone possibly believe that that leads to a climate of growing economy, job creation or lower prices of products and services to the consumer?
It will rather lead to a capital outfolw from the USA to other more investment friendly countries. American Work will become more expensive, less competitive, hence we will lose additional industries to low paying countries.
Hence Obama does in fact stand for taxing the US People and the additional burden on the individual and his claim of only rasising taxes on only 5% of the people is very much misleading, if not outright distorting the truth.
If you use the word TAX in it's defined meaning, then Obama speaks the truth.
If you use the word as taxing the people, meaning burdening them, in effect lowering their quality of life, then Obvama is misleading, as his program, projects and tax policy will lead to higher prices on oil and consumer products, less investment, lower new job creation and overall a burden on the economy - certainly not a stimulation.
Ironically - this is what one means when talking about
" putting lipstick on a pig". Cutting through all the crap, the voter wants to know, if he will have less or more money available each month.
Under Obama, it will be definitely less, lipstick it any way you like it.
McCain wins the point.
In times like these with a growing debt, the last thing we need is an increased gov size. Does any company with a capable CEO hire additional overhead during a turn-around strategy? Most definitely not.
We do not need additional programs, organizations and management.
We do need a smaller, more efficient, streamlined government and consolidiation of departments.
Tradionally Democrats stand for big Government and the GOP for less.
McCain made this topic a key element of his platform, hence he wins that point.
Obama proposes huge spending increases (education, health care plans, social security initiatives) which no economist can possibly argue are realistic.
For instance, Obama sponsored a bill to allocate $800B to foreign aide. While that bill may not pass, it most definitely speaks to the kind of spending philosophy, this candidate would promote.
He himself took 900 M in pork barrel funding, whereas McCain didn't take a dime. McCain's key argument is targeted at spending and eliminating pork barrel and lobbies.
Obama promotes Universal Health Care. While the intention is certainly good, he tries to do what many European Countries have in the meantime abandoned, as it drove them to near bancruptcy.
Most economists concur that Obama has yet to come up with a plausible way to finance this black hole in term of budget. McCain's plans regarding health care or education base upon competition, choice for the individual and financial incentives.
While they are conservative and nothing flashy, they are doable and most of all do not require massive (expansive) Govermment organizations, but can actually alleviate the pain without going broke in the process.
On Spending, McCain clearly wins the point.
New Revenue Streams
McCain's energy platform, which includes short term oil exploration, nuclear power combined with a longterm strategy towards alternative energy, alone will create an industrial boom in the US and in regions so far almost neglected (eg MOntana, shale oil exploration).
While they both pursue an aggressive push towards alternative sources and independence from foreign oil, McCain allows for additional drilling and Nuclear Power, which will alleviate the short term pain on the consumer, create new jobs in the short term, gets us faster to independence, hence reduces the huge transfer of wealth from the USA to the middle east faster and thus frees up big budget for USA based projects.
Obama's plans will get us there too, but in the meantime, we will suffer hugely.
The McCain energy platform is by far superior to Obama's, as it does not only kick in faster, but will result in an economic upturn and much lower pain in the short term.
McCain stands in contrast to Obama for Free Trade. No ifs and buts.
Democratic type Trade sanctions, regulations, subventions not only increase spending and the corresponding management, they result in trade wars which can not be "won". Free Trade puts an emphasis on comptetitiveness and innovation instead of protection.
With McCain's energy plan alone we should see a short term impact on new jobs, new technology, if not an outright boom in certain areas of the US. We would also see price stability on oil based products, as futures speculation will for once work in our favor, if we allow for additional drilling and secondary oil exploration as well as immediate expansion of Nuclear Power Plant construction. In terms of new revenue generation, McCain wins the point clearly.
Even though the Obama team tries to link McCain to Bush, hence try to create the impression of McCain resulting in more of the same, on closer analysis, McCain promotes a much sounder economy platform which should eventually resonate with the American People, as they themselves must use some of his principles, when finances get tight, hence see the logic of his proposals. Combined with a proven track record of reform, being a maverick and bipartisan one comes to the conclusioon that in fact McCain should win the economy topic.
This topic is closely linked to Economy and Foreign Policy. Evidently the lack of foresight of administrations going back 90 years must be corrected. The pain for the individual has reached unheard of levels. As mentioned above, McCain proposes an "all-of-the-above strategy" geared towards Independence from foreign Sources within 20 years, whereas Obama proposes a "fast tracking" of alternative energies, while opposing additional Oil exploration and nuclear power.
Until Obama's plan has an effect, the American Consumer will suffer brutally and the US will continue for a much longer time to have a strategic need to stabilize regions in the middle east, which in effect will result in higher spending needs.
We believe that we can do it all, in an environmentally conscient manner.
Why not tap into our huge existing oil reserves for the short term, when China is drilling on our own coast? Why not tap the largest shale oil reserves in the world and maybe even export some to our European Allies at some point, thus reducing their dependence from Russia. while generating huge revenues towards a balanced budget and important projects (streets, education, health care, social security) within the US?
Why not build Nuclear Power Plants in the same safe manner France is doing it for 70% of their energy needs?
The electricity generated by these plants which can be built within a short time frame, will allow to redirect oil towards transportation until such time, as new technlogy, which McCain wants to invest heavily into, becomes available.
McCains Plan is hugely superior, as it has short and mid term impact on jobs, budget, debt and revenue, heck on national Security, while keeping for the mid term prices for oil stable. With Palin they get a solid background in terms of Energy. He most definitely wins the energy argument by a landslide.
3. Resume and Track Record
This topic is a no-brainer. On resume and track record, Mccain wins by a landslide.
Executive experience, meaning actual leading of organizations, McCain /Palin own a huge advantage over Obama, who is a law professor and community organizer, then legislator, whereas McCain led in the military, then led in several key senate sub commitees and Plain led as governor.
McCain wins also the argument of a record in terms of change, bi-partisanship and reform, as he autored over 250 bills, of which 30 actually got passed, whereas Obama has zilch to show for, quite actually owns a record in voting present or non voting. Palin offers in adddition to that a record of reform and anti-corruption legislation in an executive function.
McCain I S the original Maverick who never shied away to aggressively disagree with his own party or even Ronald Reagan, his hero, for that matter.
He H A S a proven track record of working successfully with Democrats to get the job done.
It is not by accident, that for the first time in history a prominent Democrat, Joe Lieberman, who eight years ago was on the Dem Ticket for Presidency of the USA, spoke in favor of a Republican Candidate.
That is proof to me of actual practised Bi-Partisanship up to this day.
Obama, who did never once vote with the republicans, can not provide any credible proof for his ability to reach across party lines.
On resume, track record, results and accomplishments, McCain most definitely wins the topic clearly. When we hire executives, they must demonstrate that they in the past managed to successfully implement their vision, so we can believe that they will do so again in the future.
Obama has a very well articulated vision alright, but he can not provide any proof or record to lead us to believe that he could deliver. McCain most definitely delivered in the past and hence owns much more credibility, when he promises to change the way things are done in Washington.
Nobody can deny, that we live in a time of grave challenges on every dimension and area.
A reactionary nationalistic Russia, as proven recently with the invasion in Georgia, Iran with nuclear ambitions which may well result in a (nuclear) confrontation with Israel, China, slowly but surely competing with the USAon every level and not always with fair practises (trade defizit), global islamism with its fanatic (terrorist) arm threatening the entire Western Way Of Life, an outright industrial revolution required to overhaul our domestic energy situation, a sagging economy and lastly a divided polarized country require one hell of a caliber of President in terms of leadership.
This president will have to take hard decisions, may well have to go against opinion polls and the mainstream media. He will have to call upon us all to service. He will have to reach out to allies and members of the other party alike to get things done. The president will have to deal with a fairly undisciplined democratic congress who rather takes a vacation than a vote on drilling.
The future President will have to deal with politicians in Washington who have entrenched special interests, with lobbies and powerful industries.
This president will have to clean house in terms of corruption and pork barrel spending.
This president will make himself a lot of enemies, if he wants to truly serve the American People.
This president will have to be tough as nails, needs tenacity, work ethics and moral strength.
The next president will have to be a true Leader.
Once again one must, when evaluating the candidates in terms of leadership, contemplate their history, record and accomplishments, in order to derive who will be the better leader in the future, as we deem it to be very risky to just base our decision on their vision for the future and their promises alone.
We asked ourselves, who in fact actually led in the past, who in fact led by example in terms of serving the country and even suffering for it, who has in the past shown tenacity and independence, who in fact has in the past fought against corruption and for reform.
Who has the courage and conviction to give direct and clear answers, instead of waffling around for 10 minutes per question?
Who's shown humility, an integral part of leadership skills, and who is arrogantly lecturing from a pulpit.
We believe that true, longlasting inspiration is based upon humilty and not arrogance or great speeches.
Talk the talk and walk the walk. Leading by example rather than lecturing and give admittedly great lecttures.
Devotion, based upon celeb status and worshipping can fade quickly.
Devotion, based upon being able to identify oneself with a humble man of integrity is permanent.
While Obama most definitely is a charismatic, eloquent, intelligent, likeable candidate, he lacks any record of leadership.
He does demonstrate charisma and likeability, he does have intelligence and may well after proving himself in the senate for a few more years grow into a true leader.
At present however, he presents the informed voter with too much of a risk, as there is simply no track record leading us to believe that he can take tough decisions, sometimes against the grain or opinion polls.
Obama has flipped his position too many times just during the election period, sent mixed signals to foreign leaders, simply is too much of an unknown quantity.
McCain on the other hand has proven leadership skills.
We know what he did, we know, what he stands for, he gives clear and direct answers everybody can understand. He does not send out mixed signals and he has the courage to think way outside of the box (e.g.Palin selection)
He has a vision and a plan and the proven and tested courage to follow through.
Not only is he a war hero, but a much more important conclusion of his war record is, that it is living proof of his strength, courage, tenacity, defiance in the face of adversity. Every single bone broken in his body and the man would not give up. Everybody counting him out after his surge promotion, yet he'd rather lose an election than a war.
During a crisis, whom would you rather see in the White House making decisions?
A tested, proven, scarred leader or someone, you simply can not know the stuff the man is made of (yet)?
Are we really willing to bet the country on an unknown quantity?
McCain wins the topic by a landslide.
Both candiates can be considered as leaders in their own right. But only one candidate has a proven track record of true leadership.
5. Foreign Policy
In light of terrible (communication) mistakes committed by the Bush Administration, combined with an unilateral approach, the resulting damage our image took on a worldwide scale and the grave challenges, as mentioned above, it becomes mission-critical to select the right candidate to address them.
I asked myself, who was the candidate who has a worldwide reputation and respect already, hence can hit the ground running.
Who had the experience in foreign relations and diplomacy, and who had actually travelled most of the conflict laden regions repeatedly.
I asked myself, who was more credible in his promise to prevent war and military conflict.
Who had sent out mixed signals to foreign leaders, who would more likely be tested by despots and autokrats.
Of course, when evaluating the candidates in terms of this topic, track record and experience matter to me.
Obama opposed the Irak war. McCain was for eliminating Saddam Hussein.
While I understand, that rightfully many people condemn Bush for delivering a false motivation (WMD), in effect, the USA did the right thing, even, if for the wrong given reasons.
Importing 40 % of our domestic oil needs from this region, it would have been devastating for sheer pragmatic reasons to allow a despot like Saddam to destabilize the region further.
For humanitarian reasons alone, it was the right thing to do, if one considers that he killed for instance 250000 Kurds in Halabscha by means of chemical weapons, to name just one of many terrible acts of mass murder the man committed.
No matter what, we must accept both positions on the war itself as acceptable. Valuable arguments can be made for as well as against it.
However, when the time came to revise the strategy against all opinion polls and against the incumbent president, and send even more troops into the war zone, McCain was the only lone ranger to support and promote it, and he is now the only one to be proven right.
His judgement was correct, Obama's was wrong. The same applies to Georgia, where it took Obama 3 days to issue a similar statement as McCain's. Mccain was also the only one, who responded to Bush's "I saw his soul" (meaning Putin) with " I see 3 letters, K G B."
Once again, when everybody applauded Russia's trend towards democracy, McCain was later proven right in his judgment.
Obama stated to be willing to invade Pakistan, if needed. Obama stated to be willing to negotiate with all despots of the world without preconditions.
Obama stated in Israel that Jerusalem can never be divided, and the very next day he switched position, when talking to representatives of the Palestinian Hamas.
Obama wants to witdhdraw from Irak with timelines and regardless of the situation.
We consider this as reckless, as any insurgency only neededc to wait out the timeline to resume their activities. In addition to that, we consider a buffer of at least some US military presence in Irak between them and Israel, as probably the last remaining tool to deter the Iranians from any adventures.
Obama wants to cut funding to our military, while we deem a strong defense force as more needed than ever in order to preserve peace.
He disguises it as modernizing, but in effect and on closer examination, he will reduce our abilities and its size, hence significantly hamper our options further.
As far as Biden is concerned, he suggested to divide Irak into 3 pieces!!!
Thats a notion not only ridiculous , but against any principles of international diplomacy. Examining Biden's record in terms of foreign policy, he favored almost radical views and a gap between feasibility and effective policy is evident.
We believe that some of Obama's Foreign Policy stands are naive and an example of his lack of experience in intl. diplomacy.
Both candidates promote luckily a more multilateral approach, involving our partners and allies more in the decision making process. Both candidates are much more agreeable in terms of environment and global warming, which is a key issue for instance in Europe. No matter who will be elected, America will restore its reputation and image, by the use of improved language and communication.
Obama's problems with Free Trade however may prove to become an obstacle to improving our international relations, as no one likes trade restrictions, protective measures and trade wars.
McCain's approach of believing in the competitiveness of US production and Trade and incentivizing domestic production rather than clinging to industries which will no matter what disappear (Sock industry went to China and will never come back), his policy of re-inventing America as High tech country with a ton of new industries and jobs, has a positive effect not only on the economy, but also on our Foreign Relations.
Without a doubt, McCain wins the point in regard to Foreign Policy.
He again is the o\ne candidate with a proven track record of sound judgment (Georgia, Russia, Surge).
He wins on experience and international reputation.
He further wins on a clear message, leading to predictability as cornerstone of any successful international diplomacy, where mixed signals lead to tests and adventures.
His foreign policy platform is straight forward and does not leave any room for interpretation.
As individual, who has seen the horror of war up close and personal, he certainly has earned the credibility (the hard way) to avoid war at all cost or engage over a rumor or faulty intelligence, while never shying away from it - but only for the right reasons and serving America.
A McCain Administration to our opinion has better odds in terms of avoidance of any military conflict, as we do believe that some despots in lack of a clear message might very well try to find out with Obama, how far his elasticicy stretches.
6. National Security
8 years of no Terror Attack on domestic soil speaks to the lone achievement of the Bush Administration.
It is easy to take safety and security for granted, especially after such a long time of relative calm. The multilateral War On Terror, waged on all dimensions and levels evidently had shown results. Al Khaeda is hunkered down in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
No question that in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the Bush admin went too far at times. (Guantanamo, Torture, Civil Liberties). Obama denies the success across the board and pledges to revise much of the Patriots Act.
McCain, going against public opinion once again, has the courage to acknowledge Bush's result in that regard, while disagreeing on several excesses and promising to correct those, while maintaining the general direction of a successful initiative.
Both candidates promise to intensify the hunt for Bin Laden and eradicate Al Khaeda. Both candidates promise to intensify the war in Afghanistan and bring it to a successful ending.
Only McCain sees an improved border control as cornerstone.
Only McCain to a light extent wants to tighten immigration legislation.
In general I came to the result that both candidates seem to be equally committed in their efforts to prevent any further attacks.
However, if McCain promises to follow Bin Laden to the last cave and bring him down. His track record of tenacity and follow through and his (unpopular) willingness to acknowledge the one area of success by the Bush Admin, lends him in our eyes more credibility.
On National Security McCain wins the point.
Nobody can possibly touch McCain on Character. He's proven it time and again and suffered for it tremendously. His service to the country is impeccable. His willingness not to leave Hanoi ahead of others, who were captured, cost him dearly in broken bones and lasting handicaps, but proved his character and integrity early on.
The man has seen more horror and friends die than anyone should have to.
He was not just once, but on many occasions literally in the middle of the fire and has proven to us time and again, that America comes in his mind first, and that this man simply will not falter and crumble, no matter the danger, the odds stacked against him or the personal risk to himself.
His self-depreciation, humility, integrity and humor makes him a man, most Americans will and can identify with.
His willingness to lead by example is demonstrated in his adoption of a Child of color, long before any election or presidential campaign.
When assessing a man on character, one must without a doubt measure him by his friends too. Sorry, Obama, in a court of Justice as well as in the court of public opinion with the Electiion for the single most powerful job in the world in mind, an examination of associations is appropriate.. The is in fact such a thing as Guilt By Association, as your friends speak to judgment, background and character.
Listening to the glowing testimony of people who served with John McCain, of a Democrat of the caliber of Joe Liberman or even Hillary Clinton, Biden who spoke of John McCain before the election with the highest respect and almost appreciation, listening to the debates during the primaries, where even staunch adversaries were hesitant to attack John - least alone on Character - , listening to Cindy McCain who in contrast to Michelle Obama comes across as non-controversial, vulnerable and classy, one can not help to simply admire the man.
McCain is the original Maverick.
An indpendent thinker with a character to match. Courage, tenacity, endurance and an everlasting optimism and faith in the American People and what they stand for.
His choice of Palin as running mate speaks a thousand words.
Not only dces it speak to his ability to think outside the box and time and again surprise us all in an arena, where suprises are rare, it also speaks to his character as a man who will never waiver to see America first and his own interests later.
With the surge, he was willing to lose the election before he even started, with his opposition against those unrealistic aethanol subsidies in Iowa, which cost him a whole primary during the critical first period, he proved again, that principle comes with this man before self interest.
He opposed Bush on many key items to the extent of being hated by the GOP.
His willingness to reach out on Pro Choice and Immigration, made him the undnerdog in the eyes of staunch conservative Republicans. His willingness to leave faith to a great extent out of the message, but rather live his faith but speak about it, all these things should lead any independent moderate voter to the conclusion that this man's character is what we need to unite this country during difficult and challenging times.
As far as Obama goes, one simply does not know enough for a thorough assessment and evaluation of his character.
I therefore started to simply collect some facts and found the following:
130 times he voted present during 8 years of state and federal Senate.
His relationship with Ayers, a terrorist after all and Rezko, a criminal, are at best disturbing.
Sitting for 2o years in a black liberation church, featuring the biggest Nazi I ever heard, does lead me to at best disqualify Obama's judgment.
His inability to disown the man only after weeks of heated controversy, but never apologize or explain the 20 years, testifies to either cowardice or arrogance, depending on the severity one is willing to judge Obama with.
Lastly, for me personally the many flip flops sealed the deal on the topic Character.
He promised to accept public financing, then broke his promise, after he broke all records of fundraising. He flipped on drilling, troop funding, Israel and just yesterday on nuclear power.
As a patriot, I do not appreciate that Obama went to Berlin and crapped in front of 250000 Germans all over his own people, just to win some points with a foreign anti-american audience.
He went to Irak to get a first hand impression not until McCain challenged him several times on that.
He called people like me in Pennsylvania and other rural areas, who did not vote for him "ignorants, gun toting, Bible quoting and bitter".
His wife, Michelle was quoted to be "proud of this county for the first time in her adult life". Sorry, but that causes concern.
McCain challenged Obama to several Townhall meetings, where the voter could get a direct contrasting impression of the candidates and their propositions.
Obama did not engage, which speaks to his character. I'll leave it at that.
During the first debate in an interesting format, where both candidates were asked the very same questions independently and after each other, McCain gave us direct, courageous, short, to the point answers, whereas Obama waffled around, evaded and lectured.
While McCain actually worked in the senate and got over 30 bills enacted, Obama during his time broke the record in fundraising and/or did not vote at all.
Examining the voting record, when Obama every once so often voted, it never stood against his own party, but he came down time and again hard left off centre.
While McCain did not take or accept a dime in pork barrel funds, Obama took $900M.
Obama nowadays uses his election campaign to come up with something with regard to executive leadership experience.
The notion is not only a joke (they have campaign managers to do that) it actually speaks to the character of Obama who up to this day has yet to come up with one single acknowledgment of a shortcoming or misjudgment.
Considering the latter, which always speaks to character, if one is willing to admit a mistake, as John McCain did so on several occasions (e.g. Tax Cuts or his wild times of the youth), it does speak to Character.
Up to this time I personally hav waited for Obama to at least acknowledge that during 20 years of listening to the fanatic black liberation Nazi, Wright, he had known of his radical stands and exercised bad judgment to allow that man to be a "spiritual" influence on his own family for such a long period of time.
Up to this day, Obama never apologized or showed a grain of humility, which would have endeared him to so many independents like me.
We consider humility and the ability to admit mistakes, which we all commit during our daily lives, as an integral element of Character and Leadership.
On Character as on many other topics we deem critical for our decision, one does not know much about Obama, even though the man wrote 2 biographies. One can however collect, what a lawyer would call "circumstantial evidence". That material caused us to see Obama as cocky, elite, arrogant with at times extremely poor judgment. There is definitely no record or evidence to the contrary.
The character of John McCain, who feely admits his shortcomings in terms of temper and others, is however undisputed - not even by his most outspoken adversaries.
Hence we can not help to give the point to McCain.
8. Uniting a polarized country
I guess we can all agree that there is a huge gap in the American Society.
Most forecast a very close election. We all agree that the gap must be bridged.
If anything is going to get accomplished, it will take true bi-partisan backing, the work of Democrats and Republicans alike and working together in service not of parties but of the country.
Looking at the simple, straight forward facts during their time in the US Senate, Obama has a 13% record of bi-partisanship, whereas McCain owns a 55% record.
With only 3 Years in the Senate, Obama could have easily and quickly changed the percentage by working just a few times with Republicans and Democrats alike, whereas during a span of 30 years, the 55% record of McCain is staggering and based upon a true tradition of this man to work with people of both sides of the aisle!
Most of all, a vast majority of Americans, the people, must buy in and must be inspired to work with and not against a President. Let us not kidd ourselves, the next few years, until the industrial revolution generates an ooutright boom via nw industgries and technologies, we will be called to service by our President.
Who, do you honestly believe, will have the courage to call on us in terms of discipline, tightening the belts and accepting tough decisions? Do you sincerely think, that Obama, who has yet to show some form of courage, will have the guts to give us the hard truth and call us to service?
Will we rather follow a man who's seen misery first hand, proven his enormous courage, strength and unwaivering faith in America time and again, suffered in the service for this country personally and still has the scars to prove it?
Will we rather follow John McCain who admits his shortcomings and sourrounds himself with (business) leaders of all creeds, genders and political affiliations or Obama, who is untested, unknown and unclear?
Do we want substance or style? Will we prefer charisma over proven leadership experience? During a storm, what kind of Captain would any normal person want on the bridge? Don't you agree with us, that during these times one needs a captain who has weathered similar storms in the past.
The Presidency of the US should nevere be considered as an apprenticeship or on the job training, lest during these difficult times, which require a seasoned, tested, proven leader with the proven ability to reach out to the other side and unite the country to the highest possible extent.
Obama runs on a message of transcending unity. He raises an enormous amount of new voters and people all of a sudden interested in politics. He enjoys a huge popularity amongst our young people. He definitely has become a symbol of hope to blacks and other minorities. Great achievements without a doubt.
When assessing the candidates on this topic, we however have to consider some disturbing notions.
His Bitter remarks hurt us terribly.
We are neither bitter, nor racist, bible quoting or gun toting ignorants. We are simple people who ask questions and prefer straight talk over lofty speeches. In order to win us over, one has to talk the talk and walk the walk. We love America too much to base our vote on speeches, negative ads, slandering and distortion. We are smart enough to examine the candidates on their actual records and deeds in the past. So, we are not bitter and most definitely not ignorants. We just look a bit closer.
We also love our country and believe in America and it's great achievements, not to forget the great progress in overcoming the racial divide.
We did not appreciate Michelle's remarks of being proud for the first time in her life , nor did we appreciate Obama's reverse racismcard being used time and again, " and..... did I mention... he is black".
We neither appreciated the attacks on Geraldine Ferraro (who will nevertheless remain a Democrat), nor his aggressive reactions to Bill Clinton, who had deservedly won the Nick Name of being the first Black President, turning almost the entire black minority against this former president who was without a doubt very good in his handling and representation of our African American Community.
We did not appreciate Obama's inability to acknowledge the simple, logic fact that black voters do in general vote for a black man -
Does one honestly believe that 90% of our African American Community actually prefer Obama's Policy Platform over McCains, due to purely pragmatic reasons?
The percentage is - just illustrating, not qualifying - based upon race, inasmuch as Clinton enjoyed an advantage with women and McCain with seniors and freely admit it.
But crushing, smearing, slandering and attacking Ferraro, Clinton and others, who dared to mention this evident fact, as racists, deeply disturbs us.
We do ask ourselves the question, if a President Obama will qualify anyone ,who will disagree with him on any given issue, as racist too?
Obama's 2 decade lasting relationships with Reverend Wright and Farrakhan, and other members of fanatic black liberation movements, deeply concern us.
Wright, to name just one example, is by now probably among normal white Joe Blows, what the Ku Klux Clan means to the black man. This must be stated clearly and considered as a sad fact. Even though Obama in the meantime disowned the man, doubts remain as to how much a 20 year long black liberation indoctrination has in effect shaped the man's beliefs and views.
Obama had several widely communicated chances to respond forcefully to those doubts. Yet, he gave us a lecture in racial history rather than acknowledging the so far narrowest racial divide in history.
All the above does not lend much confidence in Barack Obama's ability to unite the country. As opposed to John McCain, who has a much more differentiated audience and following, Obama's core voter segments are fewer, albeit to huge percentages.
Obama has become part of the divide instead of transcending it. He inflamed the racial divide rather than ack nowledging, how far America has come to truly be a land of color blind people. To our opinion he has done a disservice to all Blacks who by hard work alone broke the ceiling and not by affirmative action. Ironically he still enjoys an 80% advantage in this segment.
McCain on the other hand, shows appeal from women to blue collar workers, from seniors to Union members across all demographics, all genders and all races.
He is the original independent, standing right smack in the middle of the spectre.
He has the track record of bi-partisanship.
He stood time and again against his own party and opinion polls,
and he unites the people of America on his great example of service to the country with much personal sacrifices.
With McCain the American People can find a Lowest Common Denominator, as most agree upon his experience, service, history, character and personal sacrifices.
With Obama, the American People disagree on almost every single aspect or topic. Other than agreeing on his ability to deliver great speeches, one side adores and woreships him almost to the level of a TV Evangelist, while the other hates him with a vengeance.
As far as we independents are concerned, we simply can not see any area of common ground the American People could find themselves upon with this Candidate.
The blatant liberal Media Bias (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, LA Times, NY Times, Newsweek, Washington Post in the tank for Obama, FOX and some smaller papers supporting McCain) does not help here either, as the media has become part of the campaigns, heck, outright propaganda platforms, hence look for contrasts, scandals and ugliness, instead of reporting unbiased and looking for common ground.
Currently over 65% of the American People do no longer believe (in) the media. That is a staggering vote of mistrust towards the so called no bull no bias media which makes news, instead of reporting it.
Does the fiery Oprah Winfrey support for Obama disturb us? Yes. Reaching millions of day time viewers, these people have a moral and ethical responsibility not to engage in politics and demagogueism. We always get suspicious, when people of influence and power try to tell us, what we should believe in.
Albeit, they do make opinons and, stubborn as we are, we usually go with the Underdog. Something, we hope, will happen again against the Media and Opinion Makers, as we, the American People believe in fundamental fairness in any competition and more and more see, how badly the cards are stacked against McCain, who at times seems to have to compete with one hand bound behind his back (Finances, Media, Public Figures, Bush unpopularity and economic fearmongering)
Does all the above lead us reallly to believe that Obama is the uniting figure, or does it actually speak to a growing divide?
Considering John McCain, one can not help to notice, that the American People may disagree on his policy platform, but do agree on his service to the country, his character, heroism, tenacity and his proven willingness to always put the country first. That we consider at least a basis for an urgently needed unifying and healing process after the election.
Just for that simple logic, that with John McCain the American people have areas they all can agree on, we must give the point to John McCain. Obama may well want to honestly put an effort into uniting the American People. Being a part of the divide however, we simply can not believe that his charisma alone will override deep concerns.
The evident Media Bias towards Obama further lends reasons for deep mistrust.
America may have been ready for the first black President, if the choice had been Colin Powell.
Obama however, generated too much controversy (Leftist voting record, lack of track record, reverse racism, attacks, then ignoring on the Clintons) to ever being able to overcome the huge deficit and to being the uniting personality of a President to the table, who can in fact bring the urgently needed unity about.
But Unity is, what we will need to tackle the great challenges ahead.
Both candidates are trying to avoid the topic as it is a dangerous one. America is undoubtedly built around Immigration. It draws its immense power of innovation from the influx of the best the world had and has to offer. It also draws from a cheap labor force of legal and illegal immmigrants. Many industries are dependent on these workers.
The unwillingness by both candidates and both parties to address the issue, has led to dangerous realities.
Did yo know that most states to not require any proof of citizenship in order to vote? All you need to do is register and then go and vote. With Millions of legal and undocumented aliens in the USA, who definitely have a vested interest in seeing a liberal administration elected, we foresee a grave danger this year that the election could be in several battleground states such as Florida, Pennsylvania or Michigan swayed by "voter fraud". If only 1 % of all legal and illegal aliens register and vote for Obama, which would be their natural choice, it may well tip close calls over the edge. Several ethnocentric groups and their lobbies and special interest groups are frantically fighting any effort to implement some form of documentation required to vote. Something, absolutely understood and accepted in most western countries.
In this country, we do not know a national identity card, or have any idea about the true demographics, as nobody is required to submit any papers to any community they move to. Switzerland would offer a great, feasible template of such a system, albeit, any efforts of implementing an all encompassing Immigration reform are being stifled by the ACLU and similar left wing liberal interest groups. People are actually being rewarded for breaking the law.
On Immigration we can not give our vote to either of the candidates, as both have not come up with a feasible and doable solution to the problem, which will continue to develop to the worse, no matter the administration. McCain's plans of border security and a sensible way to address illegal immigration go a tiny step farther than Obama's, but do not convince me to give him the point, as the ccurrent situation is an offense to Immigrants like me who went through a painful, long, at times even humiliating process of legal naturalization.
It rewards illegal immigration, bad beahaviour and encourages people to enter the country that way.
It is an outrage that neiter of the candidates acknowledges the grabity of the current situation.
10. Experience vs. Change.
Do we really need to sacrifice one for the other?
Many amongst us regard Experience as key attribute for the toughest and most powerful job in the world. A majority of Americans want change. Ist this really an either or question?
With Obama one does not get much in regard to the first, but he promises change. McCain too pledges to fix Washington and clean it up. Who is more credible?
In this topic I derived from a simple business perspective, that, in order to implement change, one must have experience as change or turn-around manager.
If you want to improve the engine of your car, you need to be a mechanic.
If you want to change the way business is conducted in Washington, you most definitely need to know and understand in -depth, how the processes and procedures work at the present time.
You can only fix something, if you actually know it profoundly.
Hence - Experience is a fundamental prerequisite to change.
There is no change without experience, but there is experience without change.
On that notion, Obama is already clearly disqualified, as he has just about 2 years of being a Federal legislator under his belt, most of which time he spent outside of DC fundraising. Nobody, not even Einstein could have gained the needed knowledge and relationships during this short time frame.
We truly blieve Obama, when he states that he wants to fix Washington. But that is irrelevant, as he simply lacks the tools to deliver on those promises.
He further does not offer any record of change, going against the grain or his own party or any autored legislation to that.
We deem him to be a bit hippocritical, when he states to curb special interests, as he himself accepted 900M in pork, whereas McCain didn't take a dime.
Once again, I can not help myself but to see mixed signals out of the Obama campaign. He sure talks the talk, but does he really walk the walk?
But what about McCain?
He clearly has the needed tools, experience and knowledge.
But we all want change too.
What can lead us to believe that he will follow through on his promise to change and clean up Washington?
Well, he is the original Maverick.
He has a track record of bi-partisanship, another prerequisite of change, especially working with a Democratic Congress.
He has in the past taken on lobbies, financing, special interests and quite actually even introduced corresponding legislation.
The way he led his campaign, selecting Palin as running mate, thinking so far out of the box that even the GOP was (positively) suprised, speaks to his willingness to take new avenues.
With Palin he selcted a running mate with e x e c u t i v e experience, a record of reform and change and a deep background on energy.
A governor with a popularity in her own state, which stands unique in the American landscape. Palin adds definitely to McCain's image of change agent, whereas Biden quite actually speaks to the contrary.
With Obama, we get a candidate without experience and promises of change.
With McCain we get experience plus a track record of actually implemented change and reform.
On Change, which can never happen without Experience, we must give the point to McCain.
Fact is that we need change. But we need actual implemented executed change, not just words.
We can not afford to just talk about it, we must have it and have it soon. In that sense McCain simply comes across again as much more credible.
Breaking up the Elephant into slices of our interest, then assessing the candidates unemotionally and pragmatically on each of those topics, McCain wins by a landslide. We further believe that a Democratic Congress, so far one with the lowest approval rates on results after all, should be checked and balanced by a Republican President, if of course the latter fits the bill in terms of qualifications. McCain certainly does.
Our decision making process is not driven by party loyalty, but on the requirements for our great country.
All aforementioned, briefly outlined topics of importance, as we see them, are in much more detail analyzed and discussed within separate threads of this BLog. This thread is meant as nothing but a condensed version of 500 pages of material, 2h of video and weeks and weeks of media consumption from MsNBC to Fox News including European Media.
If you are interested to know more about a specific topic, see on top right the list of various threads for an easy navigation to the topic of your own interest, where you can review in detail, how we derived our decision.
After careful consideration and assessment of the candidates, we proudly and loudly call on all independents, moderates, Reagan Democrats and Republicans, everybody who is sick of party bickering and special interst politics and corruption and willing to put the country first, to join us in our support of the McCain/Palin ticket.