The Republican Convention and the addition of Governor Palin to the ticket have given McCain a huge boost in the polls. Before the convention, McCain trailed Obama by 7 points. Now, among registered voters, McCain leads 50% to 46% and among likely voters, he leads 56% to 46%. The poll was taken from Friday to Sunday, included 1,022 voters, and has a margin of error of +- 3 points. Historically, convention bounces tend to wither a little, but having a ten point advantage at this point is better than I thought possible.
One of the reasons the Republican convention was so successful because it shattered the narrative of McCain presented by Obama at the Democratic convention and the narrative of Palin presented by the media. Obama told you that McCain is Bush II, but his record clearly shows him to be a maverick reformer. The media and Obama told you Palin was inexperienced, but we found out about her impressive record of battling corruption and oil companies as well as fighting her own party on government waste. Obama now looks even less experienced in comparison, and he's on the top of the ticket.
Other interesting developments:
- Biden told Meet the Press that life begins at conception, but he wouldn't dare impose his "religious" views on other people. Maybe we shouldn't impose our "religious" views about murdering people outside the womb either. At least he doesn't think the issue is "above his pay grade."
- Obama on the surge in Iraq: “I think that there’s no doubt that the violence is down. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated." Go ahead and say it, "I was wrong to oppose the surge, and John McCain was right."
- Obama now says he would delay rescinding Bush's tax cuts for wealthy Americans if the economy is weak (he didn't mention that we had robust growth of 3.3% last quarter). Is this an admission that raising taxes on the rich hurts the economy?
Posts
6 comments:
I'm in political love. Anytime you have liberals complaining about a working mom... life is good.
There are so many inherent hypocrisies that lie under the surface in politics, it's just great when the liberals stumble so obviously.
She has redefined what "liberated women" (a phrase I hate anyway) stand for... wouldn't it be great if the first ever Female vice president was a pro-life, pro-gun Christian conservative?
I've gone from apathetic "eh" McCain tolerater to gung-ho McCain-Palin supporter.
If the economy is doing so well, why did unemployment go up, and why is the government taking control of two major mortgage lenders?
I think it is because that growth doesn't trickle down like all you reaganomics folks says it does.
I've never claimed the economy is doing well, but it is not in recession and contrary to what Obama thinks, this is not soup line America.
The blame for Fannie and Freddie lies with the Democrats who established the insane relationship between the government and these banks in order to implement their agenda. They were upset that banks didn't loan enough money to people who were poor credit risks (ie inner city blacks), so they established Fannie and Freddie to cover the risks banks took on when they issued sub-prime loans. The banks then took the profits while the getting was good and now the taxpayer is left holding the bag.
Please give me one example of an economy that has outperformed ours by increasing regulation, government control, or income redistribution.
In the past few decades we've seen the opposite having the largest effect on the poor. In the last 30 years, since China began moving toward (albeit slowly) a free market, they have averaged 9% growth and 400 million people have been lifted out of poverty. The average income is now 7x higher than it was 30 years ago.
In the last 20 years India has also begun to embrace the free market. They have cut their poverty rate in half in the last 20 years.
Free markets work and they work for everybody who works.
I'm not saying capitalism doesn't lift people out of poverty, I think it does more to do this than any other economic system, I just don't believe in deregulation.
By the way, the person responsible for deregulating companies like Fannie and Freddie is a McCain economic advisor. Also, it seems somewhat elitist to blame inner city blacks or the democrats for wanting to help them when in the same sentence you state that the banks were the ones that ran off with the profit. Seems to me, the banks are to blame, and it was republicans that deregulated them, and continue to ask for fewer restrictions on industry. I think this just shows what happens when industry is left to its own devices.
I'm not blaming inner city blacks, I'm blaming politicians that divorced the banks from the risk of bad loans in order to get loans to people with poor credit.
Many Republicans, including President Bush, pushed for more regulation, reasoning that if the taxpayers are on the hook if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (FF) then they shouldn't have risky portfolios. However, they were opposed by Democrats, including the four politicians who received the most campaign contributions from FF: Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
President Bush in December: "Congress needs to pass legislation strengthening the independent regulator of government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so we can keep them focused on the mission to expand home ownership."
Who was this McCain advisor? Are you sure you're not thinking of Jim Johnson, the first leader of Obama's VP team (until he was accused of corruption), and former CEO of Fannie Mae?
Ok, back to deregulation. We are in a global economy and capital goes where the returns are. It is important for our economy for those returns to be here. We already have the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the developed world, why do we want to be over-regulated as well?
Phil Gramm, who deregulated FF in 2000. In December the only thing legislation would have done is stop the bleeding. The fact is Republicans started the problem.
We are also the only industrial country that doesn't have health care for all of its citizens. I don't want crippling regulations that hurt our economy. I want corporations to take care of their employees, and they don't seem to do this unless they are forced. Walmart, who you say is a model company, has a horrible reputation for how they treat employees. If that is what a company has to look like in order to be successful, then I can honestly say that I don't care if our companies are successful.
I know that America needs a strong economy, I just don't see the benefits of a strong economy being equally shared. Why does the economy grow by 3.3% and unemployment go up to 6.1% at the same time. What is good for corporations doesn't always seem to be what is best for average Americans. I think it is possible to be competitive and take care of the working class.
And in regard to your previous comment, for some people it is soup line America, and I think we have a responsibility to help those people.
Post a Comment