An outdoor Halloween party for kids that was scheduled for last Wednesday - with a rain date of Thursday - gave me a good reason to take off Wednesday - Friday of last week. In spite of the cold/rain/hail/snow squall, the party went off without a hitch Wednesday. Once I had the time off booked, of course, I took the other days off as well. And with the huge to do list at home, I was pretty much offline much of the weekend (as my unread blog count of +1000 can attest).The long, strange trip of this election campaign is almost over. I am still concerned how many people can call themselves intelligent but still claim to be undecided on their voting choice. Neither of these two candidates have much in common on the key issues of the day, and while it is easy to imagine a person having beliefs that straddle the ideological line between them, I am baffled that person can't be satisfied with one or the other (or any of the third-party candidates, for that matter).
So be it.
If you have read any of my posts over the years, you know well where I stand: I am a Conservative. Sen. John McCain holds a number of Conservative positions that I agree with, but has a few positions with which I disagree. To be sure, I'd say I would agree with about 70-75% of Sen. McCain's positions and policies. By comparison, there's not any major position of Sen. Barack Obama that I can agree with. So from where I stand, the choice is clear.
No economist worth his salt will tell you that raising taxes in an unsettled economy makes sense. Yet Sen. Obama has pledged to do so. And please, before you tell me of his plans to give 95% of people a tax cut, be prepared to defend the following facts:
- Since it's easy to demonstrate that over 95% of all federal income taxes are paid by about 50% of income earners (source), Sen. Obama's numbers can't possibly add up unless he's giving 'tax cuts' to those who do not pay income tax.
- Sen. Obama's claim of raising taxes only on those making over $250K was changed by Sen. Biden to $150K, then Sen. Obama, himself, changed it to $200K, and then Gov. Bill Richardson, speaking for the Obama campaign, dropped it to $120K. And clearly, most professional couples make $120K in every major city, so this is a big tax increase. Even if you could justify the $120K amount, what does it say about a campaign that can't set their target and keep it??
- Incidentally: as Sen. Obama has pledged to let the Bush Tax cuts expire, and since - despite the media spin - every taxpayer recieved a tax cut from them, all taxpayers will face an increase should Obama's plans go through.
From a national security point of view, we've already had instances where both candidates have been tested. When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama's first inclination was to ask both sides to show restraint, as if Georgia was somehow at fault for the overly-aggressive actions by Russia. Should China ever flex it's muscle against Taiwan, should a President Obama tell them to show restraint as well?
Besides, Sen. Obama has already pledged to cut defense spending, in a big way. His frequent statement that he was against the Iraq war from the beginning neglects a key fact he's never stated: as state senator from Illinois, he was never a party to the security briefings that the Bush Administration and Congress reviewed. Apparently, such details aren't important.
Despite Sen. Obama's claims to the contrary, he supports principles of socialism. Whether it is his plans for spreading the wealth or health care, his positions are a danger to the American systems that has built this nation its greatness. And as I pledged in February: I will work as many jobs as I need to in order to afford whatever options there may be to purchase private insurance should any universal plan be forced upon my family. My greatest fear is that those options may actually be outlawed. I will also seek every legal avenue to shelter as much of income as possible. Already, there are plans to sieze my 401(k), and that had been my shelter from the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security, so I shudder to think what a triumberant of radical, unchecked Libaralism that may well be elected tomorrow.
A number of reasons not to vote for Sen. Obama can be found in my aforementioned February post; 26 additional reasons were posted last week. The questionable associations and probable inability to be granted a security clearance should send up flares for anyone even remotely familar with the process. Yet Sen. Obama has a minor lead, but a lead nonetheless.
What is telling, however, is that Sen. John McCain is so close, and in a few polls even a point or two ahead. We were told that after 8 years, it was a foregone conclusion that a Democrat would win. Now it cannot be denied that Republicans are in real danger of losing seats in Congress, and that's easily because the incumbents became less like the Conservatives they were when they came into power in the 1990's and more like their Democrat opponents in their foolish spending. People on both sides of the aisles have their concerns with Sen. Obama, and short of an unadulterated landslide, it will be reflected clearly in the polls Tuesday night.
I've made predictions before, sparringly, and am rarely correct, but I will go with my gut beliefs based on the available data:
- The Presidential race will go down to the wire, and without a doubt, there will be court challenges. In the end: the electoral college vote will go, I predict, to John McCain. And it will be close. Don't believe the exit polls; they have been historically wrong.
- Pennsylvania will be nearly split, but will lean toward McCain.
- Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) will go down in disgrace, as well he should.
- Congress will, I fear, have a majority of Democrats in control. After the last 2 years of accomplishing nothing, of an approval ratings lower than President Bush, I can't imagine why people would trust the Congress in the hands of Democrats.
♦DiggIt! ♦Add to del.icio.us ♦Add to Technorati Faves ♦ Facebook