Single non-voter responsible for McCain win

Normally, I delete emails in my spam box from people and addresses I don't recognize. But the email from moveon.org had me a bit curious, so I opened the message and found this:

Dear maggie,

Your friend sent you the following video from CNNBC: "Obama's Loss Traced To Maggie Thurber"

Watch it here:

The link takes you screen with the following message:

Election Day Notice: The video you're about to see portrays events that haven't happened... yet.

It was prepared just for you. But if you go vote today you can make sure this joke doesn't become a reality.

Click here to continue.

Up pops a fake cnnbc news video indicating that "Obama's Loss Traced To Non-Voter, Single Nonvoter Tipped Election To McCain-Palin Ticket." It contained my name and the story of how I had to be taken into protective custody from all the Obama supporters who were rioting because I didn't vote.

The 'news' report also mentions a 'sliver' of people actually happy about the event, with cuts of President George Bush thanking me for my service, and the reporter asking how long it will be until we nuke Iran - probably Saturday, around lunchtime.

There is, of course, an option for you to customize the video for your friends.

This is certainly a unique idea, and it's not the first one I've seen. Earlier in the summer, a friend sent a customized video about a group of people who decide to nominate and vote for a 'regular person' so they picked a name out of a phone book and it turned out to be ... me!

My compliments to MoveOn.org for their cleverness and creativity.

GOP???

Voter Fraud: here's the evidence!

According to Tiffany Wilson at Palestra.net, Barack Obama campaign worker Zachary Cafritz registered to vote in Ohio on September 9, 2008 and he cast an early absentee ballot on October 4, 2008 in Franklin County.

He listed an Ohio address, but he is not the owner of that property. He does, however, own a "a nearly million dollar property within the Beltway" that he bought in February.

Wilson further documents the other Obama staffers who have not withdrawn their ballots and registrations, despite instructions from the campaign to do so.

"Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien sent a letter to each campaign reminding them that no one is entitled to register or vote in Ohio unless they are an Ohio resident. According to the Ohio Revised Code, an Ohio resident must live in the state for at least 30 days before the election and must also intend to remain in Ohio after the election.

Prompted by the letter, 13 Ohio Obama employees pulled their registration and ballots in Franklin County on Thursday. Included among the 13 were three spokespeople for the Obama campaign: Tom Reynolds, Olivia Alair and Isaac Baker. When I spoke with Tom Rosenberg, an attorney for the Obama campaign in Ohio, he said the rest of the 700 Ohio campaigners were instructed to act in accordance with Ohio law. I interpreted this to mean that all Obama employees who had registered in Ohio without the intent to live in Ohio after the election were instructed to withdraw their ballots.

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Yesterday, I found six more members of Obama's Ohio staff who registered and in some cases already voted in Franklin County. I contacted the Franklin County Board of Elections to see if they pulled their ballots. They did not. The individuals in question are Zachary Cafritz, Jay Tucker, David Muehlenkamp, Quentin James, Max Blachman and Stephanie Speirs."

Vote From Home staffers also did not withdraw their ballots.

"The three founders of Vote Today Ohio, an independent get-out-the-vote organization supporting Barack Obama, have not withdrawn their ballots either. Amy Little, Yolanda Hippensteele and Tate Hausman all registered and voted using a 1979 N. Fourth Ave., Columbus address. Hausman owns an apartment and has a wife in New York. Little is from Poughkeepsie and when I visited their address on Friday, a woman said she was out of town. Previously, a NY Post reporter called Little's Poughkeepsie address and a child answered saying Little would return "home" on Thursday. Hippsensteele recently moved from Massachusetts to East Bay, California for a job with Free Press."

Wilson also checked with the John McCain Campaign:

"No Ohio McCain campaigners have withdrawn their ballots. "We have consulted with elections officials and have written them to confirm that our staff meet all requirements of Ohio law and are legally registered to vote in the state," said Jon Seaton, McCain-Palin Regional Campaign Manager."

So we've got clear evidence of individuals who have come to Ohio on a temporary basis, have no intention of staying in the state past the election and its certification, who have homes and families in other states, who have registered and who have cast a ballot. Today, the boards of elections start separating the ballot envelope from the identification envelope, which means that after separated, these individuals can still be prosecuted for voting illegally, but there is no way to separate out their vote and not have it count.

Gov. Ted Strickland has stated that he would not support election reform legislation because he lacked evidence of fraudulent activity:

"If there are problems that can be documented and supported with evidence, I welcome those to be brought to me. But what I am aware of is a lot of talk about potential fraud or inappropriate behavior. But I really haven't seen any evidence that we should have any reason to question the reliability... of our election system." (Columbus Dispatch, 10/22/08)

"There is no evidence of voter fraud in Ohio and it offends me, quite frankly, that even some of the leaders within the Republican Party now are attempting to convey that impression in their criticism of Secretary Brunner and our voting system." (Gongwer News Service, 10/17/08)

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner previously suggested evidence of election fraud in Ohio did not exist:

"There are a number of, basically, allegations that don't have any evidence to support them. There's much more conjecture than anything else." (MSNBC, 10/9/08)

Here's your evidence, Brunner and Strickland - now what are you going to do about it?

UPDATE: H/T from Brian at BearingDriftOhio.com:

"In Ohio we can't use government computers to check the ID of voters, but we can use them to investigate the personal history of someone in Toledo who asks Obama a revealing question.

This is just a taste of our future."

If it walks like a duck...

Recently, many on the right side of the political spectrum have criticized Sen. Barak Obama's tax plan as 'welfare' disguised as tax credits. They correctly point out that many of the tax credits in his plan are for people who are not paying any taxes to begin with, which means they'll get even more of a 'refund' when they file.

Under Obama's plan, if the tax credit is for $2,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $300 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $1,700. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $2,000. When the amount you give back to a tax filer is in excess of the total they've paid, it's a handout - also known as "welfare."

Of course the campaign of Sen. John McCain jumped all over this, since it resonates with many voters.

In response to the traction the McCain campaign was getting on the issue, the Obama campaign has added a 'work requirement' to one of the components of their tax credit policy.

"They started saying this was welfare," said Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that for the last two percent we'll simply add a work requirement."

So there you have it: to make our redistribution of wealth more palatable, we'll require some sort of work in order to be eligible .... never mind that other people are also working but will be expected to pay more so someone else can pay less - or get a handout. But this is not socialism....

Yeah, right.

Debunking "Eight Years of Economic Pain"

As to be expected, two Lucas County officials yesterday held a press conference to denounce President George W. Bush as part of a partisan effort in the 2008 presidential campaign. That Bush is not running this year seems to be missed on Commission Pete Gerken and Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz, but that's a discussion for another post.

As proof of the 'Bush is evil, McCain's the same' mantra, they produced a 'report' that claims to document "Eight Years of Economic Pain, How GOP Economic Policies in Washington have Devastated Ohio." Media covered the press conference and have referenced the 'report' but without the clarification below.

The first thing you need to know about this report is that it wasn't done by any independent body or researcher, it was done by the Ohio Democratic Party and the Ohio Campaign for Change, which is the Barack Obama campaign. This is not an objective analysis, it is a partisan attempt to portray the Democrats' view of things.

It contains a listing of all companies that either closed or laid off workers since 2001. According to the report:

The bulk of the data on factory, company and operation shut downs and layoffs is a result of Ohio’s Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The WARN Act provides protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. WARN notices are provided by employers to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Bureau of WIA, Rapid Response Section. This current and historical data can be found at http://jfs.ohio.gov/warn/.

This initial State of Ohio data was supplemented by private service databases, including Lexis‐Nexis, online searches, BuildCentral information, archived business directories at the local library, and business street address information from InfoUSA’s business databases. This information was then compiled into a master database used for the analysis.

They admit two problems with the data: 1) it doesn't include companies that are exempt from the WARN requirements, and 2) it doesn't account for companies that issued WARN notices, but then did not lay off all notified employees or actually close.

Based upon this clarification and the methodology identified, I find no reason to challenge the actual data. Attributing the data to a specific reason, however, certainly deserves to be challenged.

The report is primarily charts and graphs with the data broken down by county, Congressional District, House District, etc. Of the 80 pages, there are only five that contain wording: preface page, overview page, why John McCain is wrong for Ohio, Appendix A with the methodology and Appendix B with the McCain quote references.

The report never explains any specific policy that results in the job losses. In fact, the report does not even attempt to identify any reason why a particular company or industry laid off workers or closed. The closest they come to any analysis or explanation is a single bullet point on the overview that many of the jobs left the U.S., "moving to to countries such as China, Mexico,Taiwan, India, and Columbia, to name a few." But they don't identify any of those companies specifically.

In fact, a cursory review of the listing of lost jobs raises more questions than it answers when it comes to WHY those companies closed and WHY it is the fault of GOP economic policies.

For example, they cite the closing of the Farmer Jacks stores in Toledo in 2006. But those stores were closed as part of a larger company restructuring decision decision by Montvale, N.J.-based Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, according to a May 11, 2005 Blade report.

Also from the story:

"Shamie Singh of Maumee said the problem at Farmer Jack was their prices seemed high.

"If they had good prices I'm pretty sure they'd have had more customers. People will go elsewhere for better prices," said Ms. Singh, who also shops at Kroger and Meijer."

Obviously, there was more to this particular closing than presidential policies.

And then there is the listing of St. Anthony Villa, also in Toledo, which closed in 2001. This agency ran a chemical dependency program and a residential behavioral program that handled about 600 youth a year. They were closed by their parent company after receiving reduced funding from the United Way, though they stated that the loss of funding was not the reason for the closing. According to press reports at the time, there were not enough youth going through the programs.

Now, this would seem to be a good thing, that less youth are in need of chemical dependency programs, but not if you're the Ohio Democratic Party looking for another example to represent your claims.

Chrysler is another Toledo company on the list. Their layoffs had more to do with the American automotive market, their sale by Daimler, and their regular shutdowns than anything else. And then, with the increase in the price of gas and the decline of the SUV market, is it any wonder that they had longer than normal shutdowns on the Jeep lines?

General Mills is another large employer from Toledo listed in the report. They were purchased by International Multifoods in 2002 which sold the entity to J.M. Smucker in 2004. The job losses were a result of the sale and the consolidation within the new companies.

Other Toledo firms listed:

Craft House International - according to a story in the Toledo Blade at the time:

Craft House is best known for paint-by-number sets, but sells more than 300 activity toys, craft and hobby kits, and outdoor sport toys.

An industry expert said the action in Toledo could be linked to problems at several retail chains that carry the firm's craft products. Ames, Zany Brainy, and Jo Ann Fabrics & Crafts have experienced difficulties recently, said Michael Hartnett, publisher of Creative Leisure News in Tremont, Ill.

"The industry has been fairly flat and is going through difficult times," he said.

Jacobson's Department Store - closed after filing for bankruptcy. The Toledo store was one of the chain's worst performers and all the stores in Ohio were closed as part of their efforts to restructure their financing.

CVS Pharmacies - they were a victim of the 'drug store wars' when multiple drug store chains inundated the Toledo regional market in an effort to gain part of the $328 million spent annually at drug stores in the metro area (dollar amount from 2001). Some intersections in the city had a different drug store on every corner. According to the chain's spokesman at the time, these stores were all low-performing.

Convergys - a call center that was closed in 2003 as part of the company's world-wide restructuring, including consolidation of locations.

The reasons these companies closed had more to do with their industries or their own internal operations than with any presidential policy.

But that's not the purpose of the 'report.' The purpose is to provide quotes to be used by elected officials and reported in the media to promote Barack Obama over John McCain.

Their 'proof' of their choice - again, not surprising since they are the Democrat Party - is a single page that is supposed to document their positions.

On the "McCain wrong for Ohio" page, they cite his votes in favor of free trade, including NAFTA, though they fail to explain why McCain is wrong on a policy that was implemented by Democrat President Bill Clinton. They also criticize McCain's positions against many union-sponsored and promoted initiatives like minimum wage increases, prevailing wage requirements and extension of unemployment benefits.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise considering the differing platform and philosophical positions of the Democrat Party and the Republican nominee.

Something else they don't tell is how many jobs were created in Ohio during that same time frame. We all know that politicians love to take credit for jobs created by the private sector. But to include the number of jobs created might give you more information than they want you to know.

According to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the yearly average number of people employed in Ohio has risen steadily since 1992. Two years, 2002 and 2003, saw the numbers decline, but even then, the 2003 employment numbers were higher than any year between 1992 and 1998. By 2006, Ohio had more people employed than they did in any year going back to 1992.

Toledo's average employment numbers increase from 1992 to 1998, and hit their peak in 1999. Since 1999, the average number of people employed in Toledo has been in steady decline. In fact, from 2002 through 2007, Toledo has not even reached its previous low (in the time frame examined of 1992-2007) which was in 1992.

Interestingly, despite the state's decline in average employment in only two years, Lucas County and Toledo had 8 years in which their employment declined. So the question that should be asked is this: what is different between Toledo/Lucas County and the rest of the state? Does it have anything to do with the Democrat leadership that has held almost all elective offices in the city and county since that time? Or is it really 'all Bush's fault'?

I'm currently awaiting the job creation figures from ODJFS and will include them upon receipt.

CONCLUSION: This 'report' is nothing but a compilation of unrelated factors presented by a partisan organization in an attempt to generate news/media coverage that is beneficial to their candidate and detrimental to their opponent. The question is, will the media - and the public - fall for it?

Another strategic blunder by the Obama campaign

Sen. John McCain announced today that he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington D.C. to help the Senate work on the bailout proposal. He invited Sen. Barack Obama to join him.

But Obama said no.

Obama said that unlike McCain, he will not suspend ads, or campaign events scheduled between now and Friday's debate.

"I think it's very important that the American people see the people who potentially could be in charge of this problem within the next couple of months and so my attitude is that we need to be focused on solving the problems, as I have been," Obama said. "It's also important that we communicate where we need to go in getting us out of the situation."

Obama said he will stay in Florida for the time being and will not return to Washington unless asked by Congressional leadership.

"I've told the leadership in Congress is that if I can be helpful then I am prepared to be anywhere at anytime," he said.

I think Obama's answer is a huge blunder when it comes to the campaign. For weeks we've been hearing how the financial issues are a crisis. We've been told that this is the worst economy we've ever had and this bailout will help stabilize the situation. We've also been led to believe that unless Congress acts, doom, gloom and destruction will erupt.

"...my attitude is that we need to be focused on solving the problems, as I have been."

Maybe it's just me, but how can you be focused on solving these problems if you're not in the Senate participating in the discussion and crafting of the legislation???

"It's also important that we communicate where we need to go in getting us out of the situation."

What good is communicating where we need to go if you're not communicating to the people who are making the decision? The members of the Senate are deciding where we're going on this issue - not the candidates out in the field.

Obama said he will stay in Florida for the time being and will not return to Washington unless asked by Congressional leadership.

"I've told the leadership in Congress is that if I can be helpful then I am prepared to be anywhere at anytime," he said

So let me get this straight...unless the leadership in Congress asks him, he's not going to go to D.C. to do the job he was elected - and for which he is getting paid - to do????

What happens if no one asks him to come back? Does that mean they don't think he would be helpful? And if they do ask him to come back, and he goes, would he be contradicting himself?

"What is important is that we don't suddenly infuse Capitol Hill with presidential politics."

I think Capital Hill is pretty infused with presidential politics as it is.

Obama's statements make me think he is somehow afraid of the vote on the bailout and that it would be more politically expedient to not actually cast a yes or no vote on this issue.

Another thought is that he's mad about McCain getting the jump on the issue by coming out first with the idea that they should both be in the Senate doing the job they were elected to do and his only possible political response is to disagree or be on the opposite side. If he agrees, he's following McCain's lead, and he can't be seen to do that.

To oppose the idea provides the contrast - and campaigns are all about contrast. But it also puts Obama on the wrong side of the issue. If this is such a critical issue that it has so dominated the campaign discussion, how can Obama actually say that participating in deciding how the issue will be resolved is not as important - if not more so - than campaigning and debating foreign policy?

For Obama to stay on the road while McCain is 'coordinating the solution,' may eliminate the small lead Obama had gained in the polls over the last several days. And now, after saying he's not going along with McCain, he will look even worse if he decides, tomorrow or Friday, to change his mind.

I think the Obama campaign blundered in how they overreacted - in a negative way - to the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. The handling of this issue is, I think, their second strategic blunder.

Will they make a third - perhaps fatal - one between now and election day?

The Next Right has a good look at the issue from the McCain campaign side: On Multi-tasking, Governing and Solutions.

Breaking news: McCain suspends campaign

FOX News is reporting that John McCain is going to suspend his campaign to help on the bailout issue.

Sen McCain has requested a delay of this Friday's presidential debate, plans to suspend his campaign tomorrow night and return to Washington for bail-out talks, and has challenged Barack Obama to do the same.

Discord in the Obama camp?

Yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden, the vice presidential running mate of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, told CBS's Katie Couric that the Obama attack ad on Sen. John McCain’s ignorance of computers and technology was “terrible.”

Asked whether he’s disappointed with the tone of the campaign, including the ad that Couric characterized as “making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer,” Biden said “I thought that was terrible by the way.

“I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it.”

When Biden was in Ohio, he had another of those 'Joe being Joe' moments when he said he 'supports clean coal for China but not for the United States.'

"We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama.

According to the Obama website:

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.

Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.

Then this morning, Obama had to reprimand Biden about another comment.

"What has been clear during this entire past ten days is John McCain has not had clarity and a grasp on the situation," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's Matt Lauer in an interview that ran this morning.

Lauer was talking about how Obama hit Sen. McCain for flip-flopping on the AIG bailout -- saying he opposed it one day then announce he supported it the next day.

But, as Lauer pointed out, scarcely three minutes after McCain said he opposed the AIG bailout last week, "in an interview with Meredith Vieira, Joe Biden, your running mate was asked the exact same question, 'should the federal government bailout AIG?' And he said, 'No, the federal government should not bailout AIG.'" (As we noted at the time.) "And I think that in that situation," Obama said, "I think Joe should have waited as well."

"But it's the kind of thing that drives people crazy about politics," Lauer said. "It sounds like you were trying to score some political points against John McCain using his words, when your own running mate had used very similar words."

"No, hold on a second Matt," Obama said. "I think what drives people crazy about politics is the fact that somebody like John McCain who for 26 years has been an advocate for deregulation, for 26 years has said the market is king and then starts going out there suggesting somehow that he's a populist who's been railing against Wall Street and regulation -- that's what drives people crazy about politics."

Obama doesn't answer the question about the contradiction, he just changed the subject to his own point - a good political strategy for the interview, but it leaves everyone wondering about the 'flip-flopping.'

Of course, just as everyone was excusing Biden for his gaffes, he makes another one.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened,'" Barack Obama's running mate recently told the "CBS Evening News."

Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929.

And even though I wasn't alive during that time, I'm pretty sure television wasn't around then.

With these incidences, many are wondering if the rumors that Biden will resign from the ticket for 'health reasons' might have some validity. I think such a step would do more harm to Obama than keeping Biden on the ticket, especially because this penchant of Biden to insert his foot into his mouth was well known. But it does make you wonder...

One-third of white Dems are racist, poll says

While some Ohio elected Democrats think their fellow Ohioans are racist, it turns out that perhaps the problem is in their own party.

An AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.

"More than a third of all white Democrats and independents—voters Obama can't win the White House without—agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views."

This certainly does not bode well for the Obama campaign, as such voters could easily swing the presidential election one way or the other.

The poll was conducted to determine why Obama is locked in such a close race with McCain. Elites just don't understand why Obama is not running away with the lead, citing the unpopularity of the president as an advantage for Obama. Of course, they forget that the only approval rating less than Pres. Bush's is that of Congress and both candidates come from that body.

Apparently, 'experts' just don't get it ... for Republicans, it has more to do with Obama's positions and policies than it does his race. Even the survey found that, while Republicans harbor prejudices, too, they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. "Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president—white, black or brown."

The survey had some surprising news for Democrats - especially those who've been saying, in the last several days, that their fellow Americans are bigots and afraid to vote for a black man. According to the results, doubts about Obama's competency outweigh the racial issue.

"More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain."

Some other interesting survey findings from the article:

* More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

* About 20% of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

* Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

* Just 59% of Hillary Clinton's white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17% of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

* Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well.

Obama can't win against Palin

My husband and I have been having some interesting discussions about the way Sen. Barack Obama has been going after Gov. Sarah Palin. The positions range from 'democrats don't know how to run against women - even their own' to 'has he forgotten he's running against Sen. John McCain and not Palin' to 'I hope he keeps it up because it spells doom for his campaign.'

Karl Rove, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush, is loved by the right and hated by the left for his savvy abilities when it comes to campaigning, earning the nickname 'The Architect' and with just cause.

Rove's column in the Wall Street Journal sums up the points we've been making at home. Some of the key points:

If Mr. Obama wants to win, he needs to remember he's running against John McCain for president, not Mrs. Palin for vice president.

If Mr. Obama keeps attacking Mrs. Palin, he could suffer the fate of his Democratic predecessors. These assaults highlight his own tissue-thin résumé, waste precious time better spent reassuring voters he is up for the job, and diminish him -- not her.

A debate between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Palin over executive experience also isn't smart politics for Democrats. As Mr. Obama talks down Mrs. Palin's record, voters may start comparing backgrounds. He won't come off well.

Mrs. Palin did seek earmarks as Wasilla's mayor. But as governor, she ratcheted down the state's requests for federal dollars, telling the legislature last year Alaska "cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government earmarks." Her budget chief directed state agencies to reduce earmark requests to only "the most compelling needs" with "a strong national purpose," explaining to reporters "we really want to skinny it down."

Mr. Obama has again started a debate he can't win. As senator, he has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks, ratcheting up his requests each year he's been in the Senate. If voters dislike earmarks -- and they do -- they may conclude Mrs. Palin cut them, while Mr. Obama grabs for more each year.

Mr. Obama is already finding it difficult to win over independent women and Hillary Clinton voters. If it looks like he's going out of his way to attack Mrs. Palin, these voters may conclude it's because he has a problem with strong women.

If Mr. Obama keeps attacking her, the odds of Gov. Palin becoming Vice President Palin increase significantly.

Rove gets it right, even if the Obama supporters don't want to hear what he has to say. Of course, the McCain-Palin supporters obviously hope it continues.

When you're on the defensive in a campaign, you're losing.

The 'piling on' toward Sarah Palin

I've said it before, and I say it again, the place for opinions in the print media is on their editorial pages. But are four editorials in 10 days a bit of piling on?

That's what our local paper, The Blade, has done with the vice presidential pick of Gov. Sarah Palin.

They start on Aug. 30 with "McCain's Machinations," where they dismiss her experience as a governor and mayor, saying McCain picked "a candidate who makes Mr. Obama's resume seem substantial by comparison."

On Sept. 4, they claim that McCain's selection is a 'cynical ploy' designed to distract Americans from the issues. They also tell you that McCain, with his many years in the Senate, is perpetuating the problem - even though his opponents have more combined years in that body than he does. They also make a point of implying that her family obligations are enough to prevent her from doing her job well - an issue that has gotten way too much coverage in this day and age when women are told they can have it all.

Three days later, on Sept. 7, they call Palin a dog in their editorial, "Palin as pit bull." They say she gave a good speech at the Republican Convention, but that it was light on facts and details. Perhaps they missed Sen. Barack Obama's speech? It was equally light on facts and details, especially on how he was going to fund all those give-aways he was promising, but received no such editorial.

While even Democrats acknowledged she hit some sore points with some of her comments - and the way they began defending against them certainly proves that - The Blade editorial board wrote, "Her zingers about the Democratic ticket tended to slide around reality, to be charitable,..." I think that means they think she lied, but they provide no evidence that anything she said about her opponents was inaccurate.

Today's editorial, "Northern Exposure," (wonder if that's a violation of copyright on the TV series?) critiques her record. While such a critique is appropriate for the editorial page, it wasn't something that's been done with her opponents.

I have no problem with such attention to detail when it comes to a candidate's record, but the bias comes into play when you do it for one candidate, but not the other. If people need to know the Republican Vice Presidential candidate's record, shouldn't we also know the Democrat's? And certainly, if such a critique is warranted, it is warranted for the Presidential candidates from both parties.

I've already pointed out the lack of intellectual honesty in news of the campaigns, but four editorials in 10 days is part of the reason why so many people, especially women, think the piling on is too much. It's also showing signs of backfiring on liberals, with some voters looking more favorably at the McCain-Palin ticket because of the excessive negativity being heaped on Palin. And it's cost at least two MSNBC anchors their election coverage positions.

As a former Republican elected official who survived four very tough campaigns in Democrat-dominated jurisdictions, I don't have a problem with intense media coverage and tough questions. I do have a problem, however, when the tough questions are directly only to me and not to my opponents. Knowing I was going to be scrutinized more because I was Republican made me better prepared to handle all sorts of inquiries - and that made me not only a better (and successful) candidate, but it made me a better elected official as well, contributing to my reputation for 'always doing my homework.' I'm certain Sarah Palin feels the same way.

But if the media wants to help voters really know the candidates, they won't reserve such treatment only for the candidate(s) they hope will lose. Perhaps that's the point. Perhaps, in their hearts, they know that the American public wouldn't support their favored candidates if they really knew the objective and unbiased truth about them, so they don't tell you.

Of course, such activity leads to a loss of readers, declining sales and a loss of credibility - which is where many in the media find themselves today, with so many people turning to alternative sources for their news. So maybe this isn't such a bad thing after all.

Palin proves her strength in VP acceptance speech

Since being announced as the running mate to Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin has suffered the onslaught of the liberal left - and survived.

I know it's not easy knowing that just about every rumor that's ever been told about you is now repeated across the internet - instantly. But it's even harder when it's your children they're talking about.

Tonight's speech shows she's got what it takes to not only survive such attacks, but also how to hit back. And she did so with a velvet glove, using soft words in a strong way.

As the mother of a member of the military, she has a unique perspective, but one shared with hundreds of thousands of other mothers. And when she speaks about a commander in chief, her words carry extra weight.

"He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief."

With opponents making fun of the 'fly-over' area of the United States, Palin reminds us just what is so special about all those small towns.

"A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

I grew up with those people.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America."

And she works in a small dig relating to Michelle Obama's comment about being proud of her country - but in a way that draws a contrast between what the majority of American's think, and what the wife of her opponent thinks.

And then she takes the gloves off:

"When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco."

Wow - I love it! A comparison between a mayor/governor and a 'community organizer' combined with pointing out the elitism exhibited by their opponent when it comes to those middle America values.

She also takes on the media, showing she's not afraid of them and can certainly hold her own.

"I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment.

And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people."

One of Pres. Ronald Reagan's great accomplishments was to go directly to the American people with his ideas, ideals and proposals. He did this successfully, knowing that the real power in Washington is not in the elected officials, but in those they are supposed to be serving. Palin does the same thing and I expect the American public, especially in light of the 'news' stories the last couple of days, will respond similarly - embracing those ideas as their own while rejecting the know-it-alls in the media and the capital.

While she details many of her accomplishments she's achieved in Alaska, perhaps the most recognizable success story was her rejection of a particular pork project.

"I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves."

Being from a state overflowing with natural resources, she certainly speaks with authority when it comes to gas and oil.

As I've said before, campaigns are all about contrasts. After telling the American public what she's done, she then points out what Obama hasn't:

"We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.

And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world."

And when it comes to change, and why McCain is a better choice than Obama, she hits a home run.

"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
...
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.

And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America.
...
My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.

And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain.
...
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.

For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.""

Strong words from a strong vice presidential candidate, delivered with humor. Palin has handled tough opponents and tough races before, and tonight we saw that she can handle the 2008 election as well.

Pundits are saying that 'a star is born' in the GOP. I'd say that the GOP actually has many such stars - but they've been overlooked by those pundits because they're usually in the small towns and cities, just serving in the best way they know how.

Random questions and thoughts

* Why did the media think it appropriate to ask Gov. Sarah Palin who her favorite designer is?

* Do you think Palin's answer to the above question (Patagonia and North Face - two businesses I know through their catalogs and certainly NOT considered 'designers') resonated with more Americans than any 'fashion' designer would have?

* How is it that, according to most on the left and even many news pundits (but then I repeat myself), Palin is too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the presidency but that Sen. Barack Obama, with less experience, is qualified to be that heartbeat? And why don't they realize their contradiction?

* Campaigns are about showing contrasts. Last night's GOP convention speakers provided such contrasts between Sen. John McCain and Obama. Fred Thompson's point was 'substance over flash' while Joe Lieberman said, “eloquence is no substitute for a record.” Slam!

* While the Democrat convention focused on party unity, Lieberman made a good point that "country matters more than party." That's a message designed to appeal to and resonate with the voting middle and Independents. I think McCain's best hope for winning the election is to appeal to those middle of the road voters and Independents - which includes the Reagan Democrats. He cannot forsake his conservative base, but he's made huge inroads on that front with his selection of Palin as his running mate.

* How do three senators running for the top two spots in elective office overcome the lowest senate approval rating in history? Are we to think the American public is so dumb that it won't realize their roles in gaining such a poor approval ranking?

* Obama says he's going to raise taxes on businesses but protect the middle class from tax hikes. Does he not realize that a tax on business just gets passed along to all consumers, including that precious middle class, in the form of higher prices and/or less earnings on the stock? Does he think most Americans don't realize this point and will react accordingly?

* With polls showing more and more Americans opposed to abortion (even if they want it to remain legal), will Obama's latest ad telling voters that McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade actually give an advantage to the Obama campaign?

* With the selection of a running mate with no international experience, has the McCain campaign sacrificed one is its key points - that Obama is not ready to lead?

* Do political party conventions change voters minds about whom to elect? They're certainly a process that is necessary for the actual business of nominating the party's candidate, but could they be done with less pomp and circumstance (and expense) and still have the desired impact of kicking off a campaign? Is there a better way to kick off a campaign?

Intellectual honesty in campaign news coverage

While I shouldn't be surprised, the main stream media (lame stream as a fellow blogger called it) exposes their bias in the way the selection of running mates for this presidential election are covered.

After Sen. Barack Obama selected fellow Sen. Joe Biden, the media was aglow with praise for the wise selection, chronicling Biden's career and 'extensive' foreign policy experience. (Now, I've never really understood how serving on senate committee on foreign relations actually gives you foreign policy experience, but I'll save that question for another day.) While the blogosphere included a review of Biden's plagiarism issue, the MSM took a while to even mention the hint of controversy in his background.

But following Sen. John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, it wasn't even two hours before the criticism started. In those two hours, I knew more about an investigation into her staff regarding the firing of an individual than I did about anything else, including her fiscal policy, her confrontation with fellow Republicans over ethics issues and even her family.

In our local paper, The Blade, the headlines for the news stories were the same: 'Obama taps Biden to be running mate' and 'Governor of Alaska chosen as John McCain's running mate.'
The first paragraph of the Biden story:

Barack Obama named Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his vice presidential running mate early Saturday, balancing his ticket with a seasoned congressional veteran well-versed in foreign policy and defense issues.

The first paragraph of the Palin story:

In a surprise move to bolster his "maverick" credentials and directly appeal to disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, John McCain yesterday picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as history's first Republican woman vice presidential candidate.

Obama is 'balancing his ticket' while McCain is trying to 'bolster his credentials.' Biden is 'seasoned' and Palin is 'a woman.'

In the 21st paragraph of the Biden story, you get the first criticism of the selection:

No sooner had word spread of his selection than McCain's campaign unleashed its first attack. Spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement that Biden had "denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be president."

Note that the McCain spokesman used Biden's own words against him. Also note the choice of words: 'no sooner,' 'unleashed,' and 'first attack.'

In the Palin story, it only takes seven paragraphs to get to the criticism:

"The pick of Ms. Palin brought raves from anti-abortion groups. But Democratic nominee Barack Obama's campaign immediately questioned her resume.

"John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said."

Notice the attack is twisted by focusing on Palin's time as a mayor without mentioning her time as governor?

Also note the choice of words compared to the coverage of Biden's criticism. The Obama campaign's reaction was almost immediate and the term 'no sooner' could certainly be applied. And 'unleashed its first attack' would be as appropriate to the Obama campaign reaction as it was to the McCain campaign reaction. However, the stories portray the McCain camp as 'attacking' while the Obama camp is only 'questioning' a resume.

Furthermore, in the Biden story, the comment from the McCain camp is the only criticism, other than a couple of references to how people found out about the choice. In the Palin story, there are three other references critical to her, including a quote from the Ohio Democratic Party and from a female attendee at the announcement.

Finally, there is the conclusion of the stories - the clincher, if you will - that leaves you with your final impression.

""Obviously, the most important question is: Is this person ready to be president?" Obama told "The Early Show" on CBS. Second, he said, was: "Can this person help me govern? Are they going to be an effective partner in creating the kind of economic opportunity here at home and guiding us through some dangerous waters internationally?"

And, he added: "I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a yes person when it comes to policymaking."

This is a positive, reassuring quote - designed to support the selection.

"Tricia Bowcher of Maineville, about an hour from Dayton, attended the rally at the Ervin J. Nutter Center on the campus of Wright State University. If Mr. McCain were intent on picking a woman, she said she would have preferred Ms. Hutchinson.

"She's more experienced than what this woman is," she said. "To be honest, I would have preferred Mitt Romney over everyone really, because he's conservative and just embodies the Republican base.""

This isn't positive and is designed to prove the point that others would have been a better selection.

While editorials are clearly opinion - and every paper has one - the choice of words are in stronger contrast. This is certainly the place for opinion, but both presidential candidates selected individuals as running mates for the same reasons: they bring a different perspective, they are strong where the candidate is weak, they appeal to targeted voters and are, hopefully, going to help the candidate win. That is, after all, the goal.

But while Obama's selection is praised for doing this, McCain's selection is called 'machination.' They're both doing the same things, but one gets positive words and the other gets negative words for the exact same thing.

According to the paper, Obama's selection might seem odd but makes good political sense. The exact same could be said of Palin, but it's not. McCain's choice "represents a maverick's gamble if ever there was one."

Overflowing with praise, the editors opine:

To those who think that the Obama candidacy is a lightweight craft sailing in rough seas, Senator Biden brings a heavy keel of experience to solidify the Democratic boat.

While McCain, with his lengthy resume needs no such steadying, gets this:

He has gone with a candidate who makes Mr. Obama's resume seem substantial by comparison. Ms. Palin is only 44 and has been governor for less than two years. Before that, she was mayor and a member of City Council in Wasilla, a small Alaskan town. She reportedly served with distinction, but she has not served long.

"Reportedly served with distinction"? No attempt at denigration, there.

Obama's selection answers his critics over his "alleged shortcomings in experience." With Palin, McCain's campaign "is making a calculated gamble that she will be as much help as hindrance."

Actually, Palin's selection answers the critics as well, especially when it comes to McCain's age and his lack of appeal among the conservative base. Biden's selection is truly a calculated gamble in that his penchant for 'opening mouth and inserting foot' could seriously hamper the Obama campaign. Biden's own words, used strategically by the McCain campaign, are not complimentary to Obama and picking someone who made such comments is more of a gamble than Palin. And with Obama's claim for 'change,' picking someone who represents the status quo and business as usual in Washington, certainly qualifies as being 'as much help as hindrance.'

News stories should be objective and fair. If you're going to do a straight story on the selection of the Democrat VP, you should do the same for the Republican VP. If you're going to get opposing commentary on the Republican VP, you should do so with the Democrat VP. That's what's missing in our local coverage of the news of the selections.

In the editorials, you expect a bias. They are designed to be opinion with persuasive words. However, the intellectual honesty is missing. The criteria for opinion isn't the same. You cannot honestly call one selection a gamble while failing to acknowledge that the description applies to both campaign decisions.

You cannot honestly emphasize one person's experience level while calling the other's inexperience 'alleged.' At least with the Republican ticket, the experience is at the top of the ticket, where it belongs, rather than in the second place.

If Biden can make a pitch to blue-collar voters, shouldn't the same be true of Palin, who was a union member and is married to one? Biden's never been in a union, but that's not ever pointed out. If you're going to compare the two choices fairly so you can make a good decision, knowing these things is critical.

Even if you are trying to persuade people that one choice is better than the other, the most effective way to do so is to be honest about their backgrounds, experience and policy - and then demonstrate why one is better than the other. To leave out key information opens you up to criticism that you are only telling others what you want them to know.

And that's the difference. I've tried to follow the rule that if you give people all the information and present them with facts, they'll agree with your conclusion - if you've made good one. I've always been comfortable in arguing a point, not just because I believe it to be correct, but also because I believe most people with all the data will agree that it is correct. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen much in the MSM - and it's certainly an anomaly in Toledo.

If you're hiring a team to do a job for you, you'd first examine the job description and decide on the skills necessary to perform the tasks and duties. You'd take a look at the experience in doing those tasks and you'd make a decision. Electing a president and vice president - or any other office holder, for that matter - is no different.

The key is to be honest with yourself while doing so. It's okay to pick the less-qualified candidate because you think they're a better fit. But don't claim they're less-qualified when you do so.

Palin and oil and drilling - oh my!

Have you thought about the issue of oil and drilling in ANWR in conjunction with the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as Sen. John McCain's running mate?

I think her positions on oil and drilling are a big component of the decision to select her - and I think she's got a good reputation and position on the issue.

We'll see how the campaign goes, but it will be hard to challenge her position on drilling when she's the governor of the impacted state - and a governor with one of the highest approval ratings in the country.

Let the games begin!

Palin it is!

Hooda Thunkit and Lisa Renee both commented on my GOP VP prediction post that they liked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the vice presidential choice for Sen. John McCain. Turns out, so does McCain.

I think she's a better choice than Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and she's got her own 'maverick' streak like McCain. She adds an important aspect to the ticket - the administrative experience of a governor and mayor, having actually run a large organization - that the Sen. Barack Obama/Sen. Joe Biden ticket lacks.

I think she'll appeal to disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, especially women, and to the dissatisfied portion of the conservative base.

All in all, a good choice.

Obama: taxes only for the top 5%

Last night, presidential candidate Barack Obama said he was only going to tax the top 5% of earners. So I thought I'd share with you some information about who pays taxes. From the National Taxpayers Union for the Tax Year 2006:

The top 1% threshold is $388,806 AGI and they pay 39.89% of all federal personal income tax.

The top 5% threshold is $153,542 AGI and they pay 60.14% of all federal personal income tax.

The top 10% threshold is $108,904 AGI and they pay 70.79% of all federal personal income tax.

The top 25% threshold is $64,702 AGI and they pay 86.27% of all federal personal income tax.

The top 50% threshold is $31,987 AGI and they pay 97.01% of all federal personal income tax.

The bottom 50% threshold is less than $31,987 AGI and they pay 2.99% of all federal personal income tax.

(Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income)

Since Democrats, and liberals in general, are all about fairness, how is it fair that the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes? Shouldn't we all be paying a 'fair' portion? If we were really being 'fair,' wouldn't they have to pay only 5% of the federal income taxes?

And do people actually understand that if you make more than $64,702, you're in the top 25% of taxpayers? With this threshold, most public employees are 'rich.' And those good factory workers, like at Jeep and Hydromatic - good UAW union jobs - are probably in that group, especially if there are two wage earners in the family. These are the people who are already paying the vast majority of the taxes. So is it fair to make them pay more so that people who make less than $31,987 can pay less than the 3% they're currently paying?

Of course, Obama and Sen. John McCain were asked how much you have to make to be rich - neither of them were very accurate when it comes to how the tax code defines 'rich.' But then, if they keep talking about the rich as people who make more than half a million a year, you'll keep supporting them, not realizing just how many of YOU actually end up footing the bill based upon the tax code.

Pay attention, people, because if those nasty Bush tax cuts expire, you can expect to pay more regardless of how much you make. A married couple making $60,000/year would see their tax bill go from about $9,000 up to $16,800. A single person making $30,000/year would go from $4,500 up to $8,400. But Obama, who wants to let those taxes expire, only wants to tax the 'rich.' I suppose that if you let tax cuts expire, you're not really raising taxes, even though the result is the same.

Don't be swayed by the words, especially when the speaker is counting upon your definition rather than the government's. Do the research yourself and make an informed decision.

GOP VP prediction

Now that the 'big reveal' has taken place on the Democrat side, I can only wonder if as much attention will be paid to whom John McCain picks.

While I don't normally do this, I will make a prediction: I think it will be either South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford or Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.

While this is partly wishful hoping, these two individuals have excellent conservative credentials AND they've got the administrative experience McCain lacks. They also provide a significant contrast to the Democrat ticket which now consists of two legislators.

My hope is that Sanford is selected as I think he's the best choice for McCain - and the country. Sanford's success as a governor, his reputation for keeping his promises, his youthfulness, his education and background (grew up on farm, has an MBA), and his conservative vote record - all join together to provide a good compliment to McCain.

Additionally, Sanford was often a second 'no' vote while in Congress, often joining with Rep. Ron Paul on issues of pork and unconstitutional expenditures. That reputation could help McCain reclaim some of the conservatives (Republican and Independent) who are leaning toward a third-party candidate.

But his biggest asset is that he knows how to govern - not just legislate - and he's proved it. That's something the Democrats, and even McCain, cannot claim.

Of course, I could be completely off in left field. Your thoughts?

UPDATE: my husband has suggested I might be off in RIGHT field...LOL!

Questions for our presidential candidates

On February 19th, Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner sent the following letter to the three leading candidates for president, Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama:

I write congratulating you for the outstanding campaign you have run against formidable competition.

I also write giving you the opportunity to outline for Toledo and Northwest Ohio residents your plans to stimulate economic recovery in the urban centers of America. I will personally pay to reprint – word for word – in the local paper, both the Saturday and Monday prior to the March 4th election, your response.

The cities of America have many families struggling to make ends meet. Nearly 40 million Americans are officially poor – a family of three living on less than $16,000 annually. And 80% of such poor are living in urban areas.

During the years 1992-2000, the mayors of America saw the following programs greatly assist those living in cities:

∙∙∙ Community Development Block Grants
∙∙∙ Brownfield Clean-up Grants
∙∙∙ Assistance to public housing agencies
∙∙∙ “Cops Now” money to increase the policemen on our streets

Since 2000, most of these programs have been dramatically reduced. And our citizens are hurting.

And I believe Toledoans would be interested in what you would do to reopen NAFTA discussions to protect American workers, particularly those living here in the mid-West. Will you commit to re-negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its sister agreements, which have been proven to disadvantage workers in this region of our country while simultaneously facilitating the exploitation of workers and the environment in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America?

Please outline your programs to assist our citizens, including your ideas to assist those threatened by foreclosure action upon their homes.

I would ask for your response by February 27, giving me the time to reprint your response prior to the primary election on March 4.

Toledoans will appreciate your answers to the questions being raised.

I await your response, and thank you for assisting Toledoans in knowing where you stand on these important issues.

I do not know if he's received any responses yet, but if there are ads in the paper on Saturday, we'll know...

It's a creative idea for the mayor of a city to write to the presidential candidates, but I wish Carty had focused on things that are Constitutionally within the control of the President. 'COPS' grants, local housing and even brownfields clean-up are - or should be - the purview of local communities and states, not the Federal Government.

NAFTA - and the negotiation of treaties - is certainly a duty of the President. But for as many individuals who believe NAFTA has hurt them, there are others who have benefited from the increased trade and opportunities NAFTA has provided. Unfortunately, Carty's letter is written from the perspective of a Democrat mayor, as that is, after all, what he is.

Foreclosures are a problem locally, but despite all the media attention to them, only a small percentage of homeowners are in this situation. And his question to the candidates presumes that the President should do something about this 'problem' despite no Constitutional authority to do so and absent the understanding that Congress is really the entity that regulates this market.

And then there is this column by John Stossel which points out, better than I could, the lack of influence a President has to manage the economy.

"Politicians who talk about managing the economy ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no economy. There are only people producing, buying and selling goods and services. Keep that in mind, and one realizes that government action more often than not interferes with the productive activities that benefit everyone. When politicians propose regulations to fix some problem, they should ask if some earlier intervention created the problem and if the new regulations will make things worse. The answer to both questions is usually yes.

The economy is far too complex for any president -- no matter how smart -- to manage."

Rather than ask what these candidates would do to solve our local problems, I'd ask them questions about the federal budget and financial obligations. Here are some of the questions I'd ask the candidates:

1. Do you believe that budget deficits matter? If so - what are you going to do about them?

2. What would you do to balance the federal budget? What specific spending cuts would you make to achieve a balanced budget?

3. The tax cuts passed since 2001 are set to expire by 2011. Do you support extension of the expiring tax cuts? Why or why not - and please identify if some should expire while others stay.

4. How do you propose to keep Medicare from overwhelming the federal budget?

5. By about 2015, promised benefits from Social Security will greatly exceed dedicated taxes. What steps would you take to close Social Security’s long-term funding gap?

6. Candidates often talk about the 'middle class' in terms of programs and taxation. Please identify earnings criteria (total family income for a family of four) that describes your definition of "middle class." At what level of earnings would this family of four move into the 'rich' category?

While these questions are not as pertinent to the City of Toledo budget as Carty's are, I think they are better questions to ask the people who are vying to lead our country.

What question would you ask????

Lucas County again the focus of presidential campaigns

In 2004, Lucas County saw multiple visits from presidential candidates and their surrogates. In fact, the Seagate Convention center was the site of 3 visits within 7 days, just prior to the election in 2004 - not an easy task, but one they carried out very well.

Again it appears that the county and surrounding areas will get its share of visits from the presidential campaigns as Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all plan to make stops prior to the March 4 primary.

What remains to be seen is the influence Ohio will have on the presidential race. In 2004, it went to Bush, but 2006 saw a sweep by Democrats for all but one state-wide office. Dems are hoping that momentum will carry forward, while the GOP hopes the state will stay in their column.

Be sure to tune in to Eye On Toledo on Wednesday, March 5th, as Fritz Wenzel, Communication Director for Zogby International, breaks down the results of Ohio's primary and the implications for Toledo and the surrounding area.