Still not voting for Obama

I’d like to draw your attention to these posts from people that are still not voting for Obama.  There are still plenty of us out there with unanswered questions and are not bowing to pressure to vote for him … I listed my reasons yesterday and if you go to the Confluence here, you’ll read many additions to my list.  I’m a registered democrat.  I’ve voted for Dukkakis, Carter, Clinton, Kerry and Gore.  But I will not vote for Obama.

From Heidi Li’s Potpourri: http://tdg.typepad.com/heidi_lis_potpourri/2008/10/if-you-are-resisting-the-power-of-the-democratic-party-you-are-not-the-first—and-you-are-not-alone.html

From Oh My Valve…: http://ohmyvalve.blogspot.com/2008/10/saying-no-is-your-god-given-right-you.html

From Puma Pac: http://blog.pumapac.org/2008/10/20/im-a-democrat-and-im-not-voting-for-obama/

From The Confluence: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/monday-we-are-not-alone/

From Patsy and Sugar: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/tuesday-ohms-law-how-will-you-resist/


I’m still not going to vote for Obama

My reasons haven’t changed.

My top 10 reasons why I’m not voting for Barrack Obama:

1. His has specious pastors and associates (Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Farakhan, Michelle Obama …).

2. When he’s off the teleprompter and in a debate,  he shows no understanding of policy–especially foreign policy and diplomacy.

3. Whenever there is a vote on something difficult, he doesn’t vote or he votes present so he says things but does nothing.

4. His list of achievements can be summed up in one bullet point:  getting into office, jobs, and schools on something less than merit and hard work.

5. His demeanor reminds me of Dubya. He is smug, arrogant and when questioned comes off as some one whose entitled to NOT be questioned on anything.

6. He got his house and side yard in a sweet heart deal with his friend Rezko, the felon.

7. He got his two terms in the Il. state legislature by getting his opponents thrown out on technicalities and got the U.S. senate position when his Republican opponent quit when his supposedly sealed divorce records got opened mysteriously.

8. Michigan primary (sic):  If he can get pledged delegates by not being on the ballot, then I want some Michigan pledged delegates too.  Basically I hate injustice and every thing the RBC and the DNC did to rig the nomination for him falls into that heading.  The entire primary process was contorted so he could get the election.  The roll call was a sham.  The caucuses were gamed and Florida and Michigan were brought back into the fold only after all the delegates were either replaced or bullied into supporting him.

9. He says he will negotiate with leaders of rogue nations which is just one of the reasons he’s been endorsed by the likes of Kim Jong Il, Khadafi, Hamas, Fidel Castro …

and the number 10 reason I’m not voting for Obama:


Dead Cat Bounce or a Hint of Bull?

The equity markets some times experience good days even in the worst of bear times.  These up days are frequently just the dread dead cat bounce.  This label comes from the saying that even a dead cat bounces if you throw it.  You’re going to hear two things from me today; probably in two different posts.  The first is just a line by line look at the Obama and McCain approaches to the economic panic.  The second is the Paulson announcement to make $250 billion available to banks to help them recapitalize.  I’m watching some of the interbank lending markets unfreeze, so it might be more than a dead cat bounce.  There might be a hint of the bottom which would be something to celebrate.

I was trying to read this last night as well as a some literature on the Bank Capital Channel of Monetary Policy (something only an economist could love but is important in terms of looking at the possible outcomes for this move).  I unfortunately chose to do it at my local bar and became the immediate target of the shriek of the Obamatrons and all the usual stuff:  “racism, Palin is a c*nt, it’s okay for us to call her that because McCain called his wife that, no Obama NEVER said women get third trimester abortions because they’re blue, do you get all your information from fox news? racism, racism, racism.” I’m beginning to wonder if they hand out an instruction card with the koolaid on how to insult the unindoctrinated? 

Sigh, so I’m working on this for your this morning instead.  You’ll have to give me a wide berth as I try to do this in the peace and quiet of my house over coffee instead of red wine.  Oh, also, just so you know I am now Miss Perfect and Miss Know it all.  It felt like high school ALL over again.  I think they were trying to ensure that the other two ex-Hillary supporters who were resigned to voting for the “ONE” would not leave the fold with anything as meaningless as facts and the truth.  There was also a Republican and a Ron Paul supporter in the room to make things nice and interesting.  For some reason, I got the brunt of the abuse. I can’t tell you how many times I was told to just get over Hillary.

So, any way, here goes the girl with the glasses again.  While the market chews on the Paulson plan, I’ll start with my take on the McCain and Obama crisis plans in this post.

Obama’s plan seems centered on unemployment.  This is a bit odd because the problem at the moment is not unemployment for most of the country.  The only thing I can figure is this, combined with his plan to double the government’s loan guarantees for automakers, is a pander for votes in places like Michigan.  Since the rust belt is important to winning the election, and the rust belt is the only place where unemployment is above normal at the moment, I have to cynically say this has nothing to do with financial crisis but everything to do with the electoral college.

I think giving employers a $3,000 tax credit for each new hire to encourage job creation is a good economic policy.  At the moment, however it is not necessary and expensive.  Until it looks like unemployment in the country as a whole is going to be a problem, I’m sticking with my view that this is just a pander to folks in important swing states in a not so subtle disguise.

His second idea is just plain awful and would create incredible long term problems.  This is the idea that you should allow Americans of all ages to borrow/withdraw from retirementsavings without a tax penalty.  One of our biggest problem right now (long and short) is that folks are NOT saving enough for retirement. Pulling anything out right now ensures those folks will be worse off in the future.  Also, withdrawing funds from these accounts at the bottom of the market is like stealing future life style from people.  People that do not need to do this will be encouraged to do so and it will make their lives worse in the long run.  This is a stinker and I hope folks don’t follow through with it.  If you’re thinking about doing this, please, please don’t.

I’m more hopeful about Obama’s suggestion of creating a mechanism to lend monies to cities and states with fiscal problems if this is done in a reasonable, thoughtful way.  We’d need to see that current Treasury work in the markets is helping the municipal bond function and we need to be careful about exactly how the funds will be used.  I’m afraid this could be turned into an expensive giveaway to interests rather than a real problem solver.  For this suggestion, the devil will be in the details.  This is my same take on his proposal to allow struggling small businesses to apply for loans from the SBA’s disaster funds to the tune of $5 billion.  This sounds good on the surface and could help getting much need operating loans to some of the hardest hit players.  I’d like to see the exact nature of the terms, however.  You need to know what the terms of borrowing are and what kind of things the funds can be used for.  Also, is this for existing businesses or new start-ups?  The new-start ups would be highly risky propositions and subject to fraud.

Obama rehashed the Hillary suggestion of a 90-day moratorium on most home foreclosures.  This would be geared to folks that are trying to make payments or partial payments.  This is a good start, but again, it has to be followed by some kind of way to renegotiate the foreclosures or it’s basically just a few months grace.  Some details are needed on what to do with the frozen mortgages.  My hope is those details may be forthcoming, but I’m not holding my breath.

All of the Obama suggestions are very costly and there are no funding suggestions.  At one time he was talking about windfall profits on oil companies but given the state of the economy now, I doubt there’s going to be any windfall profts on which to draw.  The gas around here is running less than $3.00 a gallon.  I can’t help but think the record level profits of the oil companies are not going to be around the next few quarters.  Oil futures are about $80 a barrel right now, so my guess is no windfall profits to tax.  So, another dimension of all Obama’s points is where is he getting the money?  I always liked Hillary’s plans because they came with funding sources so they were grounded in realism and not promises.

The McCain Plan was introduced today with the Hillary suggestion of the Treasury Departmentbuying troubled mortgages at face value and giving qualified homeowners instead government-guaranteed, low interest mortgages.  I’m already on the record supporting this in earlier posts since I firmly believe the short term solution is to bottom house prices.  The mortgages would be based on the residences’ reduced value.  We need to focus here on the details of ‘qualified’ homeowners because it does not need to be done with speculators or vacation properties.  McCain has said there would be two possible funds for the valuation differences so I’m not clear which one he’s going for or if it’s giong to be some combination of both.  Basically, either the taxpayer or the lenders would pay the difference.

Several other of his proposals are pretty typical of Republican approaches which focus on tax reduction.  They are targeted tax reductions which is something I’m particularly big on.  This is different than just throwing money at the entire market and hoping some of it trickles down and sidewise.  McCain’s first proposal focuses on seniors (an important voting group) and allows them to withdraw from the IRAs or 401k’s in 2009 and 2010 while reducing their taxes to a flat 10 percent.  Since this only applies to those over 59, there are no penalties so it’s different than the Obama plan.  This is okay, since these folks ARE retired and a worktime of compounding is not something they will need in the future.  This plan would cost about $36 billion and I’m assuming it will be financed with deficit spending because there are no specified funding sources.  This would giving a few years of buying power which would be stimulatory to the economy.  It also protects seniors from any unknown problems.  It’s probably partially motivated to get seniors into the McCain camp but it would impact the country as a whole.

There are three other tax measures put forth by McCain.  The first is a 50 % reduction in the capital gains tax on stock profits.  It is currently 15% to 7.5% for a period of two years.  This plan has a price tag of about $10 billion.  If any one is getting many capital gains right now, I’d sure like to meet them.  This probably only benefits the Warren Buffet type and is a nod to Republican business interests.  The more interesting plan is the accelerated tax write off for stock losses.  Americans will be able to deduct $15,000 in losses for the tax years 2008 and 2009.  This is a change from the current $3,000 losses.  He would also suspend taxes on unemployment insurance benefits for both 2008 and 2009.  These targeted proposals may actually help the little guy who is panicking right now and pulling whatever money he has out of stocks.  It would definitely help any one that does become unemployed also.  I’m not sure how big the effect of these would be, but they are not bad ideas.

So, you can chomp on this while I go work out on the details of the Paulson announcement and watch what appears to be a stablizing stock market.  I’ll also go check for bulls, bears, and any bouncing dead cats.  Also, some earnings reports are coming out today, so that should provide some good information to the market.


Obama the Myth: the Harvard Years

Since I’m being hammered from many sides to look at Obama as the superior candidate by some folks, I’ve decided to really take a look long and hard at the resume of Barack Obama. Because they tell me not to rely on the debate performances or his command of facts and issues, I decided to look at him like a job applicant.  One of my uncles graduated first in his class at Harvard Law School.  Just because I always was enamoured by my Uncle John, I started with the Harvard Law School party of Obama’s resume.  This was the FIRST thing I looked into.  I found that Obama is a job applicant with a short and padded resume and I got this information with very little time spent googling.  The MSM are really a lazy and nefarious bunch.

The first Obama accomplishment we’re presented is the constant repetition of this line that I grabbed from his senate bio.

In 1991, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School where he was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review.

That just sounds wonderful doesn’t it? Despite implications by the press and others (I would include his campaign on that), Obama is NOT the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review.  He is the THIRD.  He also didn’t achieve that position in the historical way which is by merit.

Why hasn’t any one done a little more research in to this?  It was completely easy to find that Obama padded his already razor thin resume.  Obama, is fact, the third black editor of the Harvard Law Review.  Academics get fired for this kind of resume lie. I find it reprehensible that Obama gets away with this on a daily basis.

Not only that, I would think that some one interested in promoting the achievements and history of black Americans would want to clarify this publicly. Any women or minority that achieved this kind of positions prior to efforts by the government to end discrimination is something folks should know about and recognize. Isn’t this the purpose of Women’s History Month and Black History Month? Unfortunately, these two gentlemen have know fallen prey to helping the establishment of Obama, the myth.

I would especially think that Harvard would point out that they’ve had blacks acheive the position prior to Obama.  One intrepid journalist asked them to clarify Obama’s resume ‘gaffe’ and published it  here

I wrote that letter to the Dean of the Harvard Law School Oct. 20, 2006. I received the answer in a letter dated Nov. 7, 2006. Dean Elena Kagan thanked me for my letter and said she was pleased to clarify a few points about the Harvard Law Review.

She said, “Members of the Harvard Law Review are referred to as editors. Each year there are many editors, but one person is elected president. The first African-American to serve on the Review was Charles Hamilton Houston, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1922. The second African-American to gain admission to the Review was William Henry Hastie who earned an LL.B from the Law School in 1930 and an S.J.D. in 1933. Barack Obama was the first African-American president of the Review; he graduated from the Law School in 1991.”

How Obama achieved the status of editor is also an interesting story.   As ferreted out by many, and published by few,  in 1990, the Harvard Law Review ceased to be a position achieved by merit.  The first two black men who achieved their post did so because they placed in the top 10% of their graduating class.

Jack Cashill of the World Net Daily wrote this article in September of 2008.   Here’s one of the highlights, although I do suggest you check out his entire column.

To Obama’s good fortune, the HLR had replaced a meritocracy in which editors were elected based on grades– the president being the student with the highest academic rank–with one in which half the editors were chosen through a writing competition.

This competition, the New York Times reported in 1990, was “meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.”

It did just that. At the end of his first year, Obama was named along with 40 or so of his classmates an editor of the HLR.

Unlike most editors, and likely all its presidents, Obama was not a writer. During his tenure at Harvard, he wrote only one heavily edited, unsigned note.

NOTE:  I know this isn’t the greatest of sources, but the point is that the rules were changed and that mentioned was based on a news article from a legitimate source.  I’m not all that interested in Cashill’s opining as I am in why they changed the rules and that they did so RIGHT before Obama’s tenure.

This ‘achievement’ is supposedly Obama’s shining moment.  Yet, it appears as much invented and overlooked by the MSM as many of the other things Obama purports and denies.  This may serve the interests of Obama and the folks who want him elected at any cost.  However, the much needed praise paid to his TWO predecessors remains buried so that Obama the myth, can be elected.  Their TRUE achievements remained buried so that a myth can live on.


Protest Voting 101

Player Queen:
Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,
If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!

Player King:
‘Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,
My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile
The tedious day with sleep.

Player Queen:
Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!

Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?

Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

 

Puma is a protest movement.  Our blogs outline our strategies.  Our votes are our tactics.    I’m not exactly sure how much clearer I can make this but it appears that we have to repeat these simple facts over and over.  If we don’t, no one gets us.

The nature of our protest vote is that is exactly that a PROTEST.  This means that our friends who can’t understand why we might vote for a candidate that doesn’t have a chance (McKinney or Nader) or a ticket that we may not agree with on many issues (McCain Palin) don’t understand what a PROTEST vote means. Protests voting means your vote is a protest.  It simply doesn’t have to make sense to any one else.

I started thinking about this today due to a post by Masslib on Alegre’s blog and a response by Or what Vahalla said. 

Or what Valhalla said (4.00 / 2)
 

The premise of a protest vote is that it’s not issues-related.

What I meant to say, put more succintly 🙂

This also hit me in the face when I saw a response to my own posting “The No NO Sisterhood”.  A post by Ben Kilpatrick assumed I voted all women during the democratic run-off in Louisiana just because I was woman who votes for women as a means to discriminate against men.

Just voting for women is the same as just voting for the black guy, or the republican guy, or or or

And it’s about as smart a move as all of those.

My vote was a protest against the treatment of women candidates this year.  I did not vote for all women because as a woman, I was voting for ALL women. I voted for all women as a protest.  I did not like the way Hillary was treated. I do not like the way Sarah Palin is being treated.  I will not stand for Helena Morena being treated similarly either.  Already, it is starting.  A blog for the local New Orleans business newspaper picked up one quote from my two day postings concerning the second congressional race and all my comments about Ms. Moreno.  You can read it here.  The only line the blog picked up from me about Helena was that most folks here were calling her the “little white girl in the race” which I view as confusing folks on her mixed white/Latina heritage and belittling her status as a woman by calling her ‘girl’.

I’m still thinking about what kind of protest vote I will make this year when I step in the booth to vote for President.  I know I will not vote for Obama.  I will not vote for the issues, for once, because I am protesting how he got the nomination, I am protesting how the DNC actively and underhandedly promoted him over a much more qualified and able woman, and how he has been given a HUGE pass by the MSM.  I know many of my PUMA friends will vote for McCain Palin, others will just skip the vote, others will still vote for Hillary, and some will vote for third party candidates.

We do not have to explain the ‘logic’ of our vote over and over and over again. It’s not about the issues (like Roe v. Wade), it’s not about the economy, and it’s certainly not about voting party lines.  It’s a protest vote.  As such, it only has to make sense to us!  

I think we need to take some time and rethink why we view our votes as protests this year.  This is especially true if you’re thinking of drinking that koolaid and falling prey to the logic of voting on issues at this point.  Puma ceases to become a protest movement at that point.  It’s effectiveness at supporting reform within the democratic party has no teeth at the point we stop protesting.

There is no such thing for PUMAs as ladies (or gentlemen) protesting too much at this point.  Afterall, it is our democracy at stake.

(cross-posted at The Confluence)