October 29, 2008

Top 10 Action Movies [in the last 3 decades]

I absolutely love a great action flick and all but 3 of these are part of my DVD collection. I recently happened upon an interesting top 10 action movie list drummed-up by Entertainment Weekly and it listed Die Hard as the best action movie ever made, and Raiders of the Lost Ark came in third. *Insert twisted face; do a ‘lil head shake*

After reading through the rest of the toppers which even included Spider-Man2 and Desperado (puh-lease), I was suddenly motivated to come up with my own list.

First, the qualifiers:

1) obviously had to be a great action movie with shoot ‘em up, blow shit up, cut ‘em down kind of action.

2) plot moves quickly, the action keeps on coming

3) good storyline told from a unique perspective meaning, no action movies draped in bad clichés made it onto this list. The best action flicks are the result of great action embedded in a great movie.

4) stands the test of time and replays meaning, it’s just as good the tenth time you watch it as it was the first time you watched it three years ago, i.e..

Now,

THE LIST

  1. Aliens [What can I say…Ellen Ripley is your definitive badass. This movie has it all: It’s action packed with brilliant explosions, armored marines, non-stop machine-gun fire and cool grenade launchers, exploding aliens that bleed acid, an android that gets ripped in half…. could an action movie get any better? Getta outta here! No contest. It’s hard to believe this movie came out in 1986.]
  2. Terminator [This was one of my favorite movies growing up and that still rings true. The gargantuan Schwarzenegger against the thin but muscular Biehn, whose whole head probably equals the width of Arnolds left bicep - great stuff and never a dull moment.]
  3. Gladiator [“A general who became a slave; a slave who became a gladiator; a gladiator who defied an Emperor.” Come on, the movie itself knows its own greatness and this line sums up the expectations of the action perfectly. Great movie, great acting, great action.]
  4. 300 [My brother recommended this film to me and its pretty much all battle, all the way, through and through. Spears, swords, and rolling heads, this movie is action – turbocharged; makes you want to go out, get your swordplay on and kick some serious ass. And Gerard Butler – so masculine and commanding as the fierce King Leonidis…brilliant, bushy beard and all]
  5. Die Hard [It’s MacGuyver meets Rambo’s smaller self. A damn fine action movie that propelled a slew of films into a whole new action film genre. While it doesn’t take the top spot in my opinion, it’s definitely worthy of top-5 placement.]
  6. Lethal Weapon
  7. Predator
  8. The Matrix
  9. Kill Bill Vol 2 [Ok, Vol 1 is filled with more bload-soaked action certainly but I chose Vol 2 because I prefer the more natural flow of plot in tandem with some kickass kung-fu acrobatics and ninja swordplay.]
  10. LOTR: Fellowship of The Ring [Ugly, foul beasties..dueling wizards..hairy, long-footed midgets and more… Great characters, great story, and great clanking of metal on metal; this is the ultimate action-adventure “fantasy” movie.]

Top 5 very, very close Runners-up [in order]:

Bourne Identity

Braveheart

Bourne Supremacy

LOTR: The Two Towers

Star Wars III Revenge of the Sith [Some might argue here but c’mon, the whole fight scene between Anakin and Obewon? Master Yoda and Darth Sidius? Everyone was waiting for these matched duels and they did not disappoint. A perfect ‘ending’ to an entire series]

October 25, 2008

Top 10 Most Romantic Movies

Ok, this would be going off my usual marketing/politics/random brainiac blog posts but recently some friends and I got into a most lively discussion trying to agree on the top 10 most romantic movies in “our” lifetime. We each came up with 10 and slowly and painfully voted out movies by rational discussion followed by heated argument followed by majority vote. I’ll have you know that half of my movies made it on the final list (pat pat on the back).

So, after several bottles of wine, a gaggle of oohs and aahhhs, and reminiscing over some very great love scenes, here goes the list with the number one spot of the most romantic movie in the last 30 years going to a tie between the top two movies we split on. OK, so technically it's the top 11 movies....

THE LIST

  1. BBCs North and South [The tall, dark, and yummy Mr. Thornton and the sweet, seemingly impervious Margaret Hale – great chemistry – and when they finally kiss at the train depot, trust me - you’ll get familiar with the rewind button. This was one of my top 3; long but well worth the watch. The intensity in the way Mr. Thornton always looks at Margaret Hale – we all agreed - melting.]

  1. Titanic
  2. Atonement
  3. Moulin Rouge [So what if it’s a circus of onscreen ‘bizarre’, the romance between the penniless bohemian writer Christian and his sparkling courtesan Satine brings focus and intensity to the movie. The mushy love duets don’t hurt either.]
  4. Somewhere in Time [Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour, two gorgeous people in a sweet time-travel romance. I absolutely loved this movie the first time I saw it 10-12 years ago on some obscure movie channel.]
  5. The English Patient
  6. The Notebook
  7. Pride and Prejudice (with Keira Knightley) [So it doesn’t exactly stay true to plot but who cares. The chemistry between Elizabeth Bennett and Fitzwilliam Darcy is still delish. The only real downside to this movie is the absence of a passionate kiss the moment Darcy professes his love for the second time. A hand kiss does this romance a disservice, but it still made my list.]
  8. Persuasion (BBC remake)
  9. Bridges of Madison County
  10. Pretty Woman [I prefer more drama-based romantic movies but I was over-ruled]
Top 5 Runner ups that almost made the list:
  1. Dirty Dancing

  2. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon

  3. BBC Pride and Prejudice (with Collin Firth)

  4. When Harry Met Sally

  5. Ghost

Thoughts? Share ‘em if you got ‘em.

October 17, 2008

You Know You're a Democrat When....

  • You believe the NY Times and the Washington Post are iconoclasms of great journalism
  • You believe that Bart Simpson would be every parents dream if only his community showed him more love, understanding, affection and support..
  • Someone says "count your blessings", and you start making a list of government agencies
  • You’re against capital punishment but support abortion (and, upon request, can provide documented research material explaining the rationality of the contradiction)
  • The bulk of your economic policy conversations start or end with “It’s only fair….”
  • You get your nightly news from Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, or NBC
  • You believe that NBC is actually a legitimate "News Station"
  • The bulk of your foreign policy conversations start with “I went to get gas and…”
  • You are "moved" by the words of a politician
  • You favor free speech, except for the ugly words about minorities, the disabled, the poor, "undocumented workers," or endangered species
  • You believe the phrase “the glass ceiling” increases the intellectual value of a conversation
  • You believe the axis of evil is Bush and his ilk
  • You believe Jimmy Carter should be on Mt. Rushmore and Michael Moore is an American hero
  • You drive an SUV with a "go green" bumper sticker
  • Your answer to every question is "higher taxes" so long as you're not the one paying
  • You’ve tried to argue that poverty wouldn’t be an issue if only the rich people would redistribute their wealth
  • You’ve tried to argue that global poverty wouldn’t be an issue if only the rich people of America would redistribute their wealth
  • You forwarded the email "An Angry American with an Idea" to all your friends and have convinced yourself that it makes perfect sense
  • You support PETA and Greenpeace, but still eat beef, fish, lamb, and wear leather garments
  • You’ve tried being a vegan at least once and are convinced you experienced enlightenment
  • You utter the phrase “There ought to be a law” at least twice a month
  • You think Al Gore invented the internet
  • You think Al Gore invented blogs too
  • You think rich people actually do get richer off people who have no money
  • You actually expect to collect Social Security

I only came up with a handful of these and pulled the rest from here and there and around the internet. ;-)

Share 'em if you got 'em!

October 15, 2008

Results of the Final Presidential Debate

Overall, the best debate thus far, hands down.

Bravo to Bob Shieffer – great job moderating the debate. He asked good questions (could have done without the VP question again) but he essentially stayed out of the discussion but to ask the questions, allow follow-ups and redirects and he kept the conversation flowing.

OVERALL: Some sharp exchanges tonight but, will the results sway independent votes to the right? In majority, I think not. People needed to see McCain CRUSH Obama on the issues; all Obama really needed to do was stay afloat and respond to the issues. He’s eloquent, he can do that. A lot of effort from McCain that came a little too late in my opinion. By no means was this McCain’s last chance to close the gap but a stronger performance was needed – particularly in the last 20 minutes which is what most tend to remember. Ronald Reagan was behind in the polls during his first term up until the week before the election so, I wouldn’t close the books on McCain just yet. Side note: what a blunder in speaking to Palin and autism when her child suffers from down syndrome. Wowzahs….

AYERS AND ACORN: I strongly disagreed with other Republicans who felt McCain needed to confront Obama with allegations regarding Ayers and ACORN. Not a good strategy. Why? Because the intent of the debate isn’t to solidify Republican votes (already outraged by the allegations) but to sway independent votes and leaning undecideds from the left… and a) Ayers and ACORN aren’t the key issues for these segments and b) confronting Obama on non-key issues during a televised debate gave Obama an opportunity to eloquently and calmly talk his way out of it, which he did. Allegations are just that and now, that card has been played.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: I would have liked to hear more on this topic because it bears huge impact on the next four years since the next President will likely be electing more than one Justice to the bench. In fact I don’t believe that enough emphasis has been placed on this issue from either campaign. On elections, McCain said he’s against litmus tests and would elect a Justice based on his/her record of adhering to strict interpretations of the constitution and would not elect based on political ideology. First, I don’t like the use of the verbiage “litmus test.” It’s overused and overplayed; and second, McCain should have HAMMERED Obama when Obama “suggested” that he would elect a Justice who shared the same core values. That is a dangerous relationship and puts the value of our highest legal system at risk.

THE ECONOMY: For the first time, McCain finally said “I am not Bush.” I’ve been wanting him to shout this out to the heavens and the people for quite some time now. It goes without saying: he needed to do this much earlier on in the campaign. I think McCain did a much better job than previously of calling out specifics – specific programs he supported, plans for reform, and specific programs he would cut (I would have been in heaven if he had addressed welfare specifically - screw the hatchet, bring on the blow torch!).

I am a huge proponent of free trade and would have liked to have heard McCain push Obama more on his position with NAFTA and other FTA’s and I also think he should have pushed Obama more on previous statements regarding energy independence and specifically, his shifting support of Nuclear energy.

EDUCATION: On outlying specifics of his education plan – I think this was a slam dunk for McCain. State taxes need to be applied more appropriately and reform is necessary BEFORE federal funding is injected into a broken system. Personally, I’m against having more federal government involved in our education system that state government.

HEALTHCARE: I said this after the first (or second) debate, McCain needed to address DIRECTLY the allegation that 20million will be dropped from their employer based healthcare plans under his proposed healthcare plan. This is a critical point, and again, like a fart in the wind, it just soaked up the air and blew right by him. He missed the opportunity. He needed to say ‘Your 20milliion estimation is completely wrong Senator Obama. You keep wanting to throw that number out there to sway middle class voters but this is why it’s wrong and this is why it’s misleading [dot, dot, dot].” And, he also should have detailed his plan clearly and spoke directly to the large part of his healthcare plan which includes system REFORMS and oversight - two key things that would stem discrimination drops, pre-existing condition drops and help address the inflated 20million number (which btw: INCLUDES a proportion of the people who are CURRENTLY UNINSURED). And also for the record, there is no evidence to suggest that even without reform and oversight, any forced drops (for discrimination or other) would occur under McCain's healthcare plan. Having said that, he needs to remember to talk to his plan outside of refundable credits and a free market. Similar to the housing debacle, free market movement with reform and strict oversight would have steered us away from the economic mess we find ourselves in.

There you have it. A good debate but I felt myself reaching for more and the "more" never quite came.

So, who won?

Well clearly....Joe the Plummer!

October 13, 2008

The Fate of General Motors

Interesting article in BW about GMs current financial crisis and the fate of its future. Particularly within the last 6 months, the books have gone from really bad to frighteningly scary. Some see a potential merger with Chrysler – a monopoly in my view (of financial and managerial failure) – others wonder of a GM bailout, some just see GM as we know it, going the way of the do-do.

The GM 5-point [failed] Plan:
Goals:
- Increase GM US Market to share to 33%
- Improve customer satisfaction as evidenced by points of market share, not fractions

Strategy:
- Implement innovate and proven marketing techniques
- Raise market share 1 percentage point in each of 5 key areas [customers, dealers, employees, salespeople, retirees]
- Remake corporate image as a leader by acting rather than re-acting
- Change focus of advertising from distress to aspirational

Note: GM adds that loss of market share experiences is the result of diminished image of GM in the marketplace. [no kidding]

Let's briefly talk about the success of it's 5-point plan...Almost every one of GM's vehicle lines has lost market share since 2000 if not earlier (except Cadillac which actually had a lift between 2000 and 2008). While most vehicle warranties have been improved, GM vehicles simply aren’t built as well as Honda, today’s Toyota, or even Ford (while they also have their problems).

GMs non-SUV/Sport utility market share in the US went from 42% back in 1970 to just 22% in 2005, while Honda and Toyota each went up 14 and 11% respectively. By 2007, GM shares sank another 2.5%.

Some would agree that GMs globalization strategies in the last few years, trying to combat the movement of DaimlerChrysler and Ford in Europe and China, have been ‘questionable’ as well and, for many parts, undermining due to poor product lineup.

Looking at the goals and strategies laid out in the 5-point plan, it's fair to say they've fallen short on just about every bullet point (though Hummer and Cadillac divisions did come out with some nice ads thanks to Mondernista and other agencies..). But, 33% market share? How realistic was that given the steady sales decline, changes in environmental concerns, changes in gas and oil prices, not to mention resource allocations (manufacturing warehouse locations, suppliers and parts), management and union-issues bloating the company? Not very. That's quite a list of things prohibiting a flailing company of GMs size from regaining their once 33% foothold in the market. Even the most brilliant marketing tactics won't overcome management ignorance, poor quality parts at higher prices, or the $60 it costs to fill up your tank twice a week.

So how does GM stay afloat?
Can a private equity investor or billionaire financier buy-out the fallen company and turn it around (like Kirk Kerkorian who has knocked on GM’s door more than once already)?

Should GM focus solely on it’s legacy lines and sell-off everything else?

Since the popular thought movement to hybrid-thinking and “green technology”, and growing aversion to concepts like “gas-guzzling” and “air-polluting” vehicles, will demand for SUV’s and sport utilities – the bulk of GMs former cash flow – ever come back?

Finally, who’s to blame? UAW – Rick Wagoner and the GM Board - management at all levels – or, the shareholders?

October 11, 2008

The Economics of Tax Cuts versus Obama’s Plan to “Tax the Rich”

Obama’s plan is to increase taxes on those who make more than 250k per year, or rather, tax the rich folks who get richer under a Republican tax policy, while the poor get poorer. This is what the democrats sing anyway in order to tug at the emotional strings of middle America and those even less fortunate. But, let’s evaluate this tune.

  • One of the major purposes of tax cuts is to generate tax revenues – how? – by encouraging people to take their money out of tax shelters and tax-free securities and invest that money in something that will benefit the individual investor, stimulate economic growth and create jobs (i.e., investing in equity capitalization for large institutions, small businesses, startups and new enterprises, etc.). In plain speak, the people with the capital to do so – move their money into company stocks, for example.
When companies have more capital they produce more, they innovate, they expand, they reach further into the market and in turn, create more jobs for the lower and middle classes. All of these things help move our economy and our country forward. So, why didn't the Bush tax cuts move our economy forward(?) you might ask. Because good tax policies need to be part of a strong holistic economic policy package (foreign and domestic), predicated upon strong oversight and strong relationships with other foreign countries, among other things.
  • Under the great Ronald Reagan, who put forth one of the largest tax cuts amidst cries from the left of ‘tax cuts for the rich’, tax revenues increased more than they ever had with people in the largest income brackets paying not only a larger amount of taxes than before, but a higher share of all taxes than before.
Wait, the rich had the largest tax cut but then had an increase in taxes?? This doesn’t make sense(!) say the left. Sure it does. First the tax policies of Reagan, Bush (and McCain) do not cut taxes per say but rather, they cut tax rates. Second, income is not a fixed amount during economic change - whether you make 35k per year or 350k per year. Economic change does not simply affect one class of folk for the better and another class for the worse. During an economic downturn, everyone hurts. On the flip side, when economic activity is stimulated and the economy expands, and incomes and employment rise, so do tax revenues. Those in higher income brackets start bringing in more income thereby increasing the total taxes they pay as well. So, they make more and pay even more in taxes despite a tax rate cut. Simple economics.

The real test of an economic policy is whether or not it can produce a rising tide that lifts all boats (Thomas Sowel, a fellow at the Hoover Institution wrote).

Obama wants to raise dividend and all capital gains taxes on those who make 250k or more. First, I don’t know if this is per person or per household but 250k per year certainly does not make one wealthy particularly since most people have to work their way up to that point after many years of hard work and paying off debts (i.e., school loans, business loans, children through college, etc.).

Liberals say that these tax increases do not and will not affect lower income families. Really? I beg to differ. In simplistic terms - every company needs capital. Capital equals investment. Because Obama’s plan to tax dividends penalizes equity investment like stocks and mutual funds and rewards debt investment such as bonds, company stocks are devalued and stocks are devalued relative to bonds. This goes back to the point earlier about the major purpose of tax cuts. Under Obama's plan, accountants and bankers across the country, are going to recommend individuals start moving their money away from stocks and mutual funds in order to maximize their investments. Schwab has already started advising investors as such in prep for an Obama Presidency.

The bottom line: I simply can’t believe that devaluing stock prices (and thereby US stock values) for any American business and its stock holders – is a good thing, either for economic growth and prosperity or for the middle income, working class.

October 9, 2008

Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution

I pulled this from RCP....the reality
*********************************************************
During his Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sen. Barack Obama responded to one question where the statistics contradicted his position by saying that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." He then went on to say that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax break under his economic plan. That's ironic, because his comment on "damned lies and statistics" is the perfect commentary on his own plan. Taken with Sen. Joe Biden's novel definition of patriotism, Team Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought.

The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.

That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist.

American voters don't buy Team Obama's arguments. A recent Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans believe that Mr. Obama would raise their taxes. A recent Zogby poll shows a majority of Americans understand that raising taxes will hurt the economy.

Energy prices have pounded the U.S. economy. The recent woes on Wall Street have further shaken our weakened economy. Certain pillars of our economy, such as productivity gains and American ingenuity, continue to be powerful economic assets. But the current debt situation, spending trends, the cost of combating global terrorism, along with the energy crisis, leaves our economy in a truly precarious position.

Most credible economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn only makes the situation worse. Given our current economic situation, Mr. Obama's tax plan is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire.

Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Those Americans on Main Street who own mutual funds, own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase.

Businesses and corporations do not pay taxes; we do. Businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in the closet that they simply turn over to government when taxes increase. For every dollar that you increase taxes on a business, they simply increase their prices by a dollar. Who then pays the tax? We do. We do, when the product that we bought last week for $20 suddenly costs $21.

Mr. Obama's plan for universal health care and increased spending on just about everything costs hundreds of billions of dollars. To keep his promises to provide those things while eliminating the deficit and giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans receive a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more when buying food and clothes, they are worse off.

Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration. Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under Mr. Bush. In 2000, the top 1 percent of earners paid less than one-third of all income tax; now they pay 40 percent. The affluent already carry more of the burden.

October 8, 2008

The Debate Drinking Game

On a separate, more fun note: my friend Dan sent me a ‘drinking game’ on Tuesday in prep for the debate and sadly while I had class, had I been able to play I would have ended out the night stone sober…

The Rules:

Take a drink when McCain says...

  • Doesn't understand
  • Unrepentant terrorist
  • Get off my lawn
  • Bear DNA
  • Make them famous
Chug if McCain manages to look Obama in the eye.
Buy the bar a round if he looks Obama in the eye and then doesn't punch him in the throat!

Obviously he's not a McCain supporter....
Now….if I had had time, I would have devised my own drinking game:

The Rules:

Take a drink when Obama says...
  • Rich get richer
  • Golden parachutes
  • The great depression
  • The Republicans did it OR McCain did it
  • Out of touch
  • I wrote a letter
Chug if Obama manages not to stutter following a question on foreign policy that doesn't involve Iraq. Buy the bar a round (or chug twice) every time Obama repeats exactly what McCain just said when answering a foreign policy question that doesn't involve Iraq.

Getting ready for the next and last debate, share your thoughts or post suggestions for any new "drinking rules" ;-)

Round 2 of the Presidential Debates

I just finished watching MSNBC’s online video stream of Tuesdays debate and I have to say: not all inspiring, much of the same (but with more detail), too much party jabbing from both sides, few questions that were new, and Brokaw’s constant reminding of the “time contract” was very annoying.

New revelations: McCain is obviously much more comfortable speaking in a town hall format and the McCain ‘my friends’ colloquialism has got to go.


Some believe that McCain needed to engage Obama in a "character debate" of sorts. Subtly done, I think it could have worked but Tuesday night’s forum just wasn’t very forgiving there - too personal, too close to the audience,...and so McCain was smart to leave that off the
table.

On Obama's performance
Strong lead, but he seemed to come apart a bit in the second half particularly during the discussion on Iran, Israel, and Russia. With regard to meeting leaders of enemy territories, he held his ground very well. *blasted* Good rebuttal on his healthcare plan and tax policies (though I’ve read that the touted financial benefits of his healthcare plan is all a lot of hooey and I'm totally against his tax policies). Still, he spoke to them well and sounded convincing – and let’s face it, that’s really the crux of winning elections: who sounds more convincing, who sounds more knowledgeable, and who appears to have the stronger character.

Surprises of the night
I was surprised to hear Obama mention 9-11 and before the Republican candidate; usually 9-11 is a key talking point for Republicans since it is a tie-back to our foreign policy platform and National defense.. I was not happy to hear Obama talk about how Bush could have rallied the people better; frankly, that just pissed me off.

I was surprised at Obama’s show of clear support for investing in Nuclear power plants – I specifically remember Obama stating that he was not a supporter during the party races. I suspect that he truly is not but recognizes it is a necessary component of a solid alternative energy plan and that it sits well with the majority of alternative energy supporters.


I was annoyed by Obama’s insistence that oil drilling is somehow the entirety of McCain’s plan for energy independence despite the list of alternative fuel sources McCain had already espoused.


And finally...
I am sick of hearing Obama and co blame the Republicans for the state of the economy. First, I believe Clinton before Bush, signed off on deregulatory legislation. Second, McCain didn't just support flagrant deregulation but rather open market movement with, key ingredient here, strict oversight, among other things - much of which was voted down by Democratic leaders. McCain also voted against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exemptions.

And I'll also note that Republicans lost majority seats in both the House and Senate two years ago when supposedly Obama touted the dangers of deregulation. A) De-regulation was in progress long before then and b) obviously Obama did not have the leverage or the political weight to pull his own party as a Senator.


On McCain’s performance

He seemed much more relaxed than he was two weeks ago: his talking points were more succinct, he introduced one or two new things, he answered the questions that were asked, he was direct, he defended his positions more clearly and had some decent rebuttals for position on policy. Overall, he did a better job of connecting with the audience.


But he still falters on one key area – his facts. And no, Obama-ites - I don’t mean misstatements or lying – I mean utilizing more facts in his talking points. Forget about the finger pointing, use numbers and specific examples – and lots of them! McCain needed to be more engaging with regard to specifics – heathcare policy (he did OK here), tax policy – the specifics (he started out well but Obama got the last word and essentially wiped out his efforts), economics (the crisis, the bailout, the result). The people need to hear specifics – numbers and specific examples citing economic cause and effect.


With regard to voting record: on almost every issue where Obama pointed to McCain’s record of voting against a position (insurance for children, stricter institutional regulations, alternative energy, etc) – McCain needs to be very explicit as to why he voted the way he voted. He’s running on a platform of pork spending and earmarks and he needs to speak to those “specifics” when it comes to his voting record - i.e., funding for a new bicycle path(?) and others like it that Democrats slipped into the bailout bill. In this case, obviously McCain couldn’t vote down the bailout bill but he needs to point out those specifics and not just talk to it. A good strategy would be to have 2 or 3 for one debate and 2 or 3 more for the next debate.


And finally...
I’m also tired of hearing McCain and co blame the democrats fo...wait, nevermind. I actually can sit and play the blame game against the Democrats ALL DAY LONG. ;-) I know - how one-sided of me...


October 6, 2008

Road to the White House – Electoral Vote Predictions

Less than one month to go until election day and it's time to make our predictions. Time sure does fly doesn't it?!?!

Here's where the EVs currently stand:
Republicans:
have 163 Electoral Votes
need 107 Electoral Votes

There are:
9 undecided States
115 Electoral Votes up for grabs

Here are my predictions.....

Best Case:
Elephants [274]: winning swing states CO (narrow, narrow margin), FL, IN, MO, NC, NV, OH, VA,
Asses!! [264]: NH

Worst Case:
Elephants [213]: winning swing states IN, MO, NC, VA
Asses!! [325]: CO, FL, NH, NV, OH

And of course, my fingers are crossed for the Best Case scenario. In fact, this will likely be my final prediction pending results of the next round of debates.

Share your thoughts and post your predictions.

October 2, 2008

Biden versus Palin: The VP-selects Duke it Out

First of all, I think Palin did well tonight…but she could have done better, particularly in the first 20 minutes. She spent much too much time responding to some of Biden’s more minor points and not enough time answering the question at hand. A key strength of Palin’s nomination and allure is her ability to straight talk and she needs to stay on that path. A key point there is being direct in answering questions – whether or not she fully knows the answer. With Biden following Palin and answering the moderator’s questions first, he looked stronger and more focused.

Note to McCain and Co…Always, always, always,..answer the question first then move on to rebuttal points.

Having said that, I have to say I was extremely disappointed with the moderator’s performance tonight. Ifil asked good questions but I felt she was clearly leaning in a direction that gave Biden an edge in the debate. On key issues such as healthcare, deregulation, and taxes - Biden had an opportunity to rebut Palin’s initial response but in his rebuttals he continuously threw in misstatements of facts and contrived numbers with no inkling of legitamacy behind them - like the 20 million people who will get dropped from their insurance plan as a result of McCain’s healthcare plan – but then Ifil didn’t allow Palin a rebuttal. When a VP-select makes as many erroneous statements as Biden did in tonight’s debate, how can she not allow for a rebuttal? Ridiculous.

Throughout the debate she gave Biden second rebuttals and final word (and in many cases the only rebuttal) before moving on to the next question. And the problem with that is that once something damaging is said and there is no one to correct the gross misstatement of facts, it’s “out there.” And the people don’t forget.

Major thumbs down to Ifil but I’ll add that Palin also failed in this regard because she should have stepped-up to the mic and insisted on responding to some of Biden’s “facts of fiction”.

On troop funding, Palin should have resoundingly stated McCain’s history in supporting our military. She should have directly responded to Biden's multiple references of McCain voting against one troop funding bill that Obama supported – Reality: he didn't vote against it, he abstained from the vote but noted his clear disapproval of the bill and urged Bush to veto the bill not simply because it included a timetable but because it included a very short, unrealistic, and dangerous withdrawal timetable. And btw: many were against that piece of it as well and McCain felt that abstaining was the right thing to do because of that piece of it. I’ll also note that Obama actually did vote against a troop funding bill because there was no timetable which goes directly to the same point that Biden was trying to make against McCain. Palin needed to throw the facts back to Biden and the people watching rather than let these misperceptions from the Biden-camp linger. She should have made it very clear that McCain’s record has unequivocally supported troop funding and our active duty military and military veterans in general (except when pork, absurdities or nonsensical demands were tied to the passing of those bills). Palin needed to hit that message home and she didn’t.

So, who won tonight’s VP debate? I hate to say it but I think Biden did – due in no small part to the moderator who, to me, appeared to show clear bias towards Biden in her management of response times and rebuttals to key issues. But... I do believe Palin came out ahead from where she started prior to the debate. Her approval numbers of late have been dropping like bombs and I think she helped herself and the McCain camp tonight with a strong performance. Kudos to Palin. A big boo for Ifil; and all my silent curses to Biden.