Posts Tagged ‘Oklahoma’

Live Analysis of the September 26 Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy

September 26, 2008

**My apologies for any typos – I tried to catch all of them, but live blogging a debate is hard, and my keyboard acts up from time to time (especially the space bar), so if you see a typo, just leave a comment and I’ll fix it.**

We’re about a minute out, I’ll be live blogging the whole event.  Jim Lehrer (PBS) is the moderator.  I’ll be watching CNN (it would be FOX, but they weren’t ready on time).

The Ku Klux Klan is in the audience, we’ve heard, but not in robes and not protesting.

First question, “Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?”

Obama: Thank you to everybody – the usual beginning.  “Worst financial crisis since the great depression. … We have to move swiftly and we have to move wisely.”  Talking about oversight, since it’s a lot of money.  Taxpayers need to be able to get the money back.  Shouldn’t be padding CEO bank accounts.  Talking about trickle down economics not working.  That’s not going to help him win over any Republicans.

McCain: Senator Kennedy is in the hospital.  Thank you to the sponsors, etc.  Talking about seeing Democrats and Republicans sitting down and working together, and the magnitude of the crisis.  Emphasizing that we have to work together, something that Obama didn’t mention – that was good from McCain.  Talking about having options for loans for businesses, not the government taking over those loans.  GOOD – not a pure bailout!  CNN has an audience  reaction, and McCain is getting a pretty good response from the Independents (must be some keypad rating system or something).  Talking about a lot of work to do if this will work.  Eliminate dependence on foreign oil – good.

Lehrer: Do you favor this plan?

Obama: I “haven’t seen the language yet.”  “How did we get in this situation in the first place?”  Talking about him warning 2 years ago that mortgage abuse would lead us down a trail we can’t afford to go down.  “Yes, we have to solve this problem short term, … but … look at how we shredded so many regulations … and that has … to do with an economic philosophy that says regulation is bad.”

Lehrer: “Will you vote for the plan?”

McCain: “Sure.”  Talking about warning about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  Talking about getting flack for calling for resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission.  And the Independents’ rating has skyrocketed.  Republicans increased too.  It was good – him calling for the resignation, and people like that.

Obama: Talking about people struggling before this crisis.  It’s interesting – the Dems are rating Obama higher than the Indies, but the Indies rated McCain higher than the Reps.  Talking about holding ourselves accountable, all the time, talking about nurses and teachers, and politicians not paying attention to them.  Good – he’s appealing to the average Americans here, and that’s who he needs to win over.

McCain: “We have a long way to go.”  Need consolidation of regulatory agencies who failed and let us slip into this crisis.  Talking about the greatness of the American worker, and the Republicans like it, but it’s not that appealing to Independents, but it will appeal to a lot of average Joe Americans, as long as they believe he’s sincere (and the audience must not have).

Lehrer: How do we get out of the crisis?

McCain: Spending control.  And the Reps and Inds, liked it – and this is one of McCain biggest points, and now he’s talking about Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a huge anti-earmark politician.  Talking about the DNA testing of bears.  I LOVE McCain saying he’ll veto earmarked bills.  It’s one of his best stances.  He’s talking about Obama asking for earmark spending.  Talking about not being able to rein in spending with a plan like Obama’s.

Obama: The earmark process has been abused.  Lobbyists and special interests introduce these things, often times.  Contrasting the cost of earmarks against tax cuts (by allegedly McCain) for CEOs and big companies.  “Grow the economy for the bottom up.”  Tax cut for 95% of working families.  HOLD IT!  Only 90% of working families even PAY taxes!!!!  Come on Obama, don’t lie.

McCain: Obama suspended those earmarks after he started running for Congress.  YOU TELL ‘EM MCCAIN!  He’s saying that earmarks have tripled in 5 years, even though “it’s only $18 billion” (as pro-earmarkers say).  He was called the Sheriff.  That’s pretty sweet.  As I was saying before, we need to take Coburn’s example and STOP EARMARKS!

Obama: Interrupted McCain (must be kinda less formal).  Talking about priorities, and shipping, and I missed the rest.  Saying he’ll keep us from spending unwisely.  Earmarks alone won’t get us back on track.  The Democrats are loving this, but the Independents, aren’t really liking it.

McCain: Talking about the business tax, that we pay the 2nd highest in the world, 35%.  “I want to cut that business tax.  I want to cut it.”  “It’s a lot more than $18 billion in pork barrel spending.”  And he’s right, it’s SO much more than that, and it’s hidden in so many bills.  The Independents are liking this.  “I want every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit” for healthcare.  Double the dependent amount refund for children.

Obama: “Here’s what I can tell America 95% of you will get a tax cut.”  LIAR.  10% don’t even PAY taxes.  And another 5% make over $200,000, and he won’t give them a tax cut.  LIAR!  Saying McCain wants to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes.  Talking about McCain’s health care tax credit.  Saying McCain wants to tax health benefits.  That’s not true.

McCain: Talking about an energy bill with breaks for oil companies, and McCain voted against it, but Obama voted for it.”  Obama tried to interrupt – that just looks tacky when he keeps doing it.  Saying that Obama has shifted on a number of occasions.

Obama: Talking about Obama lying about the oil companies.  “I was opposed to those tax breaks … tried to strip them out.”

Lehrer: “As President … what are you going to have to give up … as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?”

Obama: “Right now, it’s hard to anticipate what the budget is going to look like next year.”  He’s right about that.  “Energy independence.”  Talking about solar, wind, biodiesel here at home.  And the Independents REALLY loved that – highest rating I’ve seen all night.  Fix our healthcare system.  Compete in education – science and technology.  “Make sure our children are keeping pace in math and in science.”  Make college affordable for all.  That’s not even useful.  Not EVERYBODY needs college.  America needs plumbers and other basic labor workers too.

McCain: “No matter what, we have got to cut spending.”  Obama has most liberal rating.  “It’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.”  Do away with cost-plus contracts.  Talking about defense contracts and needing fixed-cost contracts.  And he’s absolutely right.  One of the big areas we need to save money is in defense contracts.  Talking about fixing a contract with Boeing, and people ending up in prison because of it, but hte Independents didn’t like that too much.

Lehrer: Neither of you are really going to have big changes?

Obama: “I want to make sure that we are investing in energy in order to [break off from] foreign oil.”  Right now, even the Democrats aren’t giving him a good audience reaction.  The Republicans are giving him a higher rating!  Saying that him being wildly liberal is just him opposing George Bush.  And that spiked the Dems’ rating.  Saying that he’s worked with Coburn so that taxpayers can see who’s promoting spending projects.

Lehrer: “How [will] this effect you in the approach you will take to the Presidency.”

McCain: Spending freeze on all but Veterans, defense, and I forget what else.

Obama: You’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.  But heck, that’d have to be a big scalpel.  But he does have a point here.

McCain: We’re sending money overseas, and some of that goes eventually to terrorists (through oil).  We need nuclear, solar, wind, offshore drilling, etc…  Get 70,000 (?) jobs by building nuclear plants throughout the country.  And Obama is against this.  And that’s one thing that really angers me about Obama – WE NEED NUCLEAR!

Obama: “There is not fact that it [economic crisis] will affect our budgets” even if we get the $700 billion back.  “If we’re lucky and do it right, that could potentially happen.”  “We can expect less tax revenue.”  And he’s really not getting a good audience response here.  Talking about not being able to leave out healthcare, and the Independents’ and Republicans’ approval just dropped.

McCain: Families should make decisions between themselves and doctors, not federal government.  “I have fought to cut spending.”  “Obama needs to cancel new spending programs.”  Talking about taking care of veterans.  Healthy economy, lowering, not raising taxes, with spending restraint.  And the independents liked that.  Talking about owing China money, and saying he’s fought against excessive spending.  And the ratings are skyrocketing – and again, I LOVE his stance on spending!

Obama: It’s been your President who presided over this spending.  But Bush and McCain aren’t the same.  Stop pretending they are.  That still got a good reply from the Independents.

McCain: I have opposed the President on spending, torture, Guantanamo, climate change.  Talking about being an Independent and Maverick, and having Sarah Palin as the same.  His ratings stunk right there.  He lost Dems, Reps, and Inds.

Lehrer: On to Iraq.

McCain: “Our initial military success … Baghdad, and everybody celebrated.”  Then the war was mishandled.  Came up with a new strategy.  It’s succeeding.  The Inds and Dems rating has fallen a lot, but hte Reps are rating him high.  Talking about the consequences of defeat being Iranian influence higher, more sectarian violence, and U.S. having to come back (referring to defeat before the surge).  And the Inds just started to rate him a lot better.  I think he did as good as he could back there.

Obama: I would’ve voted against it.  “We hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan … caught bin Laden … and put Al Qaeda to rest.”  Talking about soon to be a trillion dollars spent, plus 4,000 lives lost.  Saying that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever.  “We took our eye off the ball.”  Talking about Iraq having a surplus while we’re losing money.  He’s bringing up a LOT of good points that I thought would appeal to people, but he’s not rating THAT great, although the Dems really like him.  Now it’s peaked a bit more.

McCain: President will have to decide how and when we leave and what we leave behind.  He’s absolutely right.  Obama saying surge worked, but he’d still oppose it.  And he lost a lot of Indy rating points just back there.  But he’s right.  Obama is simply sticking by what he said even though what he said was WRONG!

Obama: Talking about McCain being right about reduced violence.  Saying troops and Petraeus doing a good job.  But that made up for mismanagement before that.  War started in 2003, not 2007.  Saying McCain said it’d be quick and easy, but he was wrong.  Saying we’d be greeted as liberators, but we weren’t.  And he lost a lot of support from Inds, but he’s still doing better than McCain has on Iraq.

McCain: Saying Obama doesn’t have military experience, he’s got some better support form Inds and Reps now.  Saying that this strategy and general are winning, but Obama refuses to acknowledge this.  (Obama: “That’s not true.”)  Talking about elections and peace coming to Iraq, and the strategy will be employed in Afghanistan in a McCain administration, and the Inds went up a bit there.  Talking about Obama voting against troop funding.

Obama: McCain opposed funding for troops in a timetable bill.  Had a difference on timetables, not funding.  And Obama’s right.  It always looks bad on paper when you vote against funding, but if you don’t agree with the overall bill, don’t vote for it.  I have to side with Obama here, and the Inds liked that a lot, and even the Republicans aren’t that negatively rating him.  Reduce combat troops in Iraq.  “Capture and kill bin Laden.”  We don’t have enough troops to deal with Afghanistan.

McCain: Saying that military leaders saying that Obama’s plan would be bad for the troops.  Talking about Petraeus praising the progress we’ve made.  Saying that under Obama’s plan, we’d have been out before the surge could have even succeeded.  Saying that Obama’s plan will “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”

Lehrer: How many and when (if more troops in Afghanistan)?

Obama: As soon as possible.  Saying that this year has been the year for highest troop fatalities.  Can’t separate Afghanistan from Iraq.  And the Independents are rating him lower than the Repubs now – that’s surprising.  Saying that Al Qaeda is the greatest threat against us, and that we have to deal with them in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.  Press the Afghan government to make sure that they’re working for their people.  And he’s absolutely right – we need to press the Afghani government.  Talking about needing to reduce the poppy trade over there.  And that’s another area we need to work on.

McCain: Talking about not being ready to threaten Pakistan, because that’d be dangerous.  We need to get support of the people of Pakistan.  And the Independents are rating him pretty high here.  Saying that Obama doesn’t understand that we need a new strategy.  Saying that Pakistani terrorists are married to Al Qaeda and Taliban.  Ratings are very high from Reps and Inds.  Although it’s dropped now.  Saying we need more troops in Afghanistan, but saying that we have put more in already.  Talking about Obama publicly saying he’d attack Pakistan.

Obama: Saying that if we have Al Qaeda in sights, and Pakistan won’t help us take them out, then we need to take them out.  Again, I have to side with Obama here.  Talking about McCain singing “Bomb Iran.”  And that was so stupid of McCain, and really makes him look like a hypocrite a bit here.  Although he lost a lot of ratings there surprisingly.  Talking about not going after Al Qaeda, and they’re more powerful than ever.

McCain: Talking about him being a new Congressman – Reagan wanting to send Marines into Lebanon, and McCain voting against it, because he didn’t think that 300 Marines could make a difference, and saying that he was right – many Marines were killed in the bombing.  Talking about voting for going into Bosnia, when it wasn’t popular.  Saying that we need more than a peace-keeping force in Somalia.  And he’s right.  We need to do what’s RIGHT, not what’s popular!  Saying that our mission NEEDS to succeed.  And he’s absolutely right.  We don’t want defeat, and we cannot afford defeat!  “We won’t come home in defeat and dishonor and probably have to go back if we fail.”

Obama: “No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain. … We honor the service they’ve provided. … Are we making good judgments” for keeping America safe, because sending troops is such a huge issue.  “We are having enormous problems in Afghanistan.”  Saying it’s not true that McCain has consistently cared about Afghanistan.  Saying McCain said we could “muddle through” Afghanistan.

McCain: “I’ve visited Afghanistan … and I know what our needs are.  We will prevail … and we need a new strategy.”  If we adopt Obama’s plan, we’ll fail in Iraq, and that will have a great effect on Afghanistan.  Obama fails to see that the 2 are connected.

Lehrer: “What is your reading from the threat from Iran?”

McCain: If Iran acquires nukes, it’s a threat to Israel and other countries.  Others will feel the need to get nukes.  “We can’t afford a second holocaust.”  Proposing a league of Democracies who would impose sanctions on Iranians, since the Russians won’t do it.  “The Iranians have a lousy government, so their economy is lousy, even though they have significant oil revenues.”  A nuclear Iran is a threat to the world.  They’re putting IEDs in Iraq.  They’re a sponsor of terror.  And he’s getting some pretty good ratings right now, from both Indeps and Repubs.

Obama: Talking about the thing that strengthened Iran was the War in Iraq.  Their involvement has grown.  They’ve tried harder to get nukes.  “We cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.”  It would threaten Israel, and “create an environment [that would] set off an arms race in the Middle East.”  We can’t have sanctions without Russia and China.  Well Obama, you’re not going to get Russia OR China to side with you!  You’re dreaming if you think you will.  Saying we need to talk to leaders in Iran and North Korea, and he as President will.

McCain: Senator Obama twice said he’d sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Castro.  Ahmadinejad is in New York now talking about extermination of Israel.  Saying that we can’t sit down without preconditions.  And he’s right.  NO President has ever sat down without preconditions (Reagan didn’t, JFK didn’t, and Nixon didn’t).  And now McCain is using examples that I just gave.  “I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s gotta be preconditions.”  GOOD job McCain!  You’re absolutely right.

Obama: Ahmadinejad isn’t the most powerful person in Iran.  Saying as President, he can sit down with whoever he wants if it keeps America safe.  Saying that we CAN meet without preconditions, but not do with what we’ve been doing where we say you must do X or we won’t meet with you.  “Of course we need preparations.”  “It may not work.  Iran is a rogue regime.”  Obama is getting pretty much the same ratings now as McCain was getting a minute ago (about a third of the way between neutral and as positive as you can go).  “The Bush Administration and McCain’s advisors (Kissinger)” think we should meet without preconditions.  Saying McCain said we can’t meet with Spain, a NATO ally.

McCain: “Kissinger never said that the President could meet with Ahmadinejad.”  “Obama doesn’t understand that without precondition … you legitimize those comments [against Israel]. … It’s dangerous.”  Talking about North Koreans breaking everything they’ve ever said they’d do.

Obama: McCain keeps saying that I’ll meet with somebody without preparing – this isn’t true.  “We do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.”  The Bush administration realized this doesn’t work.  “The notion that we’d meet with Ahmadinejad as he spews his comments is” wrong.

McCain: Kissinger would not say “that Presidential, top level” communications should be made without preconditions.

The two are going back and forth, and ratings are dropping a lot.

Lehrer: How do you see the relationship with Russia?

Obama: “Our entire Russian approach needs to be reevaluated. … Actions in Georgia were unacceptable and unwarranted.”  They need to get out of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  The Democrats really aren’t liking what he’s saying here.  The Inds are rating him higher than Dems are.  We can’t go back to a Cold War status with Russia.  We need to deal with loose nuclear weapons when it comes to Russia.  “Deal with Russia based on [our] national security interests.”

McCain: Obama doesn’t understand that Russia committed aggression against Georgia when he said that both sides need to back down a bit.  He’s compared Putin to the KGB.  We can’t go back to the Cold War.  The Georgian War “had everything to do with energy.”  McCain’s rating a bit better than Obama, but neither are performing well right now with the audience.  “The Russians ought to understand that we’ll support … the inclusion of Georgia, and Ukraine … into inclusion of NATO.”  The Russians violated their cease fire agreement.  Saying that Russian intentions toward Georgia – just waiting to cease the opportunity.  Expecting Russians to behave as a country who will respect boundaries.  And he’s right – Russia can’t be left to keep doing what it’s been doing.  It HAS to respect the sovereignty of other countries.  McCain rating pretty decent now, compared to an average rating before.

Obama: McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues.  Says he disagrees with McCain a bit on Georgia.  I don’t think the Dems liked that – Obama is doing a decent amount worse than McCain was doing.  Talking about Russian peace keepers in Georgia not making sense and that we needed international peace keepers there, and that might have avoided the situation.  And Obama is right there.  Talking about energy.  We need to increase offshore drilling.  “We can’t drill our way out of the problem.”  Talking about needing wind, solar, and nuclear.  And now he’s rating higher than McCain was at the end of McCain’s last statement.  Saying McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times.

McCain: Saying that Obama is really against nuclear, and that offshore drilling would help more than Obama says it would.  McCain is getting pretty low ratings now, especially from Dems.

Obama: I have never said that I object to nuclear waste, but I’d store it safely.

McCain: I’ve always been for alternative energy.

Lehrer: What do you think the likelihood is of another 9/11 attack?

McCain: Much less than the day after 9/11, but we’re not safe yet.  Talking about working across the aisle to establish the investigation commission.  Saying we need interrogators who won’t use torture.  Saying that we are safer now.

Obama: We need to do more in terms of securing transit and ports.  Biggest issue is not missiles coming over skies, but from a suitcase.  Spending billions on missile defense, which we need because of Iran/Korea, but we need more for other areas as well.  Ratings are pretty high for him here.  We need more cooperation with allies.  “The way we are perceived in the world” will affect the cooperation we get.  He’s right here.  We have slipped in terms of how we’re viewed by the world.  McCain has a good stance on terror.  And the ratings right there are the highest they’ve been at any time during the debate, even Reps rated him decently high.

McCain: If we fail in Iraq, Al Qaeda will establish a base in Iraq.  McCain isn’t rating too good right now, especially with Inds and Dems.  We can’t have specific dates for withdrawal.  We’ve had great success, but it’s fragile.

Obama: Saying that this administration has been solely focused on Iraq, and we haven’t captured bin Laden.  Talking about borrowing from China, and they’ve been active around the world, while we’ve been focused on Iraq.  We’re spending so much money, we can’t invest in health care or science/technology.  “We’ve never seen a nation who has a failing economy but maintains military strength, so this is a national security issue.”  The next President has to have better strategy for all the challenges we face.  Pretty good ratings there

McCain: Saying he’s been around involved in challenges.  Saying Obama doesn’t have  experience, but he does.  Talking about Obama failing to admit the success of the surge.  McCain is right here.  Obama is just being stubborn.  Saying that he’ll take care of veterans, that he has right judgment to keep nation safe and secure.  “I don’t need any on the job training.  I’m ready to go right now.”

Obama: Talking about his father being from Kenya, and that there’s not nation like America, where you can become so successful.  “Part of what we need to do … is to send a message to the world that we’ll invest in issues like education … how ordinary people can live out there dreams.”

McCain: Talking about coming home from prison and seeing veterans treated poorly, and working on bipartisan bills to see our veterans treated better.  I know how to deal with our adversaries and how to deal with our friends.

Lehrer: We’re done.  “Thank you and good night.”

McCain/Obama: “Good job.”

And there you have it – the wives are coming out and kissing each other.  A little more than the 90 minutes scheduled, but that’s ok.

OK, so who won?  Both Obama and McCain had some pretty good moments, but I don’t think there was a clear cut winner here.  I think both performed pretty much on the same level.  I’m not saying that the two were identical in debating, but I don’t think one did better than the other.  I absolutely hate saying this, because I love objectivity and clear cut answers, but I really do think it was a tie.

I’d love to go on more and more, but my hands are just killing me right now (hey – it was a lot of typing), so I think I’ve said most all of what I wanted to say.

By the way – a big thanks to my roommate who helped with correcting quotes and what was said.  It’s hard to keep up with typing and trying to listen, so a huge thanks to him for helping me out with this!

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Obama and Biden Voted Against Funding for Rebuilding After Katrina, But Supported Bridge to Nowhere Funding

September 8, 2008

So, I found something interesting today.  Back in 2005, Congress voted on and passed H.R. 3058 [109th Congress]: “Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia,…”.  This purpose of this bill was for “Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.”

Now, here’s where it gets interesting.  Before being passed by the Senate it underwent 181 amendment proposals (49 by the House, 132 by the Senate).  One of the Senate amendments, proposed by Tom Coburn (R-OK), S.Amdt. 2165, “To make a perfecting amendment,” was proposed on October 20, 2005.  The original full text of the amendment can be found here, but the amendment basically took money that was, in the original bill, allocated to 2 “Bridge to Nowhere” projects in Alaska, the Knik Arm Bridge, and the Gravina Island Bridge, and would put this money toward rebuilding the Twin Spans Bridge which was bridge connecting New Orleans to Slidell, LA, that was destroyed in Hurricane Katrina.

So, who voted against this amendment?  The same people who have been lying about Sarah Palin, saying that she supported the Bridge to Nowhere projects.  That’s right.  Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted to keep this money going toward the Bridge to Nowhere instead of spending it to rebuild after Katrina.  Unfortunately, we don’t have a vote for Senator McCain who was not in the Senate that day.

Later, that same day, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) (yes, the terrible Republican who got so much pork barrel spending for his state) proposed S.Amdt. 2181: To ensure reconstruction of the Twin Spans Bridge.  He probably felt bad about the money going to his bridges instead of the New Orleans bridge.  Who voted against this amendment?  That’s right, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  Again, we don’t have a vote from McCain, since he wasn’t there that day.

So Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted twice against funding to rebuild after Katrina, but didn’t vote to stop funding TWO Bridge to Nowhere projects?  And Obama/Biden call Palin a hypocrite?  Palin is against the Bridge to Nowhere.  Obama and Biden were for it, and they were against rebuilding a bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina.  Is this change we can believe in?  No, this is the same old Washington politics.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Some Black Republicans May Vote for Obama Because of Race

June 17, 2008

So, a few days ago, the Associated Press came out with a story about some black Republicans selling out their beliefs just to “VOTE FOR A BLACK MAN!!!”  Personally, I think this is despicable and racist, and it would be just as bad as Jesse Jackson voting for Alan Keyes just to get a black man elected.

How are we supposed to fulfill the “goal” of electing an African American, ending race, if we’re VOTING BASED ON  RACE?!?!  It just appalls me that these people are so shallow.

Here’s  some quotes:

Black conservative talk show host, Armstrong Williams, who has never voted for a single Democrat his whole life, told AP, “I don’t necessarily like his policies; I don’t like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it.  I can honestly say I have no idea who I’m going to pull that lever for in November.  And to me, that’s incredible.  Among black conservatives.  They tell me privately, it would be very hard to vote against him in November.”

That’s ridiculous.  I would never just vote for the white guy just because he’s white.  I’ll vote for a person because I agree with them.  Whether they’re white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or any other race!

Williams went on to say that his  82-year-old mother, who has also never voted for a Democrat, will vote for Obama, “She is so proud of Senator Barack Obama, and she has made it clear to all of us that she’s voting for him in November.  That is historic.  Every time I call her, she asks, ‘How’s Obama doing?’  They feel as if they are a part of this.  Because she said, given the history of this country, she never thought she’d ever live to see this moment.”

And that’s so sad.  An 82-year-old selling out her beliefs just to vote for somebody based on the color of his skin.

J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma Congressman said that he’s still a Republican, but thinks that the party often neglects blacks and that the Democrats reach out to them.  “And Obama highlights that even more.  Republicans often seem indifferent to those things,” Watts said.  He also told reporters that he thinks Obama will focus on poverty and urban policy.

Writer, and actor on “The Cosby Show,” Joseph C. Phillips began calling himself an “Obamacan” or an Obama Republican earlier this year, but since then has begun to question his support for Obama.  He told AP, “I am wondering if this is the time where we get over the hump, where an Obama victory will finally, at long last, move us beyond some of the old conversations about race.  That possibly, just possibly, this great country can finally be forgiven for its original sin, or find some absolution.  We have to not judge him based on his race, but on his desirability as a political candidate.  And based on that, I have a lot of disagreements with him on a lot of issues.  I go back and forth.”

At least he realizes that voting for Obama to end racism in politics would be ironic, but that makes him look even more ridiculous when he says that he still might do it.

John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and New York Sun columnist (who calls himself a moderate), says that Obama’s victory in the Democratic primary “proves that while there still is some racism in the United States, there is not enough to matter in any serious manner.  This is a watershed moment.  Obama is probably more to the left than I would prefer on a lot of issues.  But this issue of getting past race for real is such a wedge issue for me.  And he is so intelligent, and I think he would be a perfectly competent president, that I’m for him.  I want him to get in because, in a way, it will put me out of a job.”

Again – who cares if a black man EVER gets elected President.  And who cares if we ONLY have black men elected President for the rest of the lifetime of this country.  Vote for somebody based on issues, not on skin color.

Former Massachusetts Senator, moderate black Republican, Edward Brooke said that he is “extremely proud and confident and joyful” at how well Obama is doing.  He called Obama “a worthy bearer of the torch,” in reference to his nomination.  He told the AP that race won’t be a factor in who he votes for, and went on to say, “This is the most important election in our history.  And with the world in the condition that it is, I think we’ve got to get the best person we can get.”

One black Republican, the former Maryland Lt. Governor and failed Senatorial candidate in 2006, Michael Steele, says that “come November, I will do everything in my power to defeat him.  I think people who try to put this sort of messianic mantle on Barack’s nomination are a little bit misguided.”

I always liked him!

Another black Republican, James T. Harris, a radio talk show host in Milwaukee, told the AP that he opposes Obama “with love in my heart.  We are of the same generation.  He’s African American and I’m an American of African descent.  We both have lovely wives and beautiful children.  Other than that, we’ve got nothing in common.  I hope he loses every state.”

Now – that’s an attitude I like to see!

I hope that black Republicans don’t sell out their beliefs just because of race, and I also hope that people don’t vote for McCain out of racism either.  Sadly, I think both will happen.  I know right here in Wayne County, we have 2 VERY racist cities, Taylor and Wyandotte, and although Detroit will help Obama, he may lose a lot of support in those 2 cities (Taylor is a pretty big city and is a Democratic stronghold in the county).

Let’s move past race and vote on the issues!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

John McCain Lays Out his Economic Agenda

April 15, 2008

Here’s a transcript from Senator McCain’s speech at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburg, earlier today.  Here’s a transcript.  I’ve added links to videos at the bottom:

Thank you. I appreciate the hospitality of the Allegheny Business Conference… the Pittsburgh Tech Council… and the students and faculty of Carnegie Mellon University. We have a strong showing this morning from the Carnegie Mellon Naval ROTC unit as well. And I’m happy to be with all of you.

This university has a fine reputation for its programs in business, finance, and other disciplines in the field of economics. And it’s always worth recalling that economics is not a subject that can be wrenched apart from all the rest of life, or from the values that give life direction. When we debate economic policy, we are talking, after all, about the deepest hopes that carry us each along in the work we do… about all the things we wish for ourselves and for each other. And these cannot be measured by simply running the numbers.

In our free society, it is left to each one of us to make our own way in the world — and our jobs, businesses, savings, pensions, farms, and homes are the work of years. Take these away and you are diminishing a lot more than the GDP, or the final tally on the Big Board on Wall Street. Take these away, and a million dreams are undone. The gains of hard work and sacrifice are lost. And something can be lost that is very crucial in our economy, and very slow to return — confidence.

Every so often in our nation’s capital, we relearn this lesson when the excesses of traders and speculators, and the poor planning of politicians, catches up with them, and the troubles spread far beyond Wall Street and Washington. This has happened in recent months, at great cost to workers, small businesses, families, and homeowners across our nation. And calling these serious problems a “correction” in the market, or a “cycle” of the economy, doesn’t make their situation any better, their jobs and homes any safer, their lives any easier.

Economic policy is not just some academic exercise, and we in Washington are not just passive spectators. We have a responsibility to act — and if I am elected president I intend to act quickly and decisively. We need reforms that promote growth and opportunity. We need rules that assure fairness and punish wrongdoing in the market. We need tax policies that respect the wage-earners and job creators who make this economy run, and help them to succeed in a global economy. In all of this, it will not be enough to simply dust off the economic policies of four, eight, or twenty-eight years ago. We have our own work to do. We have our own challenges to meet.

Millions of working men and women in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and beyond can tell you how urgent is the work before us. One man put it this way to a reporter not long ago, in reply to a question about the job he had just lost. He said, “I told my wife that I’ll always keep a roof over her head. Now, I worry about keeping that promise.” In the monthly reports of our Labor Department, nearly 250,000 Americans like this man were let go recently and suddenly from jobs they thought were safe.

A woman in the town of Trainer, in Delaware County, also captured the feeling of many when she described what it’s like to work and save for years, and, at the age of 47, still struggle for the basics of life. The family has had medical problems, and as she puts it: “Trust me, no one wants to be in our shoes. And lots of people are just a sick husband away from where we are.” For citizens like these — doing their best to keep promises and meet obligations, there is no comfort knowing their problems are common and their worries are shared.

Meanwhile, the people we expect to be most sober and level-headed in their economic decisions — bankers and other home lenders — forgot some of the basic standards of their own profession. Hard-working homeowners are learning for the first time about the endlessly complicated borrowing, bundling, and betting that has been going on in our capital markets. Americans worry about a system that allows 4 million bad loans to affect 51 million good ones. They wonder how assets can so quickly become liabilities, and why the high-risk schemes of a few were permitted to inflict such grievous harm on our entire financial system.

Americans are also right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEO’s — in some cases, the very same CEO’s who helped to bring on these market troubles — bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders. Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while Mr. Cayne of Bear Stearns, Mr. Mozilo of Countrywide, and others are packed off with another forty- or fifty million for the road.

I leave it for others to speculate on the technical definition of a recession. It’s all a little beside the point, if it’s your plant that’s closing and your job that’s gone… when you are facing foreclosure, or back in debt after years of hard effort, or hardly able to buy food, gas, or heating for your home. In the end, the truest measure of prosperity in America is the success and financial security of those who earn wages and meet payrolls in this country. Many are waiting for their first homes… their first big break… their first shot at financial security. And helping them will be my first priority in setting the economic policies of this nation.

Just a note – a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of a decline of a nations gross domestic product (GDP) – there’s no debate over that – that’s the definition.  And that’s why all of these polls of “Do you think the country is in a recession?” are stupid.  The definition of a recession is quite clear.

In so many ways, even now, the workers and entrepreneurs of America are taken for granted by their government, while the lobbyists and special pleaders are seldom turned away. By the tens of billions of dollars, our tax money is routinely squandered by the Congress on less than useless pork-barrel projects — projects having nothing to do with the purposes of government, and everything to do with the preservation of power.

I REALLY hope that he keeps his promise and vetoes any bills with pork in them.

In the same way, many in Congress think Americans are under-taxed. They speak as if letting you keep your own earnings were an act of charity, and now they have decided you’ve had enough. By allowing many of the current low tax rates to expire, they would impose — overnight — the single largest tax increase since the Second World War. Among supporters of a tax increase are Senators Obama and Clinton. Both promise big “change.” And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description.

Of course, they would like you to think that only the very wealthy will pay more in taxes, but the reality is quite different. Under my opponents’ various tax plans, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise — seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market. All these tax increases are the fine print under the slogan of “hope”: They’re going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year — and they have the audacity to hope you don’t mind.

They and others argue that the tax increase is necessary in part to finance Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, this claim only serves to remind us of Congress’ consistent failure to repair both of these programs even under the best of circumstances. For years, Congress has been buying time, and leaving the great challenge of entitlement reform for others to deal with. And now the two contenders in the other party have even proposed enormous new federal commitments before the old commitments have been kept — trusting that others, somewhere down the road, will handle the financing and make all the numbers come out right.

Senator McCain, I must point out that you’ve been in the Senate LONGER than your opponents, so trying to shift the blame on their inaction doesn’t really work.

But there will come a day when the road dead-ends, and the old excuses seem even more hollow. And it won’t be the politicians who bear the consequences. It will be American workers and their children who are left with worthless promises and trillion-dollar debts. We cannot let that happen. And you have my pledge: as president I will work with every member of Congress — Republican, Democrat, and Independent — who shares my commitment to reforming and protecting Medicare and Social Security.

In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties. For Republicans, it starts with reclaiming our good name as the party of spending restraint. Somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose. The only power of government that could stop them was the power of veto, and it was rarely used.

GREAT point here – this reminds me of something Tom Coburn (R-OK) would also say.

If that authority is entrusted to me, I will use the veto as needed, and as the Founders intended. I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks. I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end the practice once and for all. I will lead across-the-board reforms in the federal tax code, removing myriad corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair, and inconsistent with a free-market economy.

Excellent – a line item veto would be MAGNIFICENT (but I don’t think the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it)!

As president, I will also order a prompt and thorough review of the budgets of every federal program, department, and agency. While that top to bottom review is underway, we will institute a one-year pause in discretionary spending increases with the necessary exemption of military spending and veterans benefits. “Discretionary spending” is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised. Instead, every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever. My administration will change that way of thinking.

Excellent idea – instead of just spending money year after year, we need to REEVALUATE how much money is actually needed, and not increasing money will make this process go faster.  Obviously, the military should be exempt from this, since our national security is at stake.  I also agree that veterans benefits should be exempt, since veterans are sacrificing everything to defend this great country.

I’ll hold the agencies of the federal government accountable for the money they spend. I’ll make sure the public helps me, and I’ll provide federal agencies with the best executive leadership that can be found in America. We’re going to make every aspect of government purchases and performance transparent. Information on every step of contracts and grants will be posted on the Internet in plain and simple English. We’re going to post an agency’s performance evaluation as well. We’re going to demand accountability. We will make sure that federal spending serves the common interests… that failed programs are not rewarded… and that discretionary spending is going where it belongs — to essential priorities like job training, the security of our citizens, and the care of our veterans.

Displaying the government contracts and grants on the internet is a great idea.  Ever since Governor Rick Perry talked about it down at CPAC, I’ve loved the idea.

The fact that we’re analyzing programs is great as well.  This way, failing plans such as No Child Left Behind won’t be funded year after year.

In my administration there will be no more subsidies for special pleaders — no more corporate welfare — no more throwing around billions of dollars of the people’s money on pet projects, while the people themselves are struggling to afford their homes, groceries, and gas. We are going to get our priorities straight in Washington — a clean break from years of squandered wealth and wasted chances.

I have a clear record of not asking for earmarks for my state. For their part, Senators Obama and Clinton have championed a long list of pork-barrel projects for their states — like that all-important Woodstock museum that Senator Clinton expected Americans to pay for at the cost of a million dollars. That kind of careless spending of tax dollars is not change, my friends: It is business as usual in Washington, and it’s all a part of the same wasteful and corrupting system that we need to end.

This again reminds me of Tom Coburn – the earmarks MUST stop.  Sure, maybe every GREAT once in a while, an earmark is necessary, but to the extent that Congress has them now, it’s just ridiculous.  I really hope he vetoes all of the pork that comes through.  If we just spent money on what we needed, people wouldn’t be complaining that the Iraq War cost so much.  On one of the recent bills, 17% of the Iraq-apportioned money went to pet projects and not Iraq.

The goal of reform, however, is not merely to check waste and keep a tidy budget process — although these are important enough in themselves. The great goal is to get the American economy running at full strength again, creating the opportunities Americans expect and the jobs Americans need. And one very direct way to achieve that is by taking the savings from earmark, program review, and other budget reforms — on the order of 100 billion dollars annually — and use those savings to lower the business income tax for every employer that pays it.

So I will send to Congress a proposal to cut the taxes these employers pay, from a rate of 35 to 25 percent. As it is, we have the second-highest tax on business in the industrialized world. High tax rates are driving many businesses and jobs overseas — and, of course, our foreign competitors wouldn’t mind if we kept it that way. But if I am elected president, we’re going to get rid of that drag on growth and job creation, and help American workers compete with any company in the world.

This will be one of the ways that we’ll be able to cut down on outsourcing without placing ridiculous regulations on companies.

I will also send to the Congress a middle-class tax cut — a complete phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax to save more than 25 million middle-class families more than 2,000 dollars every year.

This has been something that I’ve always liked of McCain’s plan, since he put up some general guidlines for his plan earlier in the year (I addressed this at a forum that I spoke at, and this was something I emphasized greatly).

Our tax laws and those who enforce them should treat all citizens with respect, whether they are married or single. But mothers and fathers bear special responsibilities, and the tax code must recognize this. Inflation has eroded the value of the exemption for dependents. I will send to Congress a reform to increase the exemption — with the goal of doubling it from 3,500 dollars to 7,000 dollars for every dependent, in every family in America.

Again, this will greatly help the middle class.

The tax laws of America should also promote and reward innovation, because innovation creates jobs. Tax laws should not smother the ingenuity of our people with needless regulations and disincentives. So I will propose and sign into law a reform agenda to permit the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology… to ban Internet taxes, permanently… to ban new cell phone taxes… and to make the tax credit for R&D permanent, so that we never lose our competitive edge.

GREAT – internet taxes are a terrible idea, and cell phone taxes are just getting ridiculous.

It is not enough, however, to make little fixes here and there in the tax code. What we need is a simpler, a flatter, and a fair tax code. As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so. And everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction. Americans do not resent paying their rightful share of taxes — what they do resent is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands from the IRS. We know from experience that no serious reform of the current tax code will come out of Congress, so now it is time to turn the decision over to the people. We are going to create a new and simpler tax system — and give the American people a choice.

Flat tax is a great idea!!!

Better tax policy is just one part of a pro-growth agenda that includes smarter regulation and a leaner, more focused government. Among the many benefits to America, these reforms will help to create jobs, improve the investment climate, attract global investors, and strengthen the dollar.

Americans also worry about stagnant wages, which are caused in part by the rising cost of health care. Each year employers pay more and more for insurance, leaving less and less to pay their employees. As president, I will propose and relentlessly advocate changes that will bring down health care costs, make health care more affordable and accessible, help individuals and families buy their health insurance with generous tax credits, and enable you to keep your insurance when you change jobs.

Many retired Americans face the terrible reality of deciding whether to buy food, pay rent or buy their prescriptions. And their government should help them. But when we added the prescription drug benefit to Medicare, a new and costly entitlement, we included many people who are more than capable of purchasing their own medicine without assistance from taxpayers who struggle to purchase their own. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don’t need their prescriptions underwritten by taxpayers. Those who can afford to buy their own prescription drugs should be expected to do so. This reform alone will save billions of dollars that could be returned to taxpayers or put to better use.

It’s high time we stop funding a LOT of retired people’s prescriptions!

There’s never been a problem Americans couldn’t solve. We are the world’s leaders, and leaders don’t fear change, pine for the past and dread the future. We make the future better than the past. That is why I object when Senators Obama and Clinton and others preach the false virtues of economic isolationism. Senator Obama recently suggested that Americans are protectionist because they are bitter about being left behind in the global economy. Well, what’s his excuse for embracing the false promises of protectionism? Opening new markets for American goods and services is indispensable to our future prosperity. We can compete with anyone. Senators Obama and Clinton think we should hide behind walls, bury our heads and industries in the sand, and hope we have enough left to live on while the world passes us by. But that is not good policy and it is not good leadership. And the short-sightedness of these policies can be seen today in Congress’ refusal to vote on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.

But will you lift the embargo off of Cuba?  That’s something that should’ve been done YEARS ago.

When new trading partners can sell in our market, and American companies can sell in theirs, the gains are great and they are lasting. The strength of the American economy offers a better life to every society we trade with, and the good comes back to us in many ways — in better jobs, higher wages, and lower prices. Free trade can also give once troubled and impoverished nations a stake in the world economy, and in their relations with America. In the case of Colombia, a friend and crucial democratic ally, its stability and economic vitality are more critical now, as others in the region seek to turn Latin America away from democracy and away from our country. Trade serves all of these national interests, and the interests of the American economy as well — and I call on the Congress once again to put this vital agreement to an up or down vote.

I know that open markets don’t automatically translate into a higher quality of life for every single American. Change is hard, and while most of us gain, some industries, companies and workers are left to struggle with very difficult choices. And government should help workers get the education and training they need — for the new jobs that will be created by new businesses in this new century. Right now we have more than a half-dozen different programs that are supposed to help displaced workers, and for those who are not working at all. We have an unemployment insurance program straight out of the 1950s. It was designed to assist workers through a few tough months during an economic downturn until their old jobs came back. That program has no relevance to the world we live in today.

OK, I got confused here.  McCain says “government should help workers get the education and training they need,” but hten he says, “That program has no relevance to the world we live in today.”  That doesn’t make sense to me.  I’d say, that the government shouldn’t be in the business of educating workers though.

If I’m elected president, I’ll work with Congress and the states to make job training and unemployment insurance what they should be — a swift path from a job that’s not coming back to a job that won’t go away. We will build a new system, using the unemployment-insurance taxes to build for each worker a buffer account against a sudden loss of income — so that in times of need they’re not just told to fill out forms and take a number. And we will draw on the great strengths of America’s community colleges, applying the funds from federal training accounts to give displaced workers of every age a fresh start with new skills and new opportunities.

OK, I guess I see what he’s saying now – but I still think he wants too much government involvement here.

These reforms must wait on the next election, but to help our workers and our economy we must also act in the here and now. And we must start with the subprime mortgage crisis, with the hundreds of thousands of citizens who played by the rules, yet now fear losing their houses. Under the HOME plan I have proposed, our government will offer these Americans direct and immediate help that can make all the difference: If you can’t make your payments, and you’re in danger of foreclosure, you will be able to go to any Post Office and pick up a form for a new HOME loan. In place of your flawed mortgage loan, you’ll be eligible for a new, 30-year fixed-rate loan backed by the United States government. Citizens will keep their homes, lenders will cut their losses, and everyone will move on — following the sounder practices that should have been observed in the first place.

If people weren’t following “sounder practices … in the first place,” the government should NOT be helping them out now.  You can play stupid but still obey the “rules.”

It’s important as well to remember that the foolish risk-taking of lenders, investment banks, and others that led to these troubles don’t reflect our free market as it should be working. In a free market, there must be transparency, accountability, and personal and corporate responsibility. The housing crisis came about because these standards collapsed — and, as president, I intend to restore them.

And people tried to buy houses that they couldn’t afford.

The grave problems in the housing market have been viral, spreading out to affect the credit and buying power of Americans even as the price of oil and gas is rising as never before. There are larger problems underlying the price of oil, all of which I will address in my energy plan, but in the short term there are crucial measures we can take.

That’s why we should get OFF oil!

I propose that the federal government suspend all taxes on gasoline now paid by the American people — from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year. The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus — taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer, or trucker stops to fill up. Over the same period, our government should suspend the purchase of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has also contributed to the rising price of oil. This measure, combined with the summer-long “gas-tax holiday,” will bring a timely reduction in the price of gasoline. And because the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging, and just about everything else, these immediate steps will help to spread relief across the American economy.

GREAT plan – if we were smart, we’d get rid of the gas taxes all together, and just put sales tax on it.  If we were even smarter, we’d get off of oil.  I’d like to see at least 75% of our power plants go nuclear – but that’s another topic.

By summer’s end, moreover, millions of college students will be counting on their student loans to come through — and we need to make sure that happens. These young Americans, including perhaps some of you at CMU, are among the many citizens whose ability to obtain a loan might be seriously hurt by faraway problems not of their own making. So, today, I propose that the Department of Education work with the governors to make sure that each state’s guarantee agency has the means and manpower to meet its obligation as a lender-of-last-resort for student loans. In the years ahead, these young Americans will be needed to sustain America’s primacy in the global marketplace. And they should not be denied an education because the recklessness of others has made credit too hard to obtain.

These are just some of the reforms I intend to fight for and differences I will debate with whoever my Democratic opponent is. In the weeks and months ahead, I will detail my plans to reform health care in America… to make our schools more accountable to parents and taxpayers… to keep America’s edge in technology… to use the power of free markets to grow our economy… to escape our dependence on foreign oil… and to guard against climate change and to be better stewards of the earth. All of these challenges, and more, will face the next president, and I will not leave them for some unluckier generation of leaders to deal with. We are going to restore the confidence of the American people in the future of this great and blessed country.

I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me. I am running to serve America, and to champion the ideas I believe will help us do what every American generation has done: to make in our time, and from our challenges, a safer, stronger, more prosperous country and a better world.

As I have always done, I will make my case to every American who will listen. I will not confine myself to the comfort of speaking only to those who agree with me. I will make my case to all the people. I will listen to those who disagree. I will try to persuade them. I will debate. And I will learn from them. But I will fight every moment of every day for what I believe is right for this country, and I will not yield.

Thank you.

Video Part 1: and video part 2:

All in all, it was a good speech – I like most of his plan (I liked Romney’s better, since he had more experience with economics), but it’s a WHOLE lot better than the Democrats’.

I’m beginning to feel much more confident in McCain as my nominee.

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Republican Results from Super Tuesday Primaries and Caucuses

February 15, 2008

OK, now that all of the data is finally in, and I have free time, I can give all the final numbers from Super Tuesday for the Republicans (Democrats will be the next post) (a note, if you’re viewing this on the main page, click this post’s title so that the numbers won’t overlap onto the sidebar text) (also, Tom Tancredo is included in the category of “Other” unless he was the only other, then he is listed as his own name.  The number int the parenthesis indicates the number of other candidates):

Date State Candidate Votes % Delegates RNC Delegates Total Delegates Delegate Count
5-Feb Alabama Huckabee 230,608 40.73% 20 0 20 183
  Romney 103,295 18.24% 0 0 0 293
  Thompson 1,929 0.34% 0 0 0 0
  McCain 210,989 37.26% 16 0 16 695
  Paul 15,454 2.73% 0 0 0 16
  Giuliani 2,224 0.39% 0 0 0 0
  Hunter 399 0.07% 0 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 1,257 0.22% 0 0 0 0
  Tancredo 95 0.02% 0 0 0 0
  Alaska Huckabee 2,672 21.89% 6 0 6
  Romney 5,378 44.07% 12 0 12
  McCain 1,894 15.52% 3 0 3
  Paul 2,050 16.80% 5 0 5
  Uncommitted 210 1.72% 0
  Arizona Huckabee 40,849 7.66% 0 0 0
  Romney 186,838 35.05% 0 0 0
  Thompson 9,492 1.78% 0 0 0
  McCain 255,197 47.88% 50 0 50
  Paul 22,692 4.26% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 13,658 2.56% 0 0 0
  Hunter 1,082 0.20% 0 0 0
  Keyes 970 0.18% 0 0 0
  Others (16) 2,256 0.42% 0 0 0
  Arkansas Huckabee 136,734 60.50% 29 3 32
  Romney 30,574 13.53% 1 0 1
  Thompson 624 0.28% 0 0 0
  McCain 45,709 20.22% 1 0 1
  Paul 10,771 4.77% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 651 0.29% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 946 0.42% 0 0 0
  California Huckabee 299,837 11.49% 0 0 0
  Romney 901,922 34.55% 12 0 12
  Thompson 47,302 1.81% 0 0 0
  McCain 1,097,856 42.06% 158 0 158
  Paul 110,536 4.23% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 120,754 4.63% 0 0 0
  Hunter 13,142 0.50% 0 0 0
  Keyes 10,400 0.40% 0 0 0
  Others (3) 8,608 0.33% 0 0 0
  Colorado Huckabee 8,960 12.76% 0 0 0
  Romney 42,218 60.11% 43 0 43
  Thompson 63 0.09% 0 0 0
  McCain 12,918 18.39% 0 0 0
  Paul 5,910 8.42% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 58 0.08% 0 0 0
  Hunter 25 0.04% 0 0 0
  Keyes 67 0.10% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 10 0.01% 0 0 0
  Connecticut Huckabee 10,600 6.99% 0 0 0
  Romney 49,885 32.91% 0 0 0
  Thompson 538 0.35% 0 0 0
  McCain 78,830 52.01% 27 0 27
  Paul 6,266 4.13% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 2,470 1.63% 0 0 0
  Hunter 136 0.09% 0 0 0
  Keyes 373 0.25% 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 2,462 1.62% 0 0 0
  Delaware Huckabee 7,706 15.34% 0 0 0
  Romney 16,344 32.53% 0 0 0
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 22,628 45.04% 18 0 18
  Paul 2,131 4.24% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 1,255 2.50% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 175 0.35% 0 0 0
  Georgia Huckabee 326,874 33.92% 45 0 45
  Romney 290,707 30.17% 0 0 0
  Thompson 3,414 0.35% 0 0 0
  McCain 304,751 31.63% 3 0 3
  Paul 28,096 2.92% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 7,162 0.74% 0 0 0
  Hunter 755 0.08% 0 0 0
  Keyes 1,458 0.15% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 324 0.03% 0 0 0
  Illinois Huckabee 147,626 16.54% 0 0 0
  Romney 256,805 28.77% 2 1 3
  Thompson 7,100 0.80% 0 0 0
  McCain 424,071 47.52% 54 0 54
  Paul 45,166 5.06% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 11,341 1.27% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 369 0.04% 0 0 0
  Massachussetts Huckabee 19,168 3.87% 0 0 0
  Romney 255,248 51.50% 22 0 22
  Thompson 942 0.19% 0 0 0
  McCain 204,027 41.16% 18 0 18
  Paul 13,210 2.67% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 2,643 0.53% 0 0 0
  Hunter 263 0.05% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 155 0.03% 0 0 0
  Minnesota Huckabee 12,493 19.88% 0 0 0
**4106 of 4122 precincts** Romney 25,990 41.37% 38 2 40
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 13,826 22.01% 0 0 0
  Paul 9,852 15.68% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 0.00% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Keyes 368 0.59% 0 0 0
  Write-In 299 0.48% 0 0 0
  Missouri Huckabee 185,598 31.56% 0 0 0
  Romney 172,414 29.32% 0 0 0
  Thompson 3,101 0.53% 0 0 0
  McCain 194,145 33.02% 58 0 58
  Paul 26,428 4.49% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 3,593 0.61% 0 0 0
  Hunter 306 0.05% 0 0 0
  Others (4) 364 0.06% 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 2,083 0.35% 0 0 0
  Montana Huckabee 245 15.03% 0 0 0
  Romney 625 38.34% 25 0 25
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 358 21.96% 0 0 0
  Paul 400 24.54% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 0.00% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Keyes 2 0.12% 0 0 0
  New Jersey Huckabee 45,699 8.18% 0 0 0
  Romney 158,692 28.40% 0 0 0
  Thompson 3,135 0.56% 0 0 0
  McCain 309,842 55.45% 52 0 52
  Paul 26,913 4.82% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 14,446 2.59% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  New York Huckabee 65,404 10.90% 0 0 0
  Romney 168,275 28.04% 0 0 0
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 309,614 51.59% 87 0 87
  Paul 38,787 6.46% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 18,118 3.02% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  North Dakota Huckabee 1,947 19.90% 5 0 5
  Romney 3,490 35.67% 8 0 8
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 2,224 22.73% 5 0 5
  Paul 2,082 21.28% 5 0 5
  Giuliani 0.00% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Keyes 42 0.43% 0 0 0
  Oklahoma Huckabee 111,899 33.40% 6 0 6
  Romney 83,030 24.78% 0 0 0
  Thompson 1,924 0.57% 0 0 0
  McCain 122,772 36.64% 32 0 32
  Paul 11,183 3.34% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 2,412 0.72% 0 0 0
  Hunter 317 0.09% 0 0 0
  Keyes 817 0.24% 0 0 0
  Others (3) 700 0.21% 0 0 0
  Tennessee Huckabee 190,682 34.48% 23 0 23
  Romney 130,452 23.59% 8 0 8
  Thompson 16,255 2.94% 0 0 0
  McCain 175,855 31.80% 15 0 15
  Paul 30,955 5.60% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 5,146 0.93% 0 0 0
  Hunter 736 0.13% 0 0 0
  Keyes 977 0.18% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 193 0.03% 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 1,828 0.33% 0 0 0
  Utah Huckabee 4,061 1.42% 0 0 0
**2240 of 2257 precincts** Romney 255,398 89.61% 36 0 36
  Thompson 575 0.20% 0 0 0
  McCain 15,276 5.36% 0 0 0
  Paul 8,311 2.92% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 930 0.33% 0 0 0
  Hunter 204 0.07% 0 0 0
  Keyes 252 0.09% 0 0 0
  West Virginia Huckabee 567 51.55% 18 0 18
**Convention Only** Romney 521 47.36% 0 0 0
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 12 1.09% 0 0 0
  Paul 0.00% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 0.00% 0 0 0
    Hunter   0.00% 0 0 0

And here’s a chart of the delegate count:

Republican Delegate Count after Super Tuesday

Done Adding,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Democratic Super Tuesday Results as of 1:00 A.M.

February 6, 2008

Here are the results as of 1:00 A.M.  (Bold results are too close to call):

In Alabama with 99% reporting (my last update tonight):

  1. Obama 300,832 56%
  2. Clinton 223,090 42%
  3. Edwards 7,871 1%
  4. Uncommitted 2,676 1%

Alaska with 60% reporting:

  1. Obama 176 73%
  2. Clinton 66 27%
  3. Uncommitted 1 0%
  4. Edwards 0 0%

Arizona with 68% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 159,707 51%
  2. Obama 130,396 41%
  3. Edwards 19,446 6%

Arkansas with 83% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 176,745 69%
  2. Obama 70,025 28%
  3. Edwards 4,691 2%
  4. Uncommitted 2,795 1%

California with 21% reporting:

  1. Clinton 691,474 54%
  2. Obama 425,935 33%
  3. Edwards 122,758 10%

Colorado with 98% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 79,167 67%
  2. Clinton 38,506 32%
  3. Uncommitted 1,253 1%

Connecticut with 99% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 177,546 51%
  2. Clinton 163,383 47%
  3. Edwards 3,364 1%
  4. Uncommitted 2,985 1%

Delaware with 100% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 51,124 53%
  2. Clinton 40,751 43%
  3. Biden 2,863 3%
  4. Edwards 1,241 1%

Georgia with 97% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 660,846 66%
  2. Clinton 314,684 32%
  3. Edwards 17,510 2%

Idaho with 89% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 15,357 81%
  2. Clinton 3,146 17%
  3. Uncommitted 395 2%
  4. Edwards 97 0%

Illinois with 94% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 1,196,993 65%
  2. Clinton 618,763 33%
  3. Edwards 36,206 2%

Kansas with 98% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 26,469 74%
  2. Clinton 9,251 26%
  3. Edwards 53 0%
  4. Uncommitted 8 0%

Massachusetts with 95% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 665,564 56%
  2. Obama 483,716 41%
  3. Edwards 18,698 2%
  4. No Preference 7,279 1%

Minnesota with 78% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 129,093 67%
  2. Clinton 61,417 32%
  3. Uncommitted 1,179 1%
  4. Edwards 910 0%

Missouri with 99% reporting (the networks haven’t called it yet, but I’m going to call it for Obama):

  1. Obama 402,576 49%
  2. Clinton 394,491 48%
  3. Edwards 16,726 2%
  4. Uncommitted 3,130 1%

New Jersey with 98% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 591,666 54%
  2. Obama 484,891 44%
  3. Edwards 14,200 1%

New Mexico with 30% reporting:

  1. Clinton 15,205 52%
  2. Obama 12,342 42%
  3. Edwards 1,053 4%
  4. Richardson 410 1%
  5. Uncommitted 178 1%

New York with 99% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 1,000,915 57%
  2. Obama 696,342 40%
  3. Edwards 19,334 1%

North Dakota with 100% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 11,625 61%
  2. Clinton 6,948 37%
  3. Edwards 283 2%

Oklahoma with 100% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 228,597 55%
  2. Obama 130,206 31%
  3. Edwards 42,853 10%

Tennessee with 100% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 331,781 54%
  2. Obama 250,332 41%
  3. Edwards 27,558 4%
  4. Uncommitted 3,111 1%

Utah results with 99% reporting (last update for today):

  1. Obama 69,638 57%
  2. Clinton 48,413 39%
  3. Edwards 3,496 3%

And here’s a map of the current percentages (this is not necessarily a final map):

STD - Perc - 100STD - Key - Perce

And here’s my accuracy map:

STD - Accur - 100STD - Accur - 100STD Key - Accur

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::

Republican Super Tuesday Results as of 11:45 P.M.

February 6, 2008

As of 11:45 P.M. EST (I just got home, sorry for the delay).  Bold states are not yet called.

Alabama results with 96% reporting (my final update for the night):

  1. Huckabee 216,206 41%
  2. McCain 199,404 38%
  3. Romney 96,361 18%
  4. Paul 14,530 3%
  5. Giuliani 2,098 0%
  6. Uncommitted 1,220 0%

Arizona with 58% reporting:

  1. McCain 178,090 48%
  2. Romney 124,627 34%
  3. Huckabee 33,031 9%
  4. Paul 15,811 4%
  5. Giuliani 11,822 3%

Arkansas with 66% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Huckabee 78,138 62%
  2. McCain 25,109 20%
  3. Romney 16,015 13%
  4. Paul 5,962 5%
  5. Uncommitted 535 0%
  6. Giuliani 381 0%

California with 12% reporting:

  1. McCain 374,736 44%
  2. Romney 215,931 25%
  3. Huckabee 98,640 12%
  4. Giuliani 85,757 10%
  5. Paul 32,024 4%

Colorado with 21% reporting:

  1. Romney 7,244 54%
  2. McCain 2,924 22%
  3. Huckabee 2,165 16%
  4. Paul 1,033 8%

Connecticut with 92% reporting (my last update of the night):

  1. McCain 74,639 52%
  2. Romney 46,666 33%
  3. Huckabee 9,959 7%
  4. Paul 5,891 4%
  5. Uncommitted 2,283 2%
  6. Giuliani 2,257 2%

Delaware with 100% reporting (my last update of the night):

  1. McCain 22,626 45%
  2. Romney 16,344 33%
  3. Huckabee 7,706 15%
  4. Paul 2,131 4%
  5. Giuliani 1,255 3%

Georgia with 91% reporting (my last update of the night):

  1. Huckabee 313,084 34%
  2. McCain 298,253 32%
  3. Romney 274,014 30%
  4. Paul 26,239 3%
  5. Giuliani 6,600 1%

Illinois with 78% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. McCain 311,406 48%
  2. Romney 184,760 28%
  3. Huckabee 107,668 17%
  4. Paul 33,174 5%
  5. Giuliani 8,584 1%

Massachusetts with 92% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Romney 227,136 51%
  2. McCain 183,496 41%
  3. Huckabee 18,515 4%
  4. Paul 12,150 3%
  5. Giuliani 2,402 1%
  6. No Preference 1,739 0%

Minnesota with 57% reporting:

  1. Romney 17,492 42%
  2. McCain 9,192 22%
  3. Huckabee 8,415 20%
  4. Paul 6,403 15%
  5. Giuliani 0 0%

Missouri with 93% reporting:

  1. McCain 180,239 33%
  2. Huckabee 176,889 32%
  3. Romney 158,899 29%
  4. Paul 24,592 4%
  5. Giuliani 3,408 1%
  6. Uncommitted 1,969 0%

Montana with 100% reporting (my last update of the night):

  1. Romney 625 38%
  2. Paul 400 25%
  3. McCain 358 22%
  4. Huckabee 245 15%

New Jersey with 98% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. McCain 305,933 55%
  2. Romney 156,871 28%
  3. Huckabee 44,938 8%
  4. Paul 26,537 5%
  5. Giuliani 13,930 3%

New York with 99% reporting (my last update for the night):

  1. McCain 309,376 51%
  2. Romney 168,168 28%
  3. Huckabee 65,344 11%
  4. Paul 38,762 7%
  5. Giuliani 18,105 3%

North Dakota with 100% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Romney 3,490 36%
  2. McCain 2,224 23%
  3. Paul 2,082 21%
  4. Huckabee 1,947 20%

Oklahoma with 99% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. McCain 122,702 37%
  2. Huckabee 111,588 33%
  3. Romney 82,839 25%
  4. Paul 11,131 3%
  5. Giuliani 2,417 1%

Tennessee with 91% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Huckabee 175,067 34%
  2. McCain 163,911 32%
  3. Romney 125,124 24%
  4. Paul 29,369 6%
  5. Thompson 15,730 3%
  6. Giuliani 4,955 1% 
  7. Uncommitted 1,762 0%

Utah with 37% reporting:

  1. Romney 92,242 88%
  2. McCain 6,692 6%
  3. Paul 3,107 3%
  4. Huckabee 1,891 2%
  5. Giuliani 541 1%

And here’s a map of the current percentages (note that this does not indicate that a winner has been called):

STR - Perc - 1145STR - Perc Key

And here’s the map of my accuracy:

STR - Accur - 1145STR - Key - Accur

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::

Final Republican Prediction for Super Tuesday

February 5, 2008

I had to do a lot less calculating for this one, but I was able to clear all of the states out of the tossup category.

Here’s my prediction based on percentages:

Final Republican ST PercentRepublican Key - Percent

Here’s what I looked at:

  • Alabama: McCain 40%, Huckabee 35%, Romney 20%
  • California: Romney 43%, McCain 38%
  • Georgia: McCain 35%, Romney 33%, Huckabee 27% (I switched this from Romney over to McCain, since Romney hasn’t performed as well in the latest polls)
  • Tennessee: McCain 37%, Huckabee 33%, Romney 25% (I switched this from Huckabee to McCain)

And this is how confident I am in my predictions:

Final Republican ST - ConfRepublican Key - Conf

If you need help understanding any of this post, see here:

I’ll update stuff as soon as possible, hopefully West Virginia sometime tomorrow afternoon.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::

Final Democratic Prediction for Super Tuesday

February 5, 2008

Alright, after calculating states with a couple of formulas, I finally have a good map.  I can confidently predict all of the states except Arizona.  Although Obama has never led in a poll there, he is trending toward a win, so I decided to give it to him, but I’m going to keep it in the tossup category, because according to my formula, the difference was just over a quarter of a percent.

Final Democratic ST Prediction - PercentDemocrat Percent Key

Just to give you some numbers:

  • Alabama: Obama 50%, Clinton 48%
  • Arizona: Obama 49.25%, Clinton 48.75%
  • California: Obama 49%, Clinton 46%
  • Colorado: Obama 50%, Clinton 48%
  • Connecticut: Obama 51%, Clinton 47%
  • Delaware: Clinton 50%, Obama 47%
  • Georgia: Obama 56%, Clinton 35%
  • Massachusetts: Clinton 52%, Obama 46%
  • Missouri: Obama 51%, Clinton 46%

And here’s my confidence map for the predictions, again the only tossup left being Arizona:

Final Democratic ST Prediction - ConfDem Key - Confidence

See here for anything in this post you don’t understand:

I’ll start announcing results as they come in.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::

Democratic Predictions for Super Tuesday

February 5, 2008

OK, here are my preliminary predictions for the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses.  Here’s the map of my prediction, although at this point there are a LOT of undecided states that I may switch before morning (for some reason I can’t get rid of the 0 for Michigan and Florida):

Democratic Super Tuesday Prediction - PercentagesDemocratic Percentages Key

And here’s my confidence map:

Super Tuesday Democratic Prediction - ConfidenceDemocratic Confidence Key

Default states are Proportional
^ = Will be determined @ convention
If you can’t red all the numbers, the first California number is 370, the first Georgia number is 87, the second Delaware is 23, the second New Jersey is 127, the second Connecticut is 60, the second Massachusetts is 121.
The red box that normally represents Washington, D.C. represents American Samoa.  6 of the 12 delegates will be chosen, but they only get half of a vote, so essentially 3 of 9 are chosen.
I have not officially predicted the Democrats Abroad, but I think Clinton will win that category.

I’ll update this at least 1 more time.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::

%d bloggers like this: