Joe the Plumber

Are you as disturbed as I am about the relentless attacks on Joe the Plumber by supporters of Barak Obama and his cheerleaders in the news media? 

Joe the Plumber is a regular guy named Joe Wurzelbacher from Toledo, Ohio.   Joe recently met Obama during an Obama campaign trip to Toledo and asked him an innocent and perfectly legitimate question about his tax proposals.   Obama responded to Joe by committing one of the few mistakes during his carefully orchestrated campaign.   Obama defended his tax proposals by saying they would “spread the wealth around.”     By his answer, Obama revealed himself to be the socialist that he is—someone who wants to redistribute wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not.   You may or may not agree with Obama’s philosophy, but at least it is now out in the open. 

In order to deflect attention from Obama’s gaffe, his supporters and the news media have gone on the attack.   They have attacked poor Joe for being an unlicensed plumber, even though Joe believes he is not required to have a license because his employer is licensed.   They have attacked Joe for having an unpaid tax lien, even though the same people didn’t have a problem when Congressman Charles Rangel, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was recently revealed to owe a substantial amount in back taxes.    Joe is being attacked as a fool for failing to be smart enough to support Obama’s tax plan, which would benefit him now but penalize him if he is later successful.  There are even reports that members of the news media are reviewing the court records relating to Joe’s divorce in an effort to find some more dirt on Joe.    

Obama himself went on the attack by suggesting that a mere plumber like Joe could not make enough money to be penalized under Obama’s tax plan.   It apparently never occurred to Obama that a mere plumber might oppose his plan on the basis of principle or on the basis of the hope or expectation that he would someday achieve financial success. 

In addition to the attacks on Joe, the McCain campaign has been criticized for failing to investigate Joe.   Spokesmen for the McCain campaign say they never heard of Joe before he asked his question.    All McCain did was highlight Obama’s answer, which in Obama’s mind was McCain’s cardinal sin.    In other words, McCain is guilty for failing to investigate the person who asked the question that Obama answered and by doing so revealed his underlying philosophy, which he has done his best to conceal. 

I don’t know about you, but I feel sorry for Joe.   The poor guy asked a simple but legitimate question, and all of a sudden he has news media satellite trucks parked outside his house.   I was journalism major in college, and I am a former journalist and a former liberal.   In my lifetime, I have never seen anything like the bias currently being demonstrated by the news media.   I hope and pray that my bias was never so obvious when I was a journalist.   My bias may be obvious now, but I am not currently holding myself out as a journalist, and I disclosed my bias during my second post on this blog. 

If McCain wins the Presidency, which is still highly unlikely, all the credit should go to Joe for his question and to Obama’s supporters and the news media for the way they have treated Joe in order to deflect attention from Obama’s answer to Joe’s question.  I believe the average American will be as offended as I am by the attacks on Joe.   If Obama is as smart as I think he is, he will call his supporters and his friends in the news media and tell them to call off the dogs before his chances of being President of the United States go down the tube.  

The Last Presidential Debate

The third and last debate between John McCain and Barak Obama was more interesting that the first two but still left me disappointed.    In my view, the last debate will not change the dynamics in the current race for President of the United States.   Based on the most recent polls, Obama seemed to have an almost insurmountable lead going into the debate, and I do not believe McCain gave voters who were supporting Obama or were leaning toward Obama a strong reason to shift their allegiance.  

I thought McCain was feisty and came on fairly strong during the first half of the debate, but he seemed to lose steam during the last half.    As in the first and second debates, McCain failed to challenge effectively many things that Obama said.    Obama remained calm and cool and unflappable.   As the leader in the race, Obama’s primary goal was to avoid making a major blunder.  I believe he was successful in achieving this goal. 

There is a stark contrast between the policies advocated by McCain and Obama.  Unfortunately, this race is not about the best policies for the future, as it should be.   Instead, the focus of the race is on the current economy and on the personalities of the candidates.   McCain is unfairly getting the blame for the current state of the economy because he is the Republican candidate for President and the current President is a Republican.  It does not matter that the Democrats are as much to blame as the Republicans for the government policies that led to the current economic crisis.  As for personalities, McCain is no match for the oratory skills and charisma of Obama.   Obama is young, clean-cut, smooth, articulate and very cautious.    He made some mistakes during the debates for the Democratic nomination for President, but he learned from those mistakes, and he did not repeat them or make other mistakes during his three debates with McCain. 

Although I do not agree with all of McCain’s policies, I strongly prefer them to those advocated by Obama.   I have been and will continue to use this blog to discuss the dramatic differences between the achievements, voting records, and positions of the two candidates.  If personalities and emotion could be eliminated from the decision-making process, I believe most Americans would support a candidate with McCain’s achievements, voting record and positions over a candidate with Obama’s achievements, voting record and positions.    But this is not the way the political game is played.   The successful candidate is usually the one who looks and talks the best, promises the most, and appeals to your emotions with meaningless slogans.   We live in a “feel good” society, and most Americans will vote for the candidate who makes them feel good even though they may have little knowledge or understanding of the candidate’s achievements or voting record or of the consequences of adopting the positions advocated by the candidate.    In this race, the debates have done little to change this unfortunate dynamic. 

The economic issues facing the country are extremely complex.    Both candidates have made proposals to change existing government policies regarding taxes, health care, education, energy, the environment, spending, and a host of other matters.   The format for the Presidential debates is simply inadequate to allow the candidates to explain their positions and to distinguish their positions from those of their opponent.   These complex matters cannot be discussed in two minutes followed by a minute or so to respond to what the other candidate said.    Generally, the candidates take the brief time allotted to them to mischaracterize their opponent’s positions rather than explain the rationale behind their own.    The net effect is that the viewers who watch the debates—who also happen to be the voters who will determine the outcome of the election—are as uninformed after the debates as they were before.   

Selecting the next President of the United States should not be the same as selecting the winner of a high school or college debate tournament.    We should not select our next President based on looks or personality.    We should view each candidate’s campaign promises with a high degree of suspicion.    As I have said repeatedly, I believe an informed voter should suppress his or her emotions and base his or her decision on each candidate’s experience, voting record, achievements and policies.    

I am not a Howard Stern fan, but he recently conducted random interviews on the street with people who were supporting Obama for President.   The person conducting the interviews described McCain’s positions and attributed them to Obama.   It should not surprise you that the Obama supporters agreed with McCain’s positions after being told they were Obama’s positions.   If you would like to be amused and disillusioned at the same time, click on the link below and then click on the button at the top next to “Press to Play”.    I need to warn you in advance that Howard Stern is known for his profanity, and he uses a four-letter word at the beginning of this audio clip.    I would have deleted the profanity if I had known how to do so. 

http://boomp3.com/listen/c1hbq1ljl_8/stern-2008-10-01cf

The War in Iraq

In my view, the jury is still out on whether the war in Iraq will be judged a success or a failure for the United States. Historians and politicians will be debating the war for many years—perhaps decades. The outcome of the debate will depend on whether Iraq becomes a peaceful democratic society and an ally of the United States or whether it is taken over by terrorists or by another brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein.

There is no doubt the war has been unpopular. It has taken longer than anyone expected, and the cost has been enormous both in terms of dollars and lives lost. Barak Obama has brilliantly used his opposition to the war along with his outstanding oratory skills to propel himself, in a very short period of time, from being a state senator in Illinois to being the Democratic nominee for President of the United States and the likely next President of the United States. Obama’s initial opposition to the war was a major factor in his ability to win the Democratic nomination for President. During the nomination process, he constantly reminded voters that he opposed the war from the outset and that his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, initially supported the war before turning against it, as if this is all the proof we need that Obama is qualified to be our Commander-in-Chief.

There are two things that disturb me about the way most Democrats have conducted themselves during a time of war. First, unlike Obama, most leaders of the Democratic Party initially supported the war, but they have been trying to rewrite history ever since and have used the war as a weapon to gain political support and to undermine the President of the United States. Second, most people (including Obama) who believe the war was a mistake conclude that because it was a mistake we should withdraw our troops and end the war at the earliest possible time. In my view, it is imperative that we win the war even if, in hindsight, it was a mistake.

The comments made by leading Democrats prior to the war have been well documented. In order to save space, I will not repeat those comments here. If you would like to refresh your memory, however, please click on the following link to hear some of the pre-war comments made by leading Democrats in their own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESm6y9F2oII

In my opinion, the conduct of Democrats who initially supported the war but later turned against it has been disgraceful. During a time of war, it is more important than ever for the country to be united. Wars are ugly, and they do not always go well. We now know that the pre-war intelligence was wrong, but most Democrats saw the same intelligence as President Bush and drew the same conclusions. They now accuse the President of the United States of being a liar. It is also clear that there was a lack of planning prior to the war and that many mistakes were made in the conduct of the war. Nevertheless, the Democrats, in my view, have made a bad situation worse by using the problems we have experienced in Iraq to divide the country and discredit our Commander-in-Chief.

Many Democrats now view the war in Iraq as a distraction in the overall global war on terror, even though Osama bin Laden himself referred to Iraq as the “central front” in his efforts to bring down Western Civilization. By their constant criticism of the war, the Democrats not only have damaged the morale of our troops, but they also have made it much more difficult for us to win the war.

The terrorists in Iraq, like terrorists elsewhere, blend in with the general population. They do not identify themselves. They do not wear uniforms. They hide behind innocent women and children. We need the assistance of the Iraqi citizens to help us identify the terrorists and find the weapons they are using to kill innocent people. Can you blame the Iraqi citizens for being afraid to provide assistance to us when the leaders of a major political party in the United States are saying the “war is lost” (Harry Reid), President Bush “betrayed this country” (Al Gore), and we should withdraw our troops and end the war (almost all Democrats including Obama)? With comments like these, it is easy to understand why our country has been so divided and why our troops in Iraq have had so much difficulty gaining the support of the Iraqi people. It is also easy to understand why terrorists would conclude they could control Iraq simply by hanging on for a little longer and waiting for the United States to withdraw its troops.

I am not suggesting that Democrats who had legitimate objections to the way the war was being conducted should have remained silent. In my view, they should have made their objections known in a way that did not divide the country, damage the morale of our troops, and give aide and comfort to the enemy. Instead of constantly being in front of a camera, they should have gone to the Pentagon or the White House or both as many times as necessary for their views to be heard. They chose instead to undermine President Bush in order to gain political advantage. In doing so, they have caused great damage to the country and probably prolonged the war.

If the war was a mistake, does that mean we should admit defeat, withdraw our troops in disgrace, and leave behind a country in chaos? I don’t think so, but this is the strategy that Obama and most of his fellow Democrats have supported. They have wanted to cut off funding for our troops and to demand that our troops be withdrawn by an artificial deadline regardless of the conditions on the ground. With their intense opposition to the war, many Democrats have given me the impression they were rooting for the United States to lose the war in order to prove that President Bush was wrong in starting the war. Democrats argued for a change in strategy, but when Bush proposed the troop surge they opposed it. The only strategy advocated by most Democrats was to bring the troops home. Thankfully, President Bush had the backbone to pursue a new strategy—the troop surge—and the new strategy has clearly been successful. It has substantially reduced the level of violence in Iraq and led the way to political progress among the various factions in Iraq. Conditions in Iraq are still very fragile, but they are better now than at any time since the beginning of the war.

Amazingly, the recent success in Iraq has not changed Obama’s determination to withdraw our troops in accordance with an artificial time schedule. Obama has only reluctantly and indirectly admitted that the surge has been successful and that political progress has been made in Iraq. This past summer, Obama finally visited Iraq for the first time on a “fact finding” mission. In an incredible display of arrogance, however, he announced his policy for Iraq before leaving on his “fact finding” mission and before assessing the current situation there and hearing the recommendations of General Petraeus and other commanders in the field. Because of the success of the surge, Obama is now de-emphasizing Iraq in his speeches. When things were not going well in Iraq, however, Obama talked about Iraq all the time, but he never talked about winning the war. He only talked about ending it. He never talked about the consequences of losing the war. He only talked about ending it.

There are still major differences between McCain and Obama with regard to Iraq. McCain believes that a favorable outcome in Iraq is vital for American strategy in the Middle East and its overall efforts against terrorists. He would give General Petraeus and our other military leaders considerable latitude in determining when to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Obama, on the other hand, advocates an arbitrary 16-month schedule for withdrawing American troops. Obama thinks his deadline would force the Iraqis to overcome their political differences and enable the United States to stabilize Iraq at far lower troop levels. McCain thinks Obama’s deadline would tie the hands of our commanders and undermine the political progress.

In a recent column about Iraq published in The Wall Street Journal, Robert McFarlane, a former National Security Adviser for President Reagan, said, “In short, Sen. Obama was willing to lose. It was an astonishing display of ignorance to be so cavalier about defeat, almost as if losing a war was tantamount to losing a set of tennis—something without lasting consequence.” McFarlane goes on to talk about the consequences of losing a war, including its effect on the “behavior of allies who begin to wonder whether the United States can still muster the means and will to uphold its obligations,” its effect “on the thinking within our military concerning how it was led, restricted, or abused in wartime,” its effect on “our body politic” and political stability, and its effect of discouraging our allies and encouraging our adversaries. McFarlane concluded his column by saying, “Losing is not an option, and no sensible leader should entertain the thought that it is.”

Because of the success of the surge, we now have the opportunity to win the war, to defeat the terrorists who have sought control of Iraq, to fulfill our commitments to the Iraqi people, and to leave behind a democratic, stable and secure government in the Middle East. I believe we will realize this opportunity if McCain is elected President. We may be able to realize this opportunity even if Obama becomes President but only because of the success of the surge that he opposed.

The 545 Responsible People

Today, I want to share with you a column written by Charley Reese for the Orlando Sentinel Star years ago. I could not determine the date of publication, but the column refers to Tip O’Neill as being Speaker of the House, which means the column was probably first published in the late 1970s or early to mid-1980s. The points made in this column are even more applicable today than they were when the column was written.

The 545 People Responsible For All Of America’s Woes

By Charley Reese



Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?



You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices—545 human beings out of the 235 million—are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.



I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.



I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. 

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.



A Confidence Conspiracy

Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

 The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.



O'Neill is the Speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.

Replace Scoundrels 



It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted—by present facts—of incompetence and irresponsibility.

 I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.



When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

 If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.



There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.



Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.



Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses—provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.