Friday, October 31, 2008
Chris Hackett somehow seemed to continually get under Carney's skin. Carney often seemed a more than just a little irritated while answering questions and providing rebuttles. I give credit to Carney for being to still stand up and throw a few good punches of his own, though.
I cannot and will not call the entire debate a complete slaughter of Carney, as Chris Carney did have his good moments and had many opportunities to throw a few punches. Carney won the arguments around earmarks and the overall political process. It wasn't his experience as a freshman Congressman, though. Don't forget that Chris Carney was a professor of political science at several good universities. Someone in Hackett's campaign must have forgotten to bring that up to him. As a result, Carney danced around Hackett when it came to these issues. Hackett's campaign should have prepped him better in these areas or advise him to stay away from them altogether.
Outside the arguments surrounding political processes and the attacks on Hackett's tax liens, Carney clearly was getting beaten down in this debate. Here's how:
Hackett clearly won the arguments stemming around economics. As an MBA, he has a clear understanding of textbook economics and its real world application. It should be no surprise to anyone that someone with these credentials could stand his/her own ground in this realm.
Hackett threw some strong punches that made Carney look like a liberal when Carney tried to defend himself, especially when exposing Carney's records on earmark spending. Even though Hackett didn't win the earmark argument, he did indeed paint a picture that Carney enjoys wasting our tax dollars in areas such as "a race horse farm in Kentucky" and "salmon fishermen in San Francisco" - Carney admitted in the debate that he will continue to vote yes on earmark spending. As a side note, Carney, if you like to throw around our tax dollars why didn't you throw some in your home district's way? Several million went to his home district in Iowa but not a penny went to the 10th CD of PA.
Carney's fatal mistake that the Hackett campaign should take advantage of and go aggressively on is that of how Carney thinks we should resolve the the social security crisis (that within 10 years there will be 3 working people for every person receiving social security). Carney clearly stated that "we should put people back to work." The Social Security issue above is a direct result of the retirement of baby boomers. Is he insisting that retired people go back to work and that baby boomers don't retire (or if retired go back to work) so that we can preserve social security? Way to go Carney!!!
Holy Shit. If I were running against Carney I would have been all over that statement last night and dig a 6 foot hole for the Carney campaign. Then, I'd follow up with aggressive advertising to put the nail in the coffin. For the 5 people that watched this debate, I hope that they decided to vote against Carney.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Uncle Paul, however, had a central theme: "I did many things in the last 22 years. Anything good that came out of Congress was solely my idea. I deserve credit for all the good ideas. But for all the bad things that came out of Congress I had nothing to do with any of it."
The high point of the debate was when Uncle Paul also showed off his illustrious ignorance (and I'm paraphrasing here): I am Paul Kanjorski. I've been in Congress for so long that I have my own stall in the men's room and my but cheeks left a permanent mark on my seat. I can do whatever I want, get whatever I want, and give you whatever I want because I have been around for so long. If you're not aware of how Congress works, I'll tell you. It works on seniority. Even if you think you don't want these things, I know better than you and I know you want me to continue to provide you with all the goodies like an inflatable woman (I mean damn), wasteful project spending like we see at the cesspool (Susquehanna waterfront), and a choo-choo train to New York City (of course I'm only blowing smoke here). Lou Barletta won't be able to get you any of these things as a freshman Congressman.
Paul Kanjorski is out of touch and he has to go. Initially, I wasn't crazy about Lou Barletta and I still think he'll be a puppet in Congress (to be re-elected he will have to be one for a while), but Lou proved to show himself to be somewhat of a quick learner last night impressing upon me that he knows more about what's going on on the Federal level than just the problems caused by lack of illegal alien reform. After watching last night's debate, I feel more comfortable with Lou as a representative for the 11th District.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I admit I was trying not to get to excited about the series and I expected the Phillies to somehow find a way to lose but am happy to see the Philadelphia Phillies win a pennant in (correct me if I'm wrong) 25 years. Thanks to Gort, I am now corrected to restate that the Phillies haven't won in 28 years.
My favorite flip flop is when he tried to convince the American people that he will not make a perversion of our military. He tried to make himself sound tough against terrorism. Mr. Obama, inviting Ahmenidajad, Putin, and Ill for a coffee table talk is not being tough on terrorism.
Kanjorski will lose to Barletta by 8-13%. Uncle Paul made a series of errors in his campaign, including waiting too late to get aggressive, going over-aggressive, and failing to show up at key appearances. Barletta's been busting his rear end being out in public and is gaining ground. The only chance Kanjo has is if the voters in the 11th push the "D" button like they did in the last 2 Congressional elections (A number of local voters called in the Sue Henry show admitting that they forgot that they wanted a republican but were just too accustomed to hitting the D button).
Carney will beat Hackett under a 10% margin. Hackett's campaign in the general, much like the republican primary races in the 10th, was just a disgrace. He just didn't run a strong enough campaign.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Foreclosures are going through the roof. People losing their jobs in this economy. Energy costs are soaring. The list of problems that we as American face is endless, but these are just as few.
The credit crisis is causing our market and economy to go down the toilet, and all we got so far were bandaid solutions and bandaid proposals. Real working solutions that would appease the masses afflicted, DC libs, and the media will come if a liberal is elected into the White House and a liberal majority is attained on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, the real proposal will be of a socialist nature.
While nobody on the Hill or from the Obama camp are discussing this solution, it isn't far fetched to see what they will come up with to control the American population (oops, I meant help what's left of the middle class), solve the credit crisis, attempt to control energy costs, and allow people who are in threat of foreclosure (because they bought houses they couldn't afford) to keep their homes. Here's what they will come up with:
Legislation will be introduced and passed that will allow the federal government to buy the distressed properties and allow those who bought the houses that they had no business buying to remain in their homes by issuing new favorable terms.
Doesn't sound bad? Look at the specifics of the plan when it comes out:
- The federal government buys your home and pays off your mortgage. In exchange, you sign a lease-to-own agreement. To make this attractive, the government will probably lower your payment by 50% but stretch the length of payment to 60+ years. Desperate homeowners about to lose their houses would probably bite hook, line, and sinker
- The government will mandate that you make certain improvements to your dwelling to make your house more energy efficient.
- The government will also mandate the energy consumption of your home. In other words, the government will tell you how much in utilities you're allowed to consume. If you go over that amount, you'll be fined.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The fact is he knows he's losing in the polls which is why he's starting to play the liberal playbook.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
"The short-term debt markets have been under considerable strain in recent weeks as money market mutual funds and other investors have had difficulty selling assets to satisfy redemption requests," the Fed said in an announcement of its new effort.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. was chosen to run five special funds that will buy certificates of deposit, bank notes and commercial paper from money market mutual funds. The Fed will lend up to $540 billion to the five funds to support the effort.
Fed officials said that about $500 billion had flowed out of prime money-market funds since August as investors began to worry about their ability to redeem their investments. On Sept. 18, the Treasury Department announced it was tapping a $50 billion Treasury fund to provide guarantees for the assets in the funds. The new Fed initiative is designed to bolster the funds further.
This is just another blotched attempt to fix the credit crisis. we all know that many banks, insurance, and financial institutions offer money market and annuity products - which were at one time considered relatively safe investments - at higher interest rates than CDs and savings accounts. Have you ever wondered why the interest rate is higher on these investment products? They're backed by high-yield government bonds, corporate bonds, and mortgage-backed securities. Many of these high-yield government bonds are from developing countries, such as Brazil, or are traded in currencies where the future foreign currency prices are expected to jump higher than the US dollar. A good chunk is invested in FNMA while a tiny percentage is thrown into US Treasury notes. The investment in high yield corporate bonds - although small - is often made in companies with an investment grade AA, B or lower (in finance terms, AA or B would be comparable to a mid-to-high 600 to low 700 credit score). Let us not forget the mortgage backed securities from the big lenders. Banks and investment companies loved buying these loans, cashing in the high interest, and sharing the rewards with holders of annuities and money market accounts. In other words, some of these investments made by banks and investment companies would yield 11-13%, give investors of annuities and money market accounts 5-7%, and pocket the difference.
So, how do I know this? You might be wondering, so I'll tell you. Before 9/11, I worked for an investment/insurance company managing the operations staff responsible for pricing securities. Our department worked closely with the traders, so I learned all the trade secrets of the big investment companies currently seeking bailout.
With the exception of the moderate investment grade corporate bonds and the US T-notes, the investments made by these banks were poorly made, but the people who could afford to buy annuities and money market securities enjoyed the high interest rate while it lasted. Now they're trying to sell off their annuities and money market accounts for fear that they will lose their shirts... and the Fed wants to buy these investments and repackage them as something else.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Barack Obama was employed by Bill Ayers, when Obama served as one of the founding members on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Bill Ayers wrote the grant and founded the organization.
So, how does Obama not know Ayers personally?
Please repeat after me: *Cough* *Cough* *Bullshit* *Cough* *Cough*
Uncle Paul's proving himself to be another Washington elitist who's too good to be speaking with the people. But don't expect an apology from Uncle Paul. Remember what the NEPA's democrat dictator (Let's call him dick for short) said: "I don't apologize to anyone!"
I'm not a fan of Lou Barletta. I can't pull the lever for someone who doesn't understand the Constitution. At the same time, Uncle Paul has to go. In this race, (fortunately, I don't live in the 11th) I am undecided. I'm not convinced that Lou Barletta will be the independent republican he is painting himself to be. His lack of knowledge of the Constitution leads me to believe that he will have to rely on other GOP representatives in DC on key issues and eventually cave into the in-crowd if he is to get anything done. If he doesn't cave in, he will be a one-termer should he beat Uncle Paul.
Paul Kanjorski isn't really pushing to win this election. I don't think he knows how to fight-and-win a re-election campaign. He thinks as long as he outspends the other opponent, recycles old ads, and portrays himself to be busy by not keeping public engagements (it's a farce: he repeatedly cancels engagements where he is scheduled to appear to make himself look like he's busy working for you in DC when in reality he is afraid of confrontation), Uncle Paul thinks he can win and get away with blowing our tax dollars like a call girl on coke.
Paul Kanjorski's out of touch. If he wants to win this election, he's going to have to make some appearances and actually debate his opponents. I'm curious though as to why he doesn't debate: does he think he's too good, or is it because he's too afraid?
I don't care what the political pundits in the liberal media say, I don't think Obama won the presidential debachle. I have to give the win to Joe the Plumber.
McCain's performance last night can be compared to a bottle rocket. He started off strong, made a crack, and fell softly to the ground. At first, McCain was aggressive and for the first time I thought that Obama was going to have his ass handed to him, but McCain just didn't follow up on the jabs leaving Obama unbruised. Compared to the previous presidential debachles, McCain did a little better but I was still disappointed.
Obama looked like a deer caught in headlights for most of the debate and spoke as if he were caught off guard for the first 30 minutes. Other than having to be on the defensive most of the night and having no capability of taking control of the debate, Senator Government merely stuck to his usual playbook: talk in circles and don't answer the question. Because that's exactly what America needs!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
The greatest joy I had this past weekend was teaching my daughter about some of the greatest Presidents of our nation. Before this trip to DC, she only knew Lincoln as the guy on the penny. After this trip, she knows him as the man who started the equal rights movement for minorities. Even though he wasn't the first President to acknowledge that no matter what one's color is that person is human and should be granted the same rights as white people (read Adams' memoirs), he was the first one to do something about it. I often scoff at politicians when they discuss Lincoln and his greatness because few have the guts to stand up to do what's right. Here is a man who went to great lengths to do what was right and knew the price tag that came with doing the right thing.
The first time I've ever been in DC, the Vietnam War Memorial has been completed for 4 years and I was in 8th grade. It was a somber place to be then. There was a deathly silence that overshadowed the place as I walked by. Veterans of the Vietnam War were there shedding tears over their fellow combatants who never made it home. Friends and family members of those who lost their lives were also there. I'll never forget seeing one of my teachers crying over the loss of his brother as we laid a wreath next to the memorial. He said it was over 20 years he was gone and this was the first time he cried over it. He mentioned the word closure, and I really didn't know what that meant back then.
This time around, I was fortunate to visit the WWII memorial for the first time after has been completed for 4 years. This was also a somber place to be, but unlike the Wall there was also a lot of happiness. There were many veterans who visited this memorial, some of them in wheelchairs. They, too shed tears over the loss of their fellow men. Many began to cry as my wife, children (my 7 and 3 year-old) and I thanked them for serving our nation and protecting our freedoms. The one gentleman simply replied: thank you for remembering. I finally understood what my teacher meant by the word "closure" 20 years ago.
As we strolled along all the tourist spots in DC, I gave her a crash course in patriotism. I think she has a stronger sense of what it means to be an American after visiting the nation's capital. She learned about WWII, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, our founding fathers, and - most importantly - that our Constitution is more than just "a piece of paper."
In the posts to follow, I will share some of the photos we took while in the DC area.