Question Of The Week: Democrats For McCain?

According to recent polls, 20% of Democratic voters say they will vote for Senator John McCain if their preferred Democratic nominee does not get the nomination. Do I think they will really do this come election day? I'm sure that will be fairly close to the percentage of Democrats who will vote for McCain, although we're a long way from election day. I think this is mainly due to McCain's appeal to moderate/independent voters. Both of the Democratic nominees are very liberal candidates, moderate Democrats probably see the opposing candidate as more liberal than their preferred candidate. Couple that with John McCain's appeal to more moderate/independent voters, and it makes sense that he would get a large portion of moderate Democrat voters. Some of those may just not vote, particularly the young, impressionable, and passionate Obama voters. Either way, whether it be moderates crossing party lines or refusing to vote, John McCain benefits.

McCain Looks To Be The Only One Winning Right Now

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9229.html

There's been a lot of negative things swirling about the two remaining Democratic candidates. Whether it is Hillary Clinton exaggerating her foreign policy experience by saying she came under "sniper fire" when in actuality she was getting flowers from kids or Obama's pastor's anti-American remarks from the pulpit, the Democrats have a severe problem with all these negatives flying around. Each day they continue to lose support, and those supporters are either going to vote for McCain (he's beating both of them in the polls) or they're not going to vote at all. Either way, McCain comes out on top from all these negative issues the Democrats are caught up in. Add to that the "super delegate" problem and the Democrats have quite the mess on their hands. McCain '08

Undemocratic Democrats

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9217.html

This Democratic race that is shaping up is hilarious to me. I've never seen something so undemocratic in a primary process as these so-called "super delegates." These are delegates to the Democratic National convention who are able to vote for whomever they choose, regardless of how the state/district majority they represent voted. So, according to current Democratic Party rules, the popular vote DOESN'T really count??? I do not want to hear another Democrat gripe about the losing the 2000 presidential election, when they turn around and adopt rules that feng shwee pure democracy far more than our presidential electoral system does. Not all the electors are "super delegates," but many are, and in this close presidential nomination race, their votes will actually matter. What great wisdom on the part of the Democrats that the nomination might actually be close (and not a coronation of Hillary Clinton) and that the vote might actually come down to how these non-democratic "super delegates" decide to vote. Now the Democrats want to have the "super delegates" decide earlier how they want to vote, before the convention, so the injustice of this undemocratic process has blown over by the convention so voters do not become disenfranchised with how much their voices have been muffled and trounced upon by their elitist, undemocratic Democratic party that says 700 high-ups in the Democratic party are more important than the voices of the people.

How About We Use Democracy To Decide On Money Spent?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9013.html

Kudos to Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina. He's going against so many people to do the right thing. He wants to put a one-year moratorium on congressional earmarks. Earmarks are spending taglines in bill for projects that are not attributed to any senator/representative that fund specific projects. These are sneaked in by our leaders to bring dollars to their home state without the measure even being voted on to be added to the bill. We wonder why the dollar is in the toilet, the economy is weak, and the national debt is enourmous? It's because all these little projects all senators/representatives want to bring home to their own state add up VERY QUICKLY. Why should South Dakotans pay taxes to pay for a $200,000 earmark to Ohio to finance their rock and roll hall of fame? Why should we pay taxes to finance a $320 MILLION dollar bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people living on it. FIFTY PEOPLE!! And that's just ONE EARMARK! Luckily, that "Bridge to Nowhere" earmark was averted, thanks to concerned citizens. But very similar ones get passed everyday, and all those little millions of dollars add up. I hope you all have a grasp of just how much a million dollars is worth, because congress flushes money down the proverbial toilet like you wouldn't believe. And we're just talking millions. Barack Obama has proposed a plan to support foreign countries that would cost a whopping 825 BILLION DOLLARS; essentially just a handout to the United Nations to fund developing countries through ineffective handouts that foster little, if any economic growth. In addition, we have no say in what countries this money goes to. Do you have any idea how much 825 billion dollars is???? And that's in addition to every other pet project and program our already overreaching government spends money on. Pay attention people. And people wonder why we have a massive national debt? It's no surprise to me with such irresponsible congressional spending!

Economics 101, Something Most Americans Aren't Capable Of

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/article/fed-inspires-400point-rally-best-day-2002_514202_2.html

Today the Federal Reserve used some "creative accounting", essentially hooking jumper cables to the United States economy. We always see headlines like these, saying "the Dow jumped 400 points today" and things of that nature. How many Americans actually know what's going on? I have had tons of economics classes, so I roughly understand what is going on in the economy. But how many Americans can actually look at this news story and actually say that they have a clue about what is going on? This is because our public education system is stacked against students. I didn't even have the option to take an economics class in my high school, and many other schools only offer optional, basic courses. To me, I would think that concepts of taxation, credit, buying a home, getting a loan, and etc. would be CRUCIAL to someone's education, but our schools don't teach those things! It took me to college to learn anything about taxes, and that's because I was lucky enough to be REQUIRED to take an economics course, which I then made my minor. Not knowing these crucial life lessons allows bodies of government to exploit citizens, simply because they DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. Removing economics from school curriculum creates generations of dependent and ignorant consumers and citizens, simply because they are kept in the dark with regards to economic issues.

Media As A Whistleblower

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336837,00.html

Well, the media certainly does have a role in holding politicians accountable. The governor of New York is under investigation for his involvement in a high-class prostitution ring. Obviously he's been up to no good, the way he is apologizing to the public and to his family. For a few years now this ring has been under investigation, and his name came up. I commend the press for actually taking time to turn attention from the heated presidential campaign to blow the whistle on a governor who has been taking time from his duties to participate in illicit activities.

Question of the Week: What Factors Should A Candidate Consider When Dropping Out Of A Political Campaign?

Candidates running for office must consider many factors when deciding to drop out of a race or keep plugging along. Candidates definitely have to worry about their financial situation. Campaigning relies heavily on candidate appearances and media attention; both of which are extremely expensive. Without these two factors, a candidacy is almost certainly kaput. Candidates often need to face the math that they're up against, too. Momentum of their opponents is often so incredible and they are behind by so much it's nearly impossible to come back and win. Candidates should keep in mind the opportunity costs involved in staying in a campaign. If they're losing a presidential campaign but enjoy bountiful support back home, the candidate may be better off running against an incumbent in the opposing party for, say, a senate seat. Candidates have to keep in mind the vitality of the party in situations like this, and if the writing is on the wall that they're just not the candidate people want, candidates should do what they can to help their party out, whether it be running for another office or helping with grassroots efforts.

The United Nations: A Guard Dog With No Teeth

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334550,00.html

Oh wow, the United Nations has slapped some sanctions on Iran to "stop" them from continuing their work towards nuclear weapons. If Iran follows any precedent at all, these sanctions will stop them from doing nothing. Iran cares nothing for the effects of sanctions on its people, so imposing sanctions will do nothing to sway the government and will only hurt the people of Iran, not the leadership. If the United Nations could actually back up what it says to countries and have some way of making rogue states fall in line, maybe they would actually be worthwhile. Personally, I'm not as frightened of a guard dog with no teeth.

Money Money Money

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8794.html

John McCain has been slow to get large amounts of monetary donations from his supporters. When compared to Clinton and Obama, he hasn't raised much at all. Even so, he's almost certainly secured the nomination of his party without spending nearly the amount his Democratic counterparts have to secure the same status. Each Democrat has much more of their base support than McCain has, as he was not the first choice of conservatives in the Republican party. He has lots of time to earn their support, and once he does the dollars will start flowing in around when the Democrats finally have a nominee. In other words, the Democrats and raising lots of money and spending it also just to get the nomination. Meanwhile, Republicans have not donated in big numbers while trying to find their nominee, which means there are lots of people out there yet to donate. I see McCain raising huge amounts of money in the upcoming months, as he has more time to shore up base support, also known as $$$$$$$. The Democrats, on the other hand, are spending millions just trying to get the nomination, and the base has split their dollars between two candidates, one of which will not go on after the primary season.